residency restrictions
Not my town-itis
Sep 9th
Connecticut, for some reason I have not yet uncovered, has thus far been immune to the sex offender hysteria that has gripped our nation for well over a decade now. Sure, we have mandatory minimums and calls to classify sex offenders on the same level as murderers, but the legislature, in an exemplary show of good sense, has resisted the urge to enact residency restrictions and has now twice rebuffed the implementation of the horrid Adam Walsh Act.
But, as I wrote back in December, the State hasn’t taken any positive steps either. There’s still nowhere for sex offenders who need treatment to get it. And if the residents of Montville, CT have their way, there won’t be anywhere for a while.
Montville, already home to two correctional facilities, was identified by the State as the prime location for a sex offender residential treatment facility, with an allocation of 24 beds. Frankly, 24 beds is nothing. Me and the 5 other attorneys in my office could come up with a list of 24 people before you finish reading this sentence, never mind the 100 other attorneys in the public defender system and their clients from just this year alone. But it’s a start and we have to start somewhere.
Yet, just like there are peas in a pod and two of a kind and how Garfunkel needed Simon, “sex offender treatment facility” seems incomplete without “not in my town”. And that’s exactly what the residents of Montville are arguing. Today, the town committee voted to seek an injunction to block the building of said treatment facility.
The state Department of Correction plans to create a 24-bed facility at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center for sex offenders about to be released from prison and those who have already been released. Creation of a residential sex offender program was part of a 2008 criminal justice reform law passed after the 2007 Cheshire home invasion.
Oh wait, this facility was to be created at the two jails that already exist in your little town? Perhaps they don’t realize these are the very jails that these sex offenders come from. It’s like moving them from one wing of the jail to another. But then again, it’s called hysteria for a reason…
In all the objections to constructing treatment facilities or the arguments in support of residency restrictions, I haven’t heard a single legitimate reason for excluding these from a particular locality or any justification that acknowledges the realities of banishing an entire group of people. Folks, “not in my town” isn’t a reason, it’s a position. You should explain, logically, why.
And as if that wasn’t enough, the town committee also voted to set a public hearing to consider an ordinance that would create a “sex offender free zone”. Montville isn’t the only town considering such an ordinance in CT. Greenwich, that bastion of purity and wholesome values and more BMWs than all the dealerships in the state combined, is also considering such an ordinance to ban its five (count ‘em – 5) sex offenders from places that are “frequented” by children.
Yet it is town officials in Greenwich who have been debating since February whether to approve an ordinance that would prohibit sex offenders from being near schools, parks, playgrounds and other places children congregate. The ordinance would not limit where sex offenders can live, as similar laws in other states do, but it would impose a $100 fine on a registered offender caught in the wrong place for a second time.
After unanimous approval by the Board of Selectmen, the measure moved on to the Representative Town Meeting, the city’s 230-member legislative body, where it failed twice, most recently on Sept. 21.
The quote speaks for itself. What needs addressing, however, is the mindless repetition of what should properly be considered pure fabrication by the Republican members of the state legislature:
“Look, there is obviously an extremely delicate balance between protecting the public and the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals, whether they are convicted sexual predators or not,” [State Senator McKinney] said. “The difficulty comes with the fact that this type of crime has an extraordinarily high recidivism rate, which justifies us in government taking greater steps toward protecting the public than we would with other crimes.”
As is noted in the article linked to above, and as I’ve cried myself hoarse on this blog, that’s just not true. McKinney knows that too, because he’s been on the Judiciary Committee when these residency restrictions have been proposed and he’s been given the studies that show it’s not true. But of course, acknowledging the truth doesn’t further the fearmongering agenda and so here we are. Again.
Coincidentally, and that’s how these things usually go, today’s episode of the local NPR program “Where We Live” was devoted to sex offenders in Connecticut and these “loitering ordinances”.
Here’s my question, that I wish these proponents of the Scarlet Laws would answer: do you believe that we can completely eradicate sex crimes against children? If your answer is yes, then you’re either a liar or you don’t understand anything about how crimes are committed and why. If you answer no, then I have a follow up question: What is the most effective use of resources? Police loitering around parks and schools and enforcing these possibly unconstitutional ordinances or creating facilities for offenders to reintegrate into society, in a productive manner, so as to prevent future occurrences?
The answer is clear. The only question that remains is whether you want to be honest with yourselves or lie to everyone in order to win a vote.
It’s 5 p.m. Do you know where your bills are?
Mar 29th
Today, at 5:00pm, the Judiciary Committee of the state legislature closed for business, just like any other day. But today is important for two reasons: 1) It was the last day on which the committee could vote on bills; 2) This marked the first year that the eyewitness identification reform bill passed and will now head to the legislature for a full vote.
There are several bills I’ve been tracking for a while now, of interest to me and the regular reader. We now know the fate of all those bills (here’s a list of all bills voted out of committee and here’s a list of those that were on the agenda).
Good news:
The biggest news, in my opinion, is that the eyewitness identification reform bill received enough votes to make it out of committee (it died in committee last year). This is a tremendous step forward in the quest for adoption of best practices in lineups and photo arrays.
In addition, the sex offender residency restriction bill was never called to vote, and so unless it’s added as an amendment to a bill that did pass, it has died. (My problems with this bill were documented in this post.)
Another year and another assault on the dignity of The Great Writ has been turned away. The habeas corpus “reform” bill also died in committee, never being called to a vote.
For the second year in a row, the Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act also failed to make it out of committee.
The innocuously titled “Act Concerning Subpoenas for Property” also wasn’t called to a vote and went away quietly. Don’t get fooled by the title. This was a very, very dangerous investigative subpoena bill, essentially granting the state to subpoena whatever the hell they wanted from whomever they wanted, even in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution/investigation. It essentially spat in the face of the Fourth Amendment.
An act seeking to create a mandatory-minimum sentence for assault of a public safety officer made it out of committee, but if I recall correctly, without the mandatory minimum.
Three bills hell bent on pushing Connecticut closer to fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, one to remove the statute of limitations on perjury in murder cases; one to remove the statute of limitations for hindering murder prosecutions and one making it a crime to fail to report a “serious crime” against a child.
The “sexting” bill made it out of committee. But that could be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. Me, personally? I don’t care either way.
Bad news:
I’ve always viewed the eyewitness ID bill and the videotaping of interrogations bill as two peas in a pod. Fraternal twins, if you will. Where one goes, so should the other. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case today. I’m not even sure the videotaping of interrogations bill was called for a vote. One step at a time, I guess. There’s always next year (says he, sounding awfully like a Red Sox fan. I need a shower).
The big-ticket news item of the day is the passage of the bill eliminating the statute of limitations for civil suits in child sexual assault cases. It’s not criminal, per se, but a stupid idea nonetheless.
A statewide ban the box proposal was called for a vote, but derailed and then “held”, which is lege-speak for killed.
For the second year, a bill seeking to reduce the zone around schools within which drug offenses triggered an enhanced penalty from 1500 feet to 200 feet. In addition, the penalty would have been triggered only for sales made within school hours. This was a much needed bill and I’m sad that it died.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Which bill did you want to see make it out of committee and which bill are you glad/mad didn’t?
A few stray thoughts
Mar 23rd
the metaphor, stupid
Monday was a marathon day at the state legislature, with several criminal justice bills being considered. Two of the most important, in my view, were the bills to eviscerate The Great Writ (see prior post here) and Connecticut’s first attempt at residency restrictions (see previous post here). For those who want to brave through the public hearing, the entire video is here and written testimony submitted can be read here.
[A warning: this post is long, repeats some arguments I've already made and is extremely rude and vitriolic. But if you don't read it, you support terrorists.]
The habeas corpus effective suspension and evisceration bill
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane testified at length (almost an hour, I think) on the habeas corpus “reform” bill. There were many, many problems with his testimony, but a few things really stuck in my craw. The entire basis for the State’s “suggestions” in the habeas reform bill seemed to be premised on two things: 1) that there is a glut of “frivolous” petitions and courts are overburdened; and 2) by moving the restrictions on the filing of habeas corpus petitions to the “front end”, rather than during the process itself, there will be a lot of weeding out and the load will be lightened.
Both are unfounded. CSA Kane went on for the better part of an hour, trumpeting the vast number of “successive petitions”, before someone on the committee had the good sense to ask him for some numbers. Just what constitutes a successive petition and what does he consider frivolous? Certainly not all petitions that are denied are not frivolous and eventually he had to admit that. Later on, during the testimony of the Deputy Chief Public Defender, we heard that a meager 4 1/2 % of all petitions were “successive”, in that petitioners had filed a prior habeas corpus petition.
But the State’s argument was premised on this straw man (if not outright lie) that the courts were dealing with a deluge of repetitive, frivolous and time consuming merit-less habeas petitions where petitioners were on their 9th or 10th bite at the apple. From what I’ve been told, there is maybe one inmate who is on his 7th or 8th petition, but that’s about it.
The second premise of the state’s position is all the more confusing and confounding.
Sex-y times at the state lege
Mar 18th
It’s the middle of the legislative season and just like all of us, the state legislature has sex on their minds. Sex related bills, I mean. No, wait, not dollars bills that you – nevermind. This is a family-friendly blog.
During public hearings to be conducted tomorrow and on Monday, the judiciary committee will consider a slew of bills focusing on sex and sex offenders. I’m here to give you the rundown on what they are and why they’re all bad (except one).
S.B. No. 33 An act concerning the registration of sexual offenders
This is, of course, the State equivalent of the awful, awful federal Adam Walsh Act. For 7 reasons why this bill is evil and must be defeated, see here.
S.B. No. 34 An act concerning computer crimes against children
This bill amends the “Enticing a Minor” statute by making it a crime to not exactly entice a minor to do anything:
or (2) display such person’s intimate parts through the use of a digital camera capable of downloading still or video images to a computer for transmission over the Internet or through the use of other available technology, or engage in a sexual act through the Internet or by telephone.
In fact, I’m not even sure that subsection (2) requires that the minor view any of these, um, intimate parts.
S.B. No. 479 (RAISED) AAC the attendance of registered sexual offenders at school functions involving their children.
Registered sex offenders are permitted to enter school property to attending school functions and/or meet with school personnel regarding their own children. That this bill is needed is the perfect example of just how stupid our sex offender laws are getting.
H.B. No. 5486 (RAISED) AAC residency restrictions for registered sexual offenders.
That this bill has been introduced comes as no surprise. The only surprise (to me) is that it took until 2010 for our state legislature to consider residency restrictions. My battle against residency restrictions is well documented. This bill has bad parts and “oh look we’re learning from other states” parts.
The bad: There’s a 2000 feet buffer zone. Which means that sex offenders will be banned from living anywhere in the state.
The “oh look we’re learning”: Grandfather clauses for those who already live somewhere within 2000 feet of any place a child may conceivably one day dream of going and for those whose houses may one day in the future fall within a 2000 feet zone.
The “good, I guess”: A violation is only a Class A misdemeanor.
H.B. No. 5533 (RAISED) AAC sexting.
Yes, sexting. That venerable institution of teens everywhere. What we used to call, back in the day, a good old-fashioned game of “doctor”.
Except this is the good bill I mentioned earlier. Thanks to Norm’s post, I see that the bill actually reduces the penalties for “sexting” from a D felony to an A misdemeanor.
Rest in Peace, good bill, your time will come
Apr 10th
It’s that time of year – when the legislature’s committees are done discussing, when one party has successfully blocked discussion and vote on other bills and the few stragglers that made it through leave behind a myriad of bills that died on the floor. Some of these bills are truly dead, some have a whisper of a chance – either for this year as add-ons to bills that made it through, or next year, because they’re persistent little sobs.
So, in honor of Good Friday (no, not really, don’t get mad at me and leave a 1000 comments), here are three Good Bills that died this year in committee, and two “it’s Good these Bills died in committee”:
Proof that sex offenders make people act crazy (with update)
Feb 13th
Title Bout: Ohio v. USA
Sex offender hysteria is well documented. Apparently, the Federal Government is also not immune from its mind altering effects. Consider the case of John Doe in Ohio. John Doe, convicted in 1993 of sexual battery in state court, is currently on Federal probation for unrelated drug offenses.
A zealous probation officer must’ve looked at Doe’s criminal record and noticed the sex offense conviction. So, the probation officer required Doe to register as a sex offender in Ohio. Only one problem: Ohio state law exempts Doe from registering.
And thus, the tug-of-war between the Federal Government and the State of Ohio begins. Whose requirements prevail? Or will it all be disregarded because the object of this “war” is to get a heinous, evil, dangerous, disgusting, despicable sex offender to register his whereabouts? Some counties in Ohio have had the testicular fortitude to tell the Feds to stick it, but unfortunately not the county in which Doe resides.
Still waiting for registry reform
Dec 4th
13 months ago, almost to the very date, State Rep. and co-chair of the Judiciary Committee Mike Lawlor gave an interview in which he touted the need for sensible reforms to the sex offender registry. I was buoyed by it and a little hopeful. After all, who can not see the benefits of a tiered sex offender registry? Still, back then, I noted some suspicion, given the political climate, that such changes would ever come to fruition.
So, it was with a sense of deja vu that I read this editorial in the Courant last week from Mike Lawlor, entitled “Sex Offender Registry Riddled With Flaws”.
What does “regularly” mean?
Aug 7th
Sex offender probation again. It doesn’t stop bothering me and it shouldn’t stop bothering you either.
One of the standard conditions of sex offender probation is the requirement that the probationer not go within 1-2,000 feet of a park, school, playground, library, etc (the so-called “residency restrictions“).
Connecticut does not have statewide residency restrictions and only three towns have enacted ordinances with penalties consisting of only fines.
Instead, in CT, you will see a standard condition of probation for sex offenders that is essentially a residency and work restriction. However, it is not worded quite as strictly as the residency restrictions and thus, in my opinion, is rather vague.
The standard condition reads something like this: “Probationer shall not go to any park, playground, school, [etc..] or any other place that is regularly frequented by minors under the age of sixteen.”
It’s that last bit that is especially problematic, because, in essence, any place could be a place frequented by minors under the age of sixteen. Take the movie theater, for instance.
The problem arises with actually proving a violation of the condition and whether a movie theater is a place that is regularly frequented by minors under the age of sixteen.
It seems to me that “frequently” the State proceeds to VOP hearings with the assumption that a movie theater is a place regularly frequented by minors and this assumption is rarely, if ever, effectively challenged by the defendant.
Several questions immediately spring to mind: What is regularly and whose regularly is it? Does it mean that the majority of patrons at a particular location are teens? Or do a particular set of teens (say the teens in that particular town) regularly go there? And what is “regularly”? 4 days a week? 51% of the patrons?
In addition, how does one really know that the teens who “frequent” that place are under the age of sixteen? No movie theater I know of checks ID and keeps a record of the age of each patron. No movie theater compiles these statistics. So how does one really know?
As anyone who has been outside in the last 15 years can attest (at least anecdotally), a 15 year old girl doesn’t look 15 anymore and there may be scientific evidence to back this up. There are even courses being taught about this general idea. So a girl that one may assume is 19 is actually 15. Indeed, some of our clients wouldn’t be in the messes they’re in if there was a sure-fire way of telling a girl’s age just by looking at her.
Keeping on with the movie theater example, does it matter if a majority of the patrons are adults, but a majority of those present are minors? Movie theaters are well known to be hang-outs for teens, but do they count?
Further, what’s the timeframe? Is it historical or within the last year or month or week or simply on the day that the defendant decided to go watch a movie?
These conditions are so vague, that I think a successful argument can be made that they do not provide adequate notice to a probationer that a non-enumerated place such as a movie theater is off-limits.
Shouldn’t the burden be on the State to actually prove that the movie theater is indeed a place which minors under the age of sixteen regularly frequent? And I mean prove by some sort of scientific evidence, not the eyeballing of an employee, not matter how long the employee has worked there.
In my opinion, such prosecutions must be zealously challenged and defended. Has anyone tried anything like this? Has anyone had any success? See any problems with my theories? How do you defend against these VOP hearings?
Pollitt neighbors want tax break
Feb 21st
Remember David Pollitt? (Previous posts here, here, here and here.) After trying to block his move into their neighborhood, and failing, residents are now trying to get their money back. Literally. They’ve asked the town to reduce the property tax assessment of their homes by as much as 17%.
Carolyn Nadeau, president of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, said the request may be the first of its kind in the state.
“I’ve never had an instance like this,” she said. “Any number of times there are distractions that people feel negatively impact their property values, such as unsightly blight, but we haven’t seen this.”
The company that revalued all properties in Southbury last fall rejected the residents’ plea for help. The new values took effect Oct. 1 and Pollitt didn’t move to the neighborhood until Oct. 12.
It’s tough. My initial reaction is to roll my eyes, but only because I was quite disgusted with the nonsense that went on the first time around. I can understand that their property values probably have taken a bit of a hit, and they’re trying to do something, anything about it. But they’re not the only ones. Residents throughout the state have to deal with this as sex offenders (and other offenders) move into their neighborhoods. What about your friendly neighborhood DUI repeat offender? I’d be worried about that kind of offender weaving around my street, drunk, knocking pedestrians off.
What will happen when other registries go online? Will it just suppress the housing market as a whole? While prices go down across the board? Or will people remember that ex-convicts have always lived amongst us and move on? What else can be done?
The forever persecuted
Feb 5th
A few days ago, I noticed a story in the Boston Globe about residents in a New Hampshire town who rejoiced after successfully getting a sex offender to leave their community. It was of particular interest to me because that sex offender was from Connecticut and the story said he would be returning here.
So it came as no surprise when I saw this report today. It says that he is on the move – perhaps with a one-way ticket to prison.
This is really stupid and I think the “biggest waste of law enforcement funds this week” nominee. The offender, Douglas Simmons, was in compliance with registration requirements while he lived in CT. Then he decided to move to NH. So what does he do? He notifies the police in New Hampshire when he gets there. Not good enough, say the police. He has to inform police in Connecticut as well, that he is moving out of state.
This seems pointless to me. Either he is living in the state and in compliance or not living in the state and therefore shouldn’t have to comply. Some law enforcement agency knew of his whereabouts at the mandated interval. What difference does it make that it was New Hampshire law enforcement? The NH police contacted CT to say “hey, one of your guys moved here”. Apparently, they’re not to be trusted.
The statute has has violated is C.G.S 54-252, which provides in relevant part:
If any person who is subject to registration under this section changes such person’s address, such person shall, without undue delay, notify the Commissioner of Public Safety in writing of the new address and, if the new address is in another state, such person shall also register with an appropriate agency in that state, provided that state has a registration requirement for such offenders.
I want to know what undue delay means and what the delay was in this case. Either way, the prosecutor handling this case should really look at this and see whether this needs to be prosecuted. I don’t think it does.
Now, his current whereabouts are unknown, because, you know, he was kicked out of his last town. Do you blame him? This is a guy who committed a pretty ugly offense. He served 22 years in jail for it (day for day, it seems). Then he gets out and has to register for life. Which he does dutifully. Then he decides to move. So thinking logically, he notifies the town he moves into. They freak out and kick him out. He leaves and moves back to his home state. Now he’s wanted by the police and will have to go back to jail for some bs violation. I’d be tempted to give the State the finger at that point. Wouldn’t you?
Sex offender homelessness: a growing problem
Nov 21st
USA Today has two pieces covering the growing problem of sex offender homelessness due to strict residency restrictions and the real dangers posed by it.
Thousands of convicted sex offenders are reporting to police that they are homeless, raising concerns that their lack of a permanent address could make them difficult to track, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Sex offenders, who are required to register with police and often barred by law from living near places where children gather, list addresses such as a tent, “near a bike path,” “behind a cemetery” or “woods behind Wal-Mart.”
Two-thirds of the states allow convicted sex offenders, including violent predators, to register as homeless or list a shelter or inexact location as long as they stay in touch with police.
At least a dozen states list hundreds of sex offenders without specific addresses. California registered 2,716 as “transient.” Washington state listed 564 as homeless, but the number is probably much higher, says Carolyn Sanchez of the Washington State Patrol.
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine and other states say the number of homeless sex offenders is rising. Landlords often won’t rent to them, and laws in dozens of states and hundreds of cities bar them from living near areas where kids play.
The primary cause of this homelessness is their inability to secure any sort of housing in cities and towns due to excessively strict residency restrictions. This creates public safety problems on two fronts: It makes it difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them and it increases the sense of isolation, frustration and loneliness felt by the homeless.
Residency restrictions in their current form have no visible impact on the reduction of crime and in fact, may well end up being counterproductive.
Sex Crimes also has this covered.
Sex offender homelessness is not an excuse
Aug 3rd
(click on image for full size)
In my post last night about Danbury’s desire to expel all sex offenders from its shelter, a helpful readers points to this NYT article about a homeless sex offender in Georgia who could be facing life in prison for failing to register.
The offender, Larry W. Moore Jr. of Augusta, was convicted in North Carolina in 1994 of indecent liberty with a child, a felony. This week he was convicted for the second time of violating a requirement that he register. Under the new law, a second violation carries an automatic life sentence.
“We have suggested that it is cruel and unusual punishment as it relates to the facts of this case,” said Sam B. Sibley Jr., the state public defender in Augusta, whose office represents Mr. Moore and is planning an appeal on his behalf.
This increased penalty is in conjunction with some tough residency restrictions: 1,000 feet of not only schools and day care centers but also churches, swimming pools and school bus stops.
There is only one shelter in Georgia that accepts male sex offenders. One. Sex offenders that cannot find housing have to resort to all sorts of living accommodations.
In Florida, the state authorized five offenders to live under a bridge in Miami after they were unable to find suitable housing that they could afford. In Iowa, a victims’ group found that offenders tried to comply with the registry law by offering addresses like “rest area mile marker 149” or “RV in old Kmart parking lot.”
I had a client once who was charged with failure to register. He was living under a bridge. I half-joked at the time that he should send in the registration form with “Under Charter Oak Bridge” as his address. Guess some people are actually doing it.
Then you get quotes like this:
Homelessness is not an acceptable excuse. “One of the requirements when you become a sex offender is you have to have an address,” said Sgt. Ray Hardin of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in Augusta.
Sergeant Hardin said enforcement of the law required a dedicated investigator, a global positioning system and, each time an offender moves, hours of paperwork. At least 15 sex offenders have been arrested because of homelessness since the law took effect in July 2006, according to documents gathered through pretrial proceedings in a lawsuit brought by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Perhaps the police department can set up tents in their parking lots, where sex offenders can stay. This way, there’s zero cost of monitoring and these folks (some of them are human, too) have a roof over their heads.
Image license here
Danbury wants to kick sex offenders out of its shelter
Aug 2nd
Anyone who has been following sex offender issues across the country knows that it is an extremely difficult task balancing the safety of the community and the human rights of sex offenders. But this is just plain ridiculous.
Danbury apparently has one of only three or four shelters throughout the state that do not have a prohibition on sex offenders living there. Danbury Mark Boughton is not happy (Boughton was most famously in the news for soliciting the help of Federal agents to crack down on illegal immigrants in Danbury)*.
“These people had nothing to do with Danbury before they were sent here,” Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton said. “Danbury is one of only five or six shelters in the state without a prohibition against sex offenders. This is outrageous.”
What’s outrageous is the fear-mongering. Sex offenders need somewhere to live, too. Or would you rather that they disappear into the wild and no one can keep tabs on them?
In a letter dated Wednesday to Chief Court Administrator William J. Lavery, Boughton wrote: “We have grave concerns of a concentration of sex offenders in our shelter, therefore, we are promulgating new rules that will only allow one or possibly two Danbury resident sex offenders present at any time.”
Concentration? There are only three sex offenders, Mayor, three. Apparently he’s okay with one or two sex offenders with prior ties to Danbury living in the Danbury shelter. I don’t see how it makes a damn difference where they come from. Does Danbury have special rules for living that these “outsiders” won’t know?
The homeless shelter on New Street has 15 beds in the summer and 20 in the winter, director Claudette Fogarty said. She said she isn’t there to judge who gets a bed at night and that people who were convicted of sex offenses stay at the shelter like other people, usually without a problem.
Fogarty said the shelter is open to people who are 18 years old or older. Families with young children do not stay there. She said sometimes the state’s probation office phones to ask if a particular person is staying there. She will answer, then alert the client about the call.
“They’re just people. This is my job,” Fogarty said. “It’s not my job to judge them.”
Fogarty said people on the state’s sex offender list have a tough time finding apartments, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development won’t let them have public housing.
“We’re bashing our heads against the wall on this,” Fogarty said. “These people need housing.”
Fogarty said to the best of her knowledge – and she has been working at the shelter for 20 years – there has not been a problem caused by a person on the sex offender registry. The list includes anyone convicted of a sexual crime, not just those guilty of offenses against children.
Nothing more than plain old fear-mongering. SEX OFFENDER! BOO! Are you scared yet? Go crawl into your bed and lock your doors, the big bad anonymous, not yet violent SEX OFFENDER is out to get you!
Disgusting.
While we’re on this topic, the Saucy Vixen is asking for your help, criminal defense lawyers.
All sex offender related posts can be found here and residency restriction posts can be found here.
*See previous coverage of the immigration mess here, here, here, here, here, here and here . [Please be aware, all of these links are to posts that were written when I was on typepad. They were imported but the formatting in the blockquotes is all messed up. Sorry.]
Residency restrictions map
Jul 25th
This [pdf] is a map of Tippecanoe County, IN, where “John Doe” is asking to be found not to be a sex offender anymore and also challenging the legality of residency restrictions [previous coverage here].
I know next to nothing about the geography of Indiana and even less about Tippecanoe County, but doesn’t it look like most of the inhabitable urban area of the county is covered by the restrictions?
KY: Residency restrictions not retroactive
Jul 25th
A judge in Kentucky has ruled that residency restrictions cannot be applied to sex offenders that were convicted before the law went into effect.
Jefferson District Judge Donald Armstrong Jr. dismissed the cases of three Louisville men charged with living too close to schools and a youth treatment center, ruling that the law is unconstitutional because it adds punishment to their initial convictions.But Michael Goodwin, an attorney for one of the men, said Armstrong “has recognized that when an individual is punished by a judge and jury, the legislators can’t, many years later, adopt a second punishment for the same person.”
This was a Superior Court decision (Supreme Court for you New Yorkers), so this isn’t the end. In fact, a different Superior Court judge ruled that the restrictions were constitutional. KY’s Supreme Court will have to decide this sooner or later.
Under the old law, offenders had to live at least 1,000 feet — a fifth of a mile — from locations including a school building or licensed day-care center. The new law measures the 1,000-foot distance from the property line.The new law applies to all offenders, even if they are no longer on probation or parole, or under any type of judicial supervision.
recent comments