residency restrictions
Indiana challenge to residency restrictions
Jul 12th
After residency restrictions went into effect in Tippecanoe County, 28 sex offenders have been asked to move their homes. One of them, John Doe, is saying no. John Doe was convicted in 1988 and released from jail in 1992. Since then, he has no arrests. He has lived at his current address for 7 years. However, new legislation is forcing him to relocate.
Legislation took effect July 1, 2006, that prohibits those offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.
Wording of the law does not make it clear whether it applies to offenders convicted before that date.
But the Tippecanoe County prosecutor’s office is enforcing it as applying to any such offender in the Indiana Sheriff’s Sex and Violent Offender Registry.
John Doe is taking advantage of an IN law that permits sex offenders who are 10 years removed from their release to petition a court to be no longer considered a sex offender.
Here [pdf]are the motions and petitions he filed in court, which include the petition to no longer be considered a sex offender, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Permanent Injunction.
The legislation is challenged on ex-post facto, takings clause and double jeopardy grounds.
photo courtesy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticchildz/540087127/ , license info: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
State-wide struggle over ways to deal with sex offenders
Jun 10th
The Courant had this article over the weekend, chronicling the efforts across the state to deal with sex offenders after release.
The debate in Stafford was feisty and political.First Selectman Allen Bacchiochi, a Republican, had proposed an ordinance that would ban convicted sex offenders from public parks and recreation areas.
At the selectmen’s May 10 meeting, Democratic Selectman Gordon Frassinelli questioned the utility and deterrent value of the ban, likening the initial written warning and $100 fine on the second offense to an unshoveled sidewalk violation.
Bacchiochi snapped back, “Do you want to protect the children or do you want to protect the person who has already been a sex offender? I want to protect the children of this town.”
“I think that’s pretty universal,” Frassinelli replied in a quiet voice.
Stafford is the latest to wade into the debate, with the selectmen passing the ordinance, copied from one in Danbury, last month. Afterward, Bacchiochi immediately pulled it back for legal and enforcement review before sending it to a town meeting vote.
A state-wide bill to restrict sex offenders from living within 1000 feet of schools and child-care centers passed the House but didn’t come up for vote in the Senate. Connecticut has been slow to enter the fray, which has seen a rush of bills nationwide. This has actually been a good thing. As the debate has gathered steam, more data has become available and Connecticut has been able to see the effects of passing such laws.
If it saves even one child, it will be worth it, proponents say.But new research and treatment experts say it has a slim chance of doing even that.
“I know of no case where it’s saved a child from being molested,” said psychologist Dennis Gibeau, program director for the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior in Middletown. “The idea that we’re instituting laws that restrict where sex offenders can live, where they can frequent, doesn’t really address the issue of protecting children.”
Bridgeport is amending a proposal that would restrict sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools and child-care centers and prohibit them from parks unless accompanying their own children. Its sponsor, Councilman Keith Rodgerson, projects it will come before the common council again in July.
Rodgerson says there is more council and city support for the move since his research showed the unequal density of sex offenders in Bridgeport compared with Fairfield County towns and the state at large. Bridgeport has almost 16 offenders per square mile, while Danbury and the state as a whole have less than one.
“You walk out of your front door and you’re going to bump into one,” Rodgerson said.
Other cities in the State are dealing with the problem in the context of CT’s small size. New London considered a residency restriction ban, but it wasn’t pursued. The Mayor said it would have been hard to enforce.
No parent, politician or pundit could find fault with the intent of keeping children safe from sexual abuse. Of more than 600,000 registered sex offenders in the nation, Connecticut has almost 4,500.But can the recent laws, some of which virtually leave the convicted offender nowhere to go, work?
First of all, in 80 to 90 percent of sex offenses, the predator knows the victim, experts say. The stranger in the park case is rare.
Second, many of the ordinances, including the Danbury one, do not differentiate between child molesters and other offenders. The crimes of the 10 registered offenders in Stafford range from first-degree sexual assault to public indecency.
Third, the jury is still out on whether registering offenders or restricting their activities reduces the number of sex crimes.
“The general idea of limiting sex offenders in mixing with children certainly makes good common sense,” Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. Blumenthal supported the public safety legislation and has suggested more aggressive steps, such as electronic monitoring of serious offenders.
But a study released in April by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, tracing 224 repeat sex offenders, concluded that not one would have been deterred by a residency restriction law. Social proximity was the key factor, it found, with half of the offenders establishing contact with victims through friends or acquaintances. Only 35 percent of the offenders made direct contact with victims, and none of the juvenile cases involved contact near a school, park or other prohibited area.
At least the media is now taking note of the DOJ study that debunks the myth that sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism.
At the forefront of the debate is the presumption, once a child molester, always a child molester.A premise in the Danbury and Stafford ordinance states, “the recidivism rate for released sex offenders is alarmingly high, especially for those who commit their crimes on children.”
But a 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics study followed 9,691 released sex offenders, 4,295 of them child molesters, in 15 states from 1994 to 1997. In that span, only 5.3 percent of the total group repeated sex crimes, and 3.3 percent of the child molesters were arrested for another sex crime against a child.
“The conventional wisdom is that they all go out and reoffend. I don’t think you’re going to find the data to support that,” said Charles Olney, research associate at the Center for Sex Offender Management in Maryland, a project for the U.S. Justice Department. “That 100 percent recidivism rate – I’ve only heard it in speeches.”
Dan Casagrande, the Danbury corporation counsel who helped draft the sex offender ordinance, pointed to an Indianapolis ordinance that was struck down in federal court as too restrictive. “It kept anyone on the registry from entering the city of Indianapolis. You can’t even be on the interstate,” he said.
Police in Georgia and Iowa have said the laws have seriously undermined efforts to keep track of offenders. “We’re going to see sex offenders who are unable to live in communities and they’re going to go further underground where they can’t be monitored,” Renee Redman, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, said.
It will be interesting to see how cities (and the state) react to growing data on residency restrictions and whether they attempt to shape bills in a meaningful way.
Here is my post on what acceptable registry and residency restriction laws would look like.
The Motions some people file
May 6th
Here’s something to make you chuckle this Sunday morning:
On April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled “Motion to Kiss My Ass” (Doc. 107) in which he moved “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother f[...] you.”
Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (1996). Awesome
Behind the picket fence
May 6th
Today’s Sunday Globe Magazine has a wonderfully insightful and detailed article on residency restrictions and their effectiveness.
The residency laws bring up serious civil liberties concerns, including that these measures apply to convicts after they have been punished and released and served their parole, and that in many cases, homeowners are exempt while renters may be required to move. And then there’s the fact that this type of post-release regulation doesn’t exist for other criminal classes: We don’t prohibit arsonists from living near gas stations.
But a less-discussed argument against the laws is that they don’t actually work to prevent sex crimes against children. Studies have shown, for example, that the majority of these crimes are perpetrated by family members or acquaintances, that many sex crimes are never reported, and that sex offenders often molest outside the area where they live. Some scholars go so far as to say that the measures could put children in greater danger, not less – because the sex offenders go underground, because therapy works to prevent re-offense, and because limited resources are wasted enforcing the laws. “There is no evidence that residency restrictions work, and there are some pretty good arguments why they are not likely to be effective,†says David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. “No one who has any real professional experience in the management of sex offenders thinks these laws make much sense.â€
The article traces the history of Megan’s Laws and the recent residency restriction laws, has quotes from legislators, LEO, parents, offenders, psychiatrists and professors, and cites the recent Bureau of Justice Statistics. It attempts to dispel some of the myths surrounding these laws.
The public also needs to know that children are getting safer. According to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services, sex crimes of all kinds have dropped substantially since the mid-1990s, after increasing between 1977 and 1991. Between 1991 and 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, substantiated sexual abuse cases dropped by 51 percent. The decline, says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, is due to the increased incarceration of sex offenders, more intervention and prevention efforts, and better mental health treatment, including more widespread use of antidepressants and other psychiatric medicines. Residency restrictions didn’t do a thing to help.
Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions
Iowa: It’s like you’re always stuck in second gear*
Apr 25th
Iowa was supposed to be on the forefront of the “revisit residency restrictions” movement. Iowa was supposed to be the vanguard of the sensible restrictions movement. Iowa was supposed to show the rest of the country that these draconian laws don’t work and here’s how to do it.
Unfortunately, not so fast. It seems that – as all hot button political issues go – this has become politicized and stuck in a quagmire (For those keeping track, that’s two sitcom references).
Iowa sheriffs and prosecutors on Monday blasted lawmakers for failing to roll back a controversial and politically charged law restricting where sex offenders can live.
“They’re just afraid to take action, and the people of Iowa should be ashamed,” said Story County Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald. “It’s absolutely politics at its worst.”
Earlier this year, the bipartisan panel heard during a series of public meetings from a number of groups – sex offender experts, statewide law enforcement associations, prevention experts and victims – who uniformly criticized the state law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or child care centers.
However, those on the other side of the aisle are firm in their belief that this is not what the residents of Iowa want.
But Senate Minority Leader Mary Lundby of Marion said Republicans would resist any attempt to repeal the 2,000-foot law, which went into effect in 2005. Lundby said her belief is that people do not support such a move.
“My message hasn’t changed since the beginning of the session,” she said. “We will support additional spending for monitoring (sex offenders) and additional assessment, but people across the aisle don’t want them in their neighborhoods, period.”
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out – with the end of session on Friday.
See also: SexCrimes and Corrections Sentencing
Previous coverage:
*My sincerest apologies to those that had repressed any memory of that song and that show.
Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions
Apr 15th
Update: Reader “Ilah” has sent quite a few more my way.
- Report from Colorado SO Management Board, 2004 [pdf]
- Sex Offender Residency Restrictions, Jill Levinson, Ph.D., 2006 [pdf]
- Iowa County Attorneys Association Statement, 2006 [pdf]
- Statement of New Jersey Public Defender’s Office, 2005 [pdf]
Original post: Helpful reader “Oneandonly” points to two studies that conclude that residency restrictions have no impact on sex offenses. Unfortunately, neither one has a date on it, so I’m not sure how recent they are (In fact, the first one is available only via Google’s cache). Does anyone know of any other studies that are being conducted or have been conducted on the effectiveness of residency restrictions and sex offender registries?
This, I think, is a vital point in the discourse over the need for such measures. If they are found to be beneficial, then the argument against them loses some ground, but if they are found to make no difference or even worsen the situation, then obviously there needs to be a stronger push against them.
If you know of any such studies, leave a comment or send me an e-mail.
Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions, effectiveness studies
Sex offender not allowed to go back to jail
Apr 13th
One of the sex offenders living under Florida’s Julia Tuttle Causeway motioned the court to allow him to return to jail. The court refused his request. The only article I can find on this has no further information on the judge’s reasoning for the denial and I think I understand the court’s hesitance to return someone to jail who has been paroled and has not yet committed a crime, but c’mon, something has to be done.
How long will these 5 men live under a bridge? A bridge, for cryin’ out loud! The state really needs to step up and do something here. Find a shelter for these men, preferably. At least Mr. Morales was nice enough to ask the judge. Next time, he might be forced to commit a crime to get back to jail and then we know what everyone will say.
Previous coverage:
Technorati Tags: sex offenders, residency restrictions, florida
“Acceptable” registries and residency restrictions
Apr 12th
Ever since Steve posted his opinion on what would be sensible registry and residency restriction legislation, I’ve been thinking about what I’d like to see implemented. Today, I have a few ideas.
1. Mandatory risk-assessment: Every inmate shall have his case presented to a risk assessment panel no later than 6 months prior to his or her release date. The panel shall consist of previously appointed individuals from the board of parole.
2. Criteria to be examined: The age of the offender; the age of the victim; degree of kinship (if any); prior sexual offenses; length of sentence; ties to the community; job experience; potential for re-employment; programs availed of during incarceration; allocution; victim statement, if any; conditions of probation.
3. Statutory exemptions: Offenders convicted of “statutory rape” where the sexual contact was consensual are automatically exempt from any registration and registry requirements.
4. Risk level scores to be assigned (tiered system): The risk assessment panel shall assign a risk level score to each offender. The scale shall be as follows: 1 – low level offender; 2 – mid level offender; 3 – high level offender.
5. Low level offenders shall be required to register for only 2 years, but the registration will not be publicly available and shall not have any residency restrictions imposed on them.
6. Mid level offenders shall be required to register for 5 years and will not be permitted to reside within 1000 feet of schools or playgrounds. Mid level offenders will also not be permitted to work where they will come in contact with minors under the age of 16.
7. High level offenders shall be required to register for 20 years and will not be permitted to reside within 2000 feet of schools or playgrounds. These offenders shall also not be permitted to work where they will come in contact with minors.
8. All offenders shall be permitted to return to their existing residences if they have resided there for more than 5 years prior to the date of the offense, unless the victim of their offense lives within 2000 feet.
9. The registration of all mid-level and high-level offenders shall be available to the public.
10. Requirements for obtaining information: Any member of the public seeking information on mid-level and high-level offenders shall be required to provide a name, valid address and proof that a child under the age of 16 resides in their home.
11. The Department of Corrections shall be charged with the task of ensuring that all sex offenders are given adequate training in vocations that does not require contact with minors.
12. Parents will be charged with the task of educating their children about not talking to strangers and not getting into strangers’ cars.
13. Penalty for misuse: Anyone using publicly available information to threaten, harass or injure a released sex offender shall be guilty of the offense corresponding to their actions, or a Class D felony, whichever is greater.
Ugh. I had more, but I received a phone call and now I’ve lost my train of thought. Anyway, what do you guys think? A little crazy? Too liberal?
yet another sex offender bill
Apr 10th
CT seems to be in the grasp of a storm to pass as much sex offender legislation as it can this session. Another bill proposed yesterday is aimed at making details of convictions more easily available.
Connecticut lawmakers are considering a number of bills that would provide more information about sex offenders and control where they can live.Barbara Bonin, of Sterling, has three children all under the age of 6. When she moved to Sterling’s Oneco neighborhood near the Rhode Island border, she wanted a safe place to raise her children.
“We looked at the school system here … We looked for the sex offenders. We looked for the crime rates,” Bonin said.
At the time, no sex offenders lived near her home. Bonin said the neighborhood has recently changed and that she was asked if she recognized a man in a photograph. She didn’t recognize the man but was curious.
She learned that the man in the picture, Michael Rose, is a registered sex offender.
“I was very upset,” Bonin said. “I was beyond upset.”
So she has a right to live there, but he doesn’t. Here’s another dangerous idea: tying sex offenders into housing markets. This is added incentive for towns to pass residency restrictions prohibiting sex offenders from living within their boundaries.
As to the bill itself, I think it might have some value. For example, in the case that is the focus of the story:
Currently, the registry only lists Rose’s offenses as a sex assault in the third-degree. To find out the specific charges, you have to pay $25 to the state police for a criminal history.Eyewitness News paid the fee and learned that Rose has been arrested eight times since 1981 on a variety of drug and sexual assault charges. No where in his rap sheet does it indicate any charges involving a minor.
I have a new idea! If you want information about sex offenders (or more specifically those convicted of offenses involving minors) you have to register with your name and address and provide proof that you have a child under the age of 16 living in your house. How’s that?
Technorati Tags: connecticut, legislation, sex offenders, residency restrictions
Impact of sex offender restrictions a worry
Apr 8th
Worcester, MA is concerned about the impact of neighboring towns’ sex offender residency restrictions. Worcester’s Councilor-at-Large, Kathleen Toomey, is asking the city manager to report on what the impact on the city could be.
Ms. Toomey said, “I’m concerned about the impact on Worcester. … If those were enacted, does that mean that they would be moving to Worcester if they were not welcomed in their existing communities?“Worcester already has a fair number of existing sex offenders. I don’t want us to have to take any more than we have to.â€
She seems cognizant of many of the problems associated with residency restrictions, including the fact that law enforcement finds it difficult to keep track of offenders forced to move out of their homes.
Ms. Toomey said she does not know what the city should do about the potential impact of sex offenders coming here.“I’m not asking for anything,†she said. “I understand there’s a fine line between civil rights and protecting the citizens of the community.†Ms. Toomey said she is aware that some police fear that restrictions on where sex offenders can live could drive them underground and make them harder to keep track of.
“I’m looking for information and a discussion,†she said.
If people get overly restricted where they live, Ms. Toomey said, it would be natural for them to move to a city the size of Worcester, where they could blend in anonymously.
Technorati Tags: massachussetts, residency restrictions, sex offenders
Florida housing sex offenders under a bridge
Apr 5th
It has happened. I have joked on many-a-occasion that with residency restriction laws the way they are, sex offenders will soon be living on the sides of highways and under bridges or in Montanta/Wyoming. I have never been sorrier to be correct. The blogosphere and mainstream media have picked up the latest news out of Florida that the state is “housing” sex offenders under a bridge:
The Florida Department of Corrections says there are fewer and fewer places in Miami-Dade County where sex offenders can live because the county has some of the strongest restrictions against this kind of criminal in the country.Florida’s solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway.
Five men — all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children — live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami’s least welcome residents.
“I got nowhere I can go!” says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.
This is absolutely absurd and has got to stop. Enough is enough.
With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. With the roar of cars passing overhead, convicted sex offender Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.”The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you,” he said.
Morales has been homeless and living under the causeway for about three weeks. He works, has a car and had a rented apartment but was forced to move after the Department of Corrections said a swimming pool in his building put him too close to children.
The convicted felons may not be locked up anymore, but they say it’s not much of an improvement.
“Jail is anytime much better than this, than the life than I’m living here now,” Morales said. “[In jail] I can sleep better. I get fed three times a day. I can shower anytime that I want to.”
I think I will be sick.
Related:
CT jumps into residency restrictions ring
Apr 4th
The Judiciary Committee today considered HB 5503: An Act Concerning Residency Restrictions For Registered Sexual Offenders. I am saddened by this news. The requirement is 1000 feet from schools or day-care facilities. However, exceptions exist:
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply if (1) the person has established a residence within one thousand feet of such property prior to the effective date of this section, or (2) the school or facility is newly located on or after the effective date of this section within one thousand feet of such person’s residence.
In a state this small, I wouldn’t be surprised if this effectively precluded offenders from living in any cities.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, residency restrictions, sex offenders
Blawger opinions on sex offenders and residency restrictions
Apr 4th
Today saw two prominent sex offender issues blawgers voice their opinions on what sensible laws should be:
Steve Smith writes:
I think the chief evil of 90% of the current laws is the utter lack of effort to separate out true predators from one-time mistakes.
Most of his suggestions correctly center around differentiating between “high risk” and “low risk” sex offenders.
ZMan! opines:
If we must keep the online registry, then only those who are deemed high-risk should be on the registry, all others should be removed from the online portion of the registry. I’d rather see the registry be removed off line completely, but I know that will not occur.Instead of making buffer zones, designate places sex offenders cannot go to. This way, at least they can walk or drive without violating some law.
Therapy should be mandatory in prison and jail for ALL criminals deemed to need it. If they do not get the treatment, then they will remain in prison or jail.
I do not agree with his last point that therapy should be mandated or offenders remain incarcerated. Civil commitment comes with its own issues and the ability of the state to effectively incarcerate someone beyond the term of their sentence at the excuse of “therapy” is something I cannot sign on to.
Technorati Tags: sex offenders, solutions, residency restrictions
push against residency restrictions finally paying off
Mar 22nd
Out of Maryland comes the news that legislators are considering shifting their focus away from residency restrictions. I cannot tell you how much this gladdens me. Finally the push against residency restrictions is beginning to pay off and hopefully more states will follow suit and try to cultivate legislation that will actually accomplish the goals they seek.
Sen. Norman Stone and Del. John Olszewski Jr. now say the focus of their bills is likely to move away from residential restrictions toward other legal remedies.
The possible changes come after studies conducted in states where similar laws have been passed or considered conclude that such restrictions have little effect.
In their current form, these bills would be standard fare – restricting how close sex offenders can live to “areas populated by children”.
Both Stone and Olszewski, however, say their bills may be altered to reflect the growing body of opinion in legislative and law-enforcement circles nationwide that residential restrictions are ineffective and, in some cases, counterproductive.
A report presented to the Florida legislature in 2005 was among the first to call residential restrictions into question, saying that statistics showed no decrease in the likelihood that convicted child sex offenders would commit new offenses, despite the presence of restrictions.
The Florida report went on to say that “such policies may ultimately be counterproductive,†noting that residential restrictions tended to cause many offenders to move into small-town and rural areas where they were poorly supervised by law enforcement authorities and had little or no access to psychiatric treatment, or drove them underground, where they were not monitored or treated at all.
Absolutely on point. The article also does a good job of highlighting other states where these laws are being questioned.
This analysis has been echoed in states like Texas, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota, where legislatures have rejected residential restriction bills, as have cities including Topeka, Kan., Maplewood, Minn., and Covington, Ky. Legislatures in other states, including Georgia and Oklahoma, are revisiting their residential restriction statutes.
However, it seems that Iowa is now being looked at as the vanguard of this movement. Lots more after the jump, so click on the link to read the full post.
Sex offender legislation roundup
Mar 21st
Wednesday seems to be a busy day for legislators around the country. Here are the latest developments in sex offender related legislation from the nation:
- A civil commitment bill is being proposed, which would also require that high-risk offenders report to "the authorities" or face life imprisonment.
- House Bill 54, which would prohibit two or more convicted sex offenders from residing together in the same dwelling.
- House Bill 55 would require notification of a sex offender’s address to everyone living within 2000 feet of that residence.
“It’s strange that a (registered) sex offender can’t work within a certain boundary of schools and day care centers, but they are living across the street from the same children and senior citizens whom we are trying to protect,†Robinson said. Alabama law prohibits sex offenders from living or working within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility.
While people generally are allowed to live where they want, [State Rep. Robinson] said, “We can focus on the number of them living in one dwelling.â€
Georgia is proposing a host of changes:
- Senate Bill 249 includes a provision to allow for elderly and disabled people to petition the court to be exempt from the sex offender residency restrictions.
- The bill also removes school bus stops from the law as part of residency/work restrictions.
- The bill also changes how the 1,000-foot exclusionary distance is determined. The distance, as proposed, would be measured from the actual building, at its closest points, instead of the property line of the school, church, day care, park or area where minors congregate.
- The new legislation also increases the reporting requirements for sexual offenders.
- Failure to comply or provide false information is considered a felony punishable by imprisonment for no less than 10 and no more than 30 years. Conviction of a second offense is punishable by imprisonment for life.
- The bill also restricts where convicted sex offenders can work or volunteer and how close the place of employment can be to a school, childcare centre or church. The distance shall be determined by the location in which such individual actually carries out or performs the functions of his or her job.
Very interesting stuff all around, especially the proposed changes to to Georgia’s legislation. I’m curios to know how many other states measure the 1,000 (or 2,000) feet from the actual building itself and not the edge of the property that it rests on.


recent comments