residency restrictions

Using this table from USA Today, I created a map of the United States, showing states that have residency restrictions in force. However, I was using a trial version of the software and it printed a watermark right over the legend in bold. I’ve decided not to attach it to this post. So if someone wants to see the map, click on the link after the jump

What is interesting (and can be gleaned from the table itself) is that almost all of the 10 smallest states in the country do not have any residency restrictions in place. It seems that these states have realized (or perhaps not) the problems that would arise with implementing residency restrictions. As a colleague joked the other day, you cannot be arrested for possession of a narcotic in this state without also being within 1500 feet of a school, park, library… the same would go for residency restrictions for sex offenders.

This USA Today article chronicles the growing skepticism of residency restrictions passed by several states. Three states – Iowa, Oklahoma and Georgia – are actively considering changes to their residency restrictions.

[OK State Rep Lucky] Lamons is among a growing number of officials who want to ease the “not-in-my-backyard” policies that communities are using to try to control sex offenders. In the past decade, 27 states and hundreds of cities have reacted to public fear of sex crimes against children by passing residency restrictions that, in some cases, have the effect of barring sex offenders from large parts of cities. They can’t live in most of downtown Tulsa, Atlanta or Des Moines, for example, because of overlapping exclusion zones around schools and day care centers.

Now a backlash is brewing. Several states, including Iowa, Oklahoma and Georgia, are considering changes in residency laws that have led some sex offenders to go underground. Such offenders either have not registered with local police as the laws require or they have given fake addresses. Many complain they cannot find a place to live legally.

The push to ease residency restrictions has support from victims’ advocates, prosecutors and police who say they spend too much time investigating potential violations.

The general concerns about harsh residency restrictions are the same everywhere:

• Sex offenders do not register or give fake addresses and go rural/underground
• This disappearance of sex offenders actually makes it more dangerous for the citizenry.
• Restrictions do not distinguish between the low-risk and the high-risk.
• Low risk offenders also end up being “banished” from cities and towns.

In Illinois, the need for housing for paroled sex offenders is “close to crisis levels”. Due to residency restrictions, parolees often have no place to live and because of that they cannot be paroled. This increases the burden on the prisons.

Some of the steps taken by the states mentioned above are seemingly in the right direction:

• Iowa —Legislators began holding hearings in January on the effectiveness of a 2002 law that bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care facility. Sen. Keith Kreiman, Democratic co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says he expects the law to be revised but not repealed. “It is very politically risky to even hold hearings,” he says, because lawmakers who change the rules could be called “soft on crime.” State figures show sexual-abuse convictions have remained steady since the law took effect, but the number of sex offenders failing to register has more than doubled. Sen. Jerry Behn, a Republican who wrote Iowa’s law, says it may be overly broad. He says he’s talking to colleagues about how to focus on “true predators.”
• Oklahoma —Like Lamons, other legislators say they’ll try to narrow their state’s restrictions. “Let’s apply them to those who are the highest risk to society,” says state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the Republican majority whip. Sgt. Gary Stansill, head of the Tulsa Police Department’s sex-crimes unit, says the current law applies to too many offenders and that he spends “way, way too much of my time” trying to enforce it. He says he investigates as many cases of sex offenders not registering as he investigates rape reports. He considers less than 10% of the state’s 8,000 convicted sex offenders to be high-risk and is lobbying lawmakers to focus on them.
• Georgia —Republican state Rep. Robert Mumford, vice chairman of a judiciary panel, says he plans to propose a bill to scale back the state’s law. With the backing of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, he suggests removing many bus stops and churches from the list of areas where offenders are banned.
• Kansas —On Feb. 12, the state Senate passed a bill that extends for another year Kansas’ moratorium on local governments restricting where sex offenders can live.

Previous related posts:

• CT prosecutors oppose changes to state’s Megan’s law
• Iowa opposition to residency restriction laws gaining momentum
• Iowa county seeks repeal of sex offender law
• Prosecutors statement against sex offender restrictions

Technorati Tags: residency restrictions, sex offenders, opposition to restrictions

Johnson County has now become the 11th county in the state of Iowa to approve a resolution urging the repeal of sex offender residency restriction laws.

In its place, the Iowa State Association of Counties recommends creating “safe zones,” that would prevent sex offenders from entering areas near schools and day cares.“Changing this law doesn’t mean we’re weak on crime,” supervisor Terrence Neuzil said.

The current law makes it difficult for such sex offenders to find a place to live, so some stopped registering on the Iowa Sex Offender Registry or law enforcement lost track of them, Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek told the board last week.

Here is a great opinion piece from the Daily Iowan, which urges common sense and rationality in dealing with these situations.

The punishing of sex offenders has reached such heightened fervor that there is an expectation of agreement on whatever law or restriction is being proposed – regardless of how ludicrous or ineffective it may be. Imagine the poor politician who has to run with the record of being “soft on sex offenders.” It doesn’t matter how heinous or deplorable the criminal act may be, we are all still responsible for behaving as rational adults in how we handle it.Schools and daycares abound in Iowa City and other areas of the state, resulting in few options for sex offenders looking for a place to reside. This causes problems for law enforcement and affects the community’s level of safety because the restrictions result in the clustering of sex offenders, or sex offenders fails to register because they fear not being able to have a place to live. The behaviors of sex offenders are of obvious concern because of the high rate of recidivism, but that should mean that keeping track of them is more important than deciding where they can live. The law doesn’t prevent them from re-offending; instead, it only works to give a false sense of security.

I have previously blogged about this growing opposition in Iowa, but some of the more dedicated blogs don’t seem to have picked up on it. Perhaps if they read this, they could post more on the events in this particular state. I’d love to read their comments.

Previous posts:
IA county seeks repeal of sex offender law
Prosecutors statement against sex offender restrictions

Technorati Tags: megan’s law, iowa, sex offenders, residency restrictions

Wyoming’s 1200 registered sex offenders have an interesting story to tell: 56% of them were convicted in other states and chose to move to Wyoming post-conviction.

Brackett, program manager for the Wyoming sex offender registry, has had to tell registered sex offenders from other states that life will be easier for them if they move to Wyoming.

"A Florida registrant contacted this office to discuss the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act," Brackett said. "He subsequently moved to Wyoming. A short time later he called our office to ask a question, indicated that it was much easier to live here, and that he was going to call a buddy of his, another registrant in Florida, to get him to move here."

This seems to be because some of Wyoming’s requirements are lower than that of other states.

Brackett says the state is attractive to some sex offenders from California in particular because California requires registration for offenders convicted of indecent exposure, but Wyoming doesn’t. He also says Wyoming does not require people convicted of sexual battery to register themselves, while many other states do.

[Attorney General] Crank said as other states beef up their sex offender policies, offenders hunt for new places to live.

Readers of my blog might know that I have this fantastical "Montana theory." Well, I am officially re-naming it the Wyoming theory. The theory states that as other states around the country start to toughen and strengthen their sex offender laws and residency restrictions, all (or most) sex offenders will move to the vast open land in Montana Wyoming. That is until Montana Wyoming passes strict sex offender laws and residency restrictions. Then we’re truly "screwed". This is exactly what is happening in Wyoming:

And so Wyoming lawmakers are pushing at least six different bills this session that aim to make Wyoming a less-welcoming place for convicted sex offenders:
– Senate File 36 would punish people who harbor unregistered sex offenders;

– Senate File 101 would create a pilot project in Natrona County requiring that those convicted of sex crimes against minors wear GPS monitoring devices;

– House Bill 19 would create stiffer penalties for incest, while Senate File 104 would rewrite the state’s statutes for sex offenses against minors;

– House Bill 157 would institute two-strikes-and-you’re-out sentencing that could result
in life imprisonment for those convicted of a second sex offense against minors;

– and House Bill 120 would require all sex offenders, regardless of their assessed risk of re-offense, to be listed on an internet database.

As the article accurately describes the Wyoming theory, it will lead to a "sort of national race in which no state wants to be seen as a destination for convicted sex offenders. States from Virginia and Vermont to New Mexico and Washington state have moved to strengthen sex offender laws recently."

Luckily, there are still some voices of reason. Rep. Jane Warren has voted against some of these measures:

"I don’t think all sex offenders are the same," Warren said. "The media is pushing, ‘You gotta do something or else you’re pro-sex-offender,’ … but we need to be cautious and not cast bills based on emotional reactivity."

Warren acknowledges that many of the sex offenders seen on television have committed heinous crimes, but says "there is a whole gamut of people who have problems and have made bad choices. I think we need to deal with each person individually, find out what went wrong."

Warren says she’s familiar with the statistics about sex offenders moving to Wyoming. But she’s not sure they are being accurately interpreted: "Do we really know that it’s because of the way our laws are, that is the reason people are moving into the state? Do we really know that? Or is it because we’ve had a lot of people moving into the state because of jobs, because we’ve got a transitory work force?"

Let’s hope this opens up more honest debate about these restrictions and laws and we come to a real solution; not a sensationalist one.

A federal judge has ruled that California’s Proposition 83, which many experts have called the toughest sex offender law in the nation, does not apply retroactively.

Passed by 70% of voters, Proposition 83 gave California what experts called the toughest sex offender law in the nation. As well as lengthening prison and parole terms for repeat and violent offenders, the measure requires registered sex offenders to wear an electronic tracking device for life.

The most controversial provision bans offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Proponents said children should not have to pass an offender’s house while walking to school, while foes said the ban would not enhance safety because most sex crimes are committed against victims the perpetrator knows.

The decision can be found here [.pdf file](thanks to Sex Crimes and HowAppealing). One convicted sex offender had the following comment:

“We have already paid the price for our crimes, and this gives us the
freedom to go on with our lives without having to pay for it again,”
said Goldenflame, an author who also runs a website to help former sex
offenders. “I am certainly buoyed by this ruling and hope other judges
follow suit.”

What is of note about him (and I’m sure many others) is that he lives in San Francisco, whose high density means that virtually the entire city would be off-limits to sex offenders. This has been of my biggest concerns about residency restrictions. Eventually all sex offenders will be living either in Montana (oops, wait!) or by highways between towns.

This is not all. The state had made the argument that Prop 83 should be likened to Megan’s law, which has been applied retroactively. The court rejected this argument as well. Another interesting twist:

Still unresolved is another case, pending in federal court in San
Francisco, involving an offender who has lived in the same Bay Area
town for more than 15 years. His lawsuit said he had completed
treatment and has led “a productive and law-abiding life” ever since.
With the passage of Proposition 83, his suit said, he “has effectively
been banished from his community” and from residential areas in
virtually every city in California.

If anyone has any information about that case, please let me know.