Group items tagged

As of August 2006, at least 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency restriction laws and ordinances, respectively, according to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-free zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified distance of designated places where children congregate. Like all states, Connecticut requires sex offenders to register. And like most states, police must notify residents when a sex offender moves or returns to their neighborhoods. But, the state has not enacted a law restricting sex offenders' residency. This could change soon, however. A bill, sHB 5503, currently before the General Assembly requires the Risk Assessment Board to use the risk assessment scale it develops to determine the sex offenders who should be prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of the property comprising an elementary or secondary school or a licensed center- or home-based child day care facility.

The availability of online sex offender registries has increased awareness of sexual offenders living in the community and has increased concerns for the safety of children, leading politicians to pass laws restricting where sex offenders can live. Residence restrictions typically prohibit individuals convicted of sex crimes from residing within 500-2500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, bus stops, and other places where children are commonly present. Currently, 30 state laws have been adopted to prohibit sex offenders from residing near places frequented by children, and thousands of similar municipal ordinances have been passed in cities, towns, and counties throughout the U.S.

This study examines whether county sex offender residence restrictions were associated with reduced sex crime arrest rates in New York State. In doing so, this study draws on the limited prior research regarding the effectiveness of residence restrictions, and on the extensive literature regarding the incapacitation and deterrence of crime through public policy measures. Results indicate that residence restrictions were not associated with significantly reduce arrests for sex crimes committed either by RSOs or non-RSOs against child victims. However, results suggested that these policies may generally deter some non-RSOs from sexually victimizing adults. Implications for future research and policymaking are discussed.

Recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that a policy banning registered sex offenders from entering Albuquerque's public libraries is unconstitutional. Over the past decade the availability of online sex offender registries has enabled widespread awareness of sexual offenders living in the community, increasing concerns for the safety of children and leading politicians to pass laws restricting where sex offenders can live, work and even be present. Residence restrictions in 30 states and countless municipalities typically prohibit individuals convicted of sex crimes from residing within 500 to 2500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, bus stops and other places where children congregate. Few court challenges have been successful in overturning such restrictions. Research shows that politicians and citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of such laws, which are often based on stated (but empirically unsupported) assumptions that almost all sex offenders reoffend and that they are immune to therapeutic intervention. In fact, recidivism rates of known sex offenders are much lower than commonly believed, and properly designed treatment, though not equally effective for all offenders, can significantly reduce the risk of re-offending. Restrictions also reinforce the myth of "stranger danger," despite research from the Justice Department indicating that over 90 percent of child sexual abuse victims are well known to their perpetrators, who typically cultivate opportunities for molestation through familiar relationships with relatives and acquaintances.

Public concern about the threat posed by sex offenders has inspired varied legislation designed to combat recidivistic sexual violence. For example, policies mandating sex offender registration, community notification, civil commitment, castration, "three-strikes and you're out," and nondiscretionary sentencing have been introduced. The newest wave of such statutes has come in the form of laws controlling where sex offenders can live. These restrictions prohibit sex offenders from residing within specific distances from schools or places where children congregate. Thus far, 14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee) have enacted buffer zones that prohibit sex offenders from residing within close proximity to a school, park, day care center, or school bus stop. The least restrictive distance requirement is in Illinois (500 ft), but most common are 1,000- to 2,000-ft boundaries. California lawdoes not allowcertain sex offenders on parole to live within a quarter mile of an elementary school and prohibits parolees from living within 35 miles of a victim or witness.

Jill Levenson Original Article12/04/2013Abstract: The purpose of this study was to better understand transient (homeless) sex offenders in the context of residence restriction laws. Using the entire population of registered sex offenders (RSOs)...

At first glance these types of exclusionary zoning laws, known as "sex offender residency restrictions," seem like a good idea that should help keep kids safe. Why would anyone want to allow sex offenders to be anywhere near children? The problem is these laws may do more harm than good, if they work at all. In spite of good intentions, these laws have unintended consequences that can actually make it harder to track sex offenders.   These laws make it illegal for a sex offender to live within some set distance, usually 1,000 to 3,000 feet, of places where children tend to be. Think about drawing a circle that big around every school, park, day care center, playground, library, and public building. Those circles would probably cover most, if not all, of most cities and towns, and would leave very few places for sex offenders to live. The sex offenders we're talking about can no longer be kept locked up and the system has to let them out, and so they have to live somewhere. These sex offenders have two basic choices; follow the rules and live in the few places allowed, or break the rules by trying to keep their sex offender status secret.

Individuals classified as sexual predators are the pariahs of the community. Sex offenders are arguably the most despised members of our society and therefore warrant our harshest condemnation. Twenty individual states and the federal government have enacted laws confining individuals who have been adjudicated as "sexually violent predators" to civil commitment facilities post incarceration and/or conviction. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, offenders who are returned to the community are restricted and monitored under community notification, registration and residency limitations. Targeting, punishing and ostracizing these individuals has become an obsession in society, clearly evidenced in the constant push to enact even more restrictive legislation that breaches the boundaries of constitutional protections.

Laws that restrict where registered sex offenders may live have become increasingly popular during the past decade. As of 2007, some 27 states and hundreds of municipalities had enacted laws that bar sex offenders from residing near schools, parks, playgrounds and day care centers. The specified distance from a school or other venue is typically 1,000 feet but varies from 500 to 2,500 feet, depending on the jurisdiction. The laws, which have wide public support, are modeled after Florida's "Jessica's Law," named for a nine-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped and killed by a molester. They follow the Wetterling Act of 1994 mandating sex offender registration and the 1996 Megan's Law requiring public notification when an offender moves into a community.

Overborne by a mob mentality for justice, officials at every level of government are enacting laws that effectively exile convicted sex offenders from their midst with little contemplation as to the appropriateness or constitutionality of their actions. These laws fundamentally alter the liberties and freedom of convicted sex offenders to satisfy the ignorant fear of the masses. As a result, residence and employment restrictions which in theory are to protect society, in practice only exacerbate the perceived recidivism problem. When such laws are passed and the political process is broken, it is necessary for the judicial branch to step forward and protect those who are politically impotent.

This article argues that the new preventive law focus in sex offender laws is largely ineffective and too costly to personal liberty. The application of sex offender laws involving civil commitment, sex offender registration, and residency restrictions is often based on an individualized analysis of future dangerousness, i.e., the risk the defendant will sexually recidivate. In assessing future dangerousness, experts and courts place heavy emphasis on the use of actuarial tools, basically checklists that mental health experts use to derive statistical estimates of risk. This article provides substantiation that actuarial tools, while enjoying the imprimatur of science, suffer from significant empirical faults. Yet courts are largely abandoning their gatekeeping roles in accepting the experts' testimony using actuarial tool predictions of risk without critical review as required by the Daubert and Frye evidentiary standards. The paper theorizes that this is likely a pragmatic strategy considering the current political and public thirst for retribution against sexual predators. But, use of this empirically-challenged science exacerbates the practice of applying sex offender restrictions to inappropriately labeled individuals. Finally, this article takes advantage of the interdisciplinary trend of engaging social science with the law on expert evidence. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of future dangerousness opinions within the Daubert/Frye scientific evidence frameworks. The significance of the conclusion reached in this article is clear: if the law continues to rely upon suspect science that results in the wrong individuals being subject to liberty-infringing sex offender laws, then the drain on criminal justice resources will leave the truly dangerous offenders without sufficient supervision at the risk of public safety.

The public's panic about the fear of recidivism if adjudicated sex offenders are ever to be released to the community has not subsided, despite the growing amount of information and statistically-reliable data signifying a generally low risk of re-offense. The established case law upholding sex offender civil commitment and containment statutes has rejected challenges of unconstitutionality, and continues to be dominated by punitive undertones. We have come to learn that the tools used to assess offenders for risk and civil commitment are often inaccurate and that meaningful treatment for this population is often unavailable and ineffective. Yet, society continues to clamor for legislation confining this cohort of offenders for "treatment," and, ostensibly, protection of the community, and legislatures respond quickly to these calls. This "reform legislation" often includes strict and demeaning post-release restrictions that track offenders and curb their integration into society. These "reforms" continue to show no benefit either to the public or to the individual offender. The absence of meaningful and effective treatment during confinement, combined with inhumane conditions upon release, make it far less likely that this cohort of individuals will ever become productive members of society. Only through therapeutic jurisprudence, a focus on rehabilitation, and a dedication to treating sexual offenders humanely, will it be possible to reduce recidivism and foster successful community reintegration.

Citizens across California have become increasingly concerned about sex offenders returning to their neighborhoods. They want greater assurances that these offenders will not place their children or themselves in jeopardy of victimization. As a result, laws have recently been passed that increase incarceration and community supervision periods, place restrictions on where sex offenders can reside, and prohibit them from being in specific locations.

In the early 1990s, the Minnesota legislature enacted the predatory offender registration (POR) law, which requires offenders who meet the statutory criteria to register their residences, places of employment, schools, and any vehicles owned or operated by registrants with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Since its creation nearly 20 years ago, the law has been amended several times to broaden its scope and increase the penalties for registration noncompliance. These changes to the POR law have led to a greater number of sex offenders convicted for failure to register (FTR), which has in turn resulted in more offenders coming to prison for FTR offenses. In fact, FTR is now the most common reincarceration offense for sex offenders released from prison.

What happened to nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford is every parent's worst nightmare.In February 2005 she was abducted from her home in Florida, raped, and buried alive by a stranger, a next-door neighbor who had been twice convicted of molesting children. Over the past decade, several horrific crimes like Jessica's murder have captured massive media attention and fueled widespread fears that children are at high risk of assault by repeat sex offenders. Politicians have responded with a series of laws, including the sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws that are the subject of this report.

Concern about sex offenders and their behavior is understandably a topic of great public interest. Numerous public policy proposals target the management of sex offenders in prisons and in communities post‐release. Recent examples of such proposals include, but are not limited to, enhanced sanctions for convicted and repeat sex offenders, civil commitment for predatory sex offenders, the development of sex offender registries, and the use of advanced technology to monitor sex offenders and residency restrictions.1 Unfortunately, the quality and extent of the body of knowledge concerning sex offender behavior has not kept pace with either the sophistication or potential cost of some of these proposed policies.

Sexual violence is a serious social problem and policy-makers continue to wrestle with how to best address the public's concerns about sex offenders. Recent initiatives have included social policies that are designed to prevent sexual abuse by restricting where convicted sex offenders can live, often called "sex offender zoning laws," or "exclusionary zones." As these social policies become more popular, lawmakers and citizens should question whether such policies are evidence-based in their development and implementation, and whether such policies are cost-efficient and effective in reaching their stated goals.

Original Article08/12/2013By Paul HammelLINCOLN - A newly released study (PDF) questions whether public safety has improved because of a four-year-old state law that requires all sex offenders to be listed on a public website. The law, known as ...

Original ArticleBy Charles MontaldoStudies Find They May Not Increase Public Safety Laws requiring sex offenders to register with law enforcement and notifying the public of their location may make us feel safer, but two scientific studies of th...