Municipalities move to further restrict, monitor sex offenders

Woodmonkey · 05-07-2005, 17:34

Quote:

Municipalities move to further restrict, monitor sex offenders

Quote:

In Binghamton, a convicted sex offender would be prohibited to even walk within a quarter-mile of a school, day-care center, playground or park, under a bill expected to be signed in days.
Advertisement

In Westchester County, satellite tracking devices are ready now for use to constantly monitor a freed sex offender's movements.

To some civil libertarians, these are extreme measures. But supporters are heartened that similarly tough local laws adopted two years ago effectively banishing offenders in Albuquerque, N.M., have survived legal challenges.

These are among the localities nationwide looking to go beyond their states' sex offender laws, even as the states themselves seek tougher restrictions under their version of the landmark Megan's Law. The law is named for a 7-year-old New Jersey girl raped and killed in 1994 by a neighbor who was a sex offender.

Most state laws and the federal statute have for a decade focused on vigilance: Web sites carry convicted sex offenders' identification, notices are sent to schools and daycare centers, and the public can ask local police if offenders live in their neighborhood.

New proposals seek to further restrict where sex offenders can live and even walk or drive once they're out of prison or off probation. New York's Senate has proposed a law requiring offenders to register for life.

Strict laws have been passed in states as different as Iowa and New Jersey and the courts are upholding them, said Professor John LaFond the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and author of "Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope with Sex Offenders."

More than two dozen states have stiffened sentences or otherwise revised their laws since 2000, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"I think these laws are constitutional," LaFond said.

But "I think they are unwise policy and a waste of resources," he said. "Sex offenders as a group are not dangerous."

The tough local laws "are symbolic gestures that politicians can enact at minimal cost to make the public feel safer," LaFond said. "But there's no research indicating these laws or mandatory registration ... reduce sexual re-offending." He said the recidivism rate of sex offenders is 18 to 20 percent, far less than assaulters and burglars.

Instead, he urges a "risk-management" approach that concentrates on the most serious offenders who are more likely to repeat their crimes. He urges intensive probation, rehabilitation and, if that fails, a return to prison.

The problem is that not even the toughest monitoring works, said Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White.

He's dealt with cases in and around Albuquerque for more than 10 years, including the case of a sex offender who, while on probation for abusing a 4-year-old girl, raped and killed a woman, he said.

"We're going to have make a decision as a society to recognize the recidivism rate of sex offenders and that the first time they commit these crimes they have to be put away for life," White said. "It's the only way to stop them."

In Binghamton, where 144 sex offenders are registered in the city of 47,000, the City Council passed a law that would prohibit convicted sex offenders from living or even passing within a quarter mile of a public or private school, park, playground or day-care center. Mayor Richard Bucci said he will sign the bill, despite civil rights concerns raised by the city attorney's office. He expects the courts to ultimately rule on the law.

"I think there is and underlying unease in communities across the nation about the presence of sex offenders," Bucci said. "I think the most recent events that have just been horrific and tragic have just raised the concern substantially higher for citizens regardless of where they live."

Those incidents include the killing of a 9-year-old Florida girl by a registered sex offender. That led Gov. Jeb Bush to sign a law this month imposing tougher penalties on child molesters and requiring many of those released from prison to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives. That becomes the nation's toughest state child-sex law.

Horrific cases "are actually statistically fairly rare," said David D'Amora, a board member for The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers based in Oregon. "They are making broad public policy on the exceptions to the rule."

New York's Westchester County has readied global positioning system bracelets for use on sex offenders.

"We just need the judges to act," said Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano.

The public reaction has been "very, very positive," Tolchin said.

When Albuquerque enacted what was then the nation's toughest sex offender law in 2003, the ACLU called it "extreme and radical." The ordinance called for pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders to notify employers they have registered. They also would have to submit DNA samples, shoe size and dental imprints and couldn't be alone with a child or live within 1,000 feet of a school. Police could also visit registered sex offenders' homes.

The law has survived court challenges, Albuquerque police said Friday.

Click here to see the source of this story

Scrappy · 05-10-2006, 21:30

Of all these things, the only one that worries me about this, and I do like that offenders would be monitored, is " Police could also visit registered sex offenders' homes." That's for the probation officer to do, not the police. Wide open door to harassment by locals to allow an open door to general law enforcement.

LOL

Quote:

"I think these laws are constitutional," LaFond said.

But "I think they are unwise policy and a waste of resources," he said. "Sex offenders as a group are not dangerous."

I wonder if LaFond has been molested/violated. Wth, they are dangerous, that's why there are laws against what they've done. That was just a dumb statement by him.

Woodmonkey · 05-10-2006, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrappy

Of all these things, the only one that worries me about this, and I do like that offenders would be monitored, is " Police could also visit registered sex offenders' homes." That's for the probation officer to do, not the police. Wide open door to harassment by locals to allow an open door to general law enforcement.

With their proven record of re-offending, I think the police should be able to visit their homes.

Quote:

"I think these laws are constitutional," LaFond said.

But "I think they are unwise policy and a waste of resources," he said. "Sex offenders as a group are not dangerous."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrappy

LOL I wonder if LaFond has been molested/violated. Wth, they are dangerous, that's why there are laws against what they've done. That was just a dumb statement by him.

That was dumb. They are very dangerous to innocent people and the ones who prey on children are very very dangerous.

dynamic_one · 05-11-2006, 08:24

The only problem I see with this is that there are so many levels of "sex offenders". There are sex offenders that have done nothing more than downloaded illegal porn on their computers. There are sex offenders that are 18 year old boys who had sex with 17 year old girl classmates who was charged because the girls parents were upset about the incident. Those offenders are lumped in with the same offenders that have done the extremes (rape, molestation, etc.). Because of this, I see a need to stairstep the classifications of sex offenders and save these radical extremes (1/4 mile in town could be within the limits of any one of those buildings) for the most hardened of them. That is, those who were actually accused of sexual contact with another individual.

Also, you have to realize that a lot of the sex offenders are not stalkers, but, people who have found themselves in an opportunistic position (guy and gal alone at the guy or girls house, etc.). Should they be treated the same as the person who actually go around, grabs a person and uses them for unwanted sex? I think not.

Perhaps what should be done is that fenced in communes should be developed for these individuals to live and their comings and goings should be monitored by chip in their shoulder? I don't know. I do know that the current system does not styme repeat offenders of the most serious of crimes. But, we cannot make it impossible for someone who's crime may have been minor, to be in a position to where they cannot live, work and perhaps seek counseling to right their wrongs.

Woodmonkey · 05-11-2006, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamic_one

The only problem I see with this is that there are so many levels of "sex offenders". There are sex offenders that have done nothing more than downloaded illegal porn on their computers. There are sex offenders that are 18 year old boys who had sex with 17 year old girl classmates who was charged because the girls parents were upset about the incident. Those offenders are lumped in with the same offenders that have done the extremes (rape, molestation, etc.). Because of this, I see a need to stairstep the classifications of sex offenders and save these radical extremes (1/4 mile in town could be within the limits of any one of those buildings) for the most hardened of them. That is, those who were actually accused of sexual contact with another individual.

I agree with the above, with the exception of the illegal porn. Since that involves kiddie-porn, snuff porn and things like that, and because they find that serious sexual offenders/predators are heavy into that, they should not be allowed to live too close to those places. Consequences of actions are hell sometimes, but this is to guard innocent people, especially children.

Quote:

Also, you have to realize that a lot of the sex offenders are not stalkers, but, people who have found themselves in an opportunistic position (guy and gal alone at the guy or girls house, etc.). Should they be treated the same as the person who actually go around, grabs a person and uses them for unwanted sex? I think not.

If this refers to people like the live-in boyfriend who molests his girlfriend's children, then yes, they should be treated like the rest of the predators, IMO. They've proven by their behavior that they can't be trusted around children.

Quote:

Perhaps what should be done is that fenced in communes should be developed for these individuals to live and their comings and goings should be monitored by chip in their shoulder? I don't know. I do know that the current system does not styme repeat offenders of the most serious of crimes.

The current system doesn't work because these people can't be cured. That's why so many states are going the civil-commitment route. In these cases, the rights of the innocent rightly outweigh the rights of the offenders/predators.

Quote:

But, we cannot make it impossible for someone who's crime may have been minor, to be in a position to where they cannot live, work and perhaps seek counseling to right their wrongs.

You mean statutory rape and some date rape cases? I agree then and don't even think they should be lumped in with the serious offenders/predators. Perhaps the statutory rape laws should be limited to those cases where the difference in ages are around 6 to 8 years. As for date rape - too many women lie about that. They get drunk and have sex with a drunk man, or simply change their minds after the fact - who's to say in these cases?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[News Feed] Senate votes to better monitor sex offenders	Forum Mouse	News Articles	0	07-29-2005 04:00
[News Feed] Feds Move to Stop Viagra for Sex Offenders (AP)