“Not a single piece of evidence” supporting sex offender residency restrictions

image_pdfimage_print

It’s a chilling image: the sex predator skulking in the shadows of a swing set, waiting to snatch a vulnerable child.

Over the past two decades, that scenario has led to a wave of laws around the country restricting where people convicted of sex offenses may live — in many cases, no closer than 2,500 feet from schools, playgrounds, parks or other areas where children gather. In some places, these “predator-free zones” put an entire town or county off limits, sometimes for life, even for those whose offenses had nothing to do with children.

Protecting children from sexual abuse is, of course, a paramount concern. But there is not a single piece of evidence that these laws actually do that. read full editorial in NY Times

image_pdfimage_print
Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

8 Thoughts to ““Not a single piece of evidence” supporting sex offender residency restrictions”

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please don not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Eddie

    When the registry first began it was considered constitutional because it was about notification ONLY!

    How is it that adding a fee (fine) to register and restricted from public access NOT PUNITIVE!

    WE need a lawyer who knows how to prove this and get the job done the right way!

  2. Eddie

    When the registry first began it was considered constitutional because it was about notification ONLY!

    How is it that adding a fee (fine) to register and restricted from public access NOT PUNITIVE?!

    WE need a lawyer who knows how to prove this and get the job done the right way!

  3. Jay

    This quagmire is known as spook politics, where heavy handed judges and legislators knee jerk with no consequential compass. Enacted laws to display unwavering thought or consideration of scenarios to go awry in the abyss. I interject to say the least , regarding “fees” to be paid upon registry. If in fact one fails to pay fees whether quarterly or annual punitive retaliation convenes from that point, making an a administrative measure a form of conditional punishment. Now for something to not be considered cruel and unusual , it must not be construed as excessive or against normalcy. That being said, counties and municipalities that do charge, skirt the law and constitution closely as possible in order to cushion revenue. Merely there are some jobs that administratively exsist due to regisrtation requirements which intend for the policy and procedure to dually become the ultimate responsibilty of the offender. This nation negates the purpose of the constitution to lend way to draconian demise. Every rule, challange and condition is contradictory to the intent of free world. Any natural born citizen would be disgusted once they themselves or a close love one becomes a registrant. Trust me, no matter how big or small the deed!. Don’t ever let this schematic tryst define who you are past your misjudgment or past indiscretions. And never say ” no not me ever” for the day and hour is never promised or guranteed. A nation is only seen as a sovereignty if it abides by its own given creed instead of greed.

  4. Phil

    Can we also get an attorney to prove that people with sex offenses are also no more a danger to SOCIAL MEDIA than those with NO sex crimes? Let’s face it, people with NO CRIMINAL RECORDS commit FIRST TIME OFFENSES every day!!! So if sex offenders cannot use Facebook then NO ONE should and then we’ll ALL be safe.
    I’ve had a FB page for more than 4 years made for me by a family member so that I could stay in contact with friends, relatives, post fun stuff regarding me and my partner as well as simply keeping up with the Jones’s of what’s going on in the world (FB is also a news media outlet not just a chat and pic share site) and somehow, someway, after 4 yrs on Facebook, my account was disabled by FB with a notice that I am “ineligible” to use Facebook.
    Facebook can go F themselves. Who are THEY to determine if I am any danger to anyone? This is 2015 and time moves FORWARD not BACKWARD. Pretty soon they’re gonna have to give in to allowing sex offenders to use ALL social media as it’s becoming our way of life ALL OVER THE DAMN WORLD.
    So aside from just residency restrictions, let’s fight the entire issue here across the board against these corporate idiots and government officials who keep pushing FEAR down everyone’s throats.

    1. rwvnral

      You have a cause of action since you have suffered harm. Have you explored finding an attorney to represent you? What state are you in? As a publicly-traded company, FB’s privilege to impose a blanket prejudicial policy is questionable, and certainly worthy of challenge. But it will require 1) a handful of plaintiffs who have been harmed (thrown off FB), 2) an experienced attorney willing to represent the plaintiffs, and 3) several thousands of dollars to get the case filed and developed. RSOL would likely be happy to join such a challenge.

      1. Phil

        I’m in Connecticut and I guess to some extent you could say I was “harmed” by being kicked off of FB because FB has a crap load of ‘GROUPS” which consist of various things such as JOB SEARCHING GROUPS and COLLECTOR groups.
        I have a vast collection of classic movie memorabilia that’s worth a lot of money, and when places like eBay don’t work out for me due to their unGodly seller fees, I’ve taken to the groups in FB to sell my original movie posters, old collectible VHS movies that haven’t even made it to DVD yet and other collectibles all movie related. So FB was also a way for me to make a few bucks when I’ve had bouts of unemployment.
        I’ve also posted in the JOB groups looking for work.
        I would love to start a law suit against their prejudice but I know it would certainly cost a lot of money. However, if I were an attorney, I’d take a case like this Pro-Bono just for the exposure because if I were to win as an attorney, that would gain a lot of potential future clients that would want me to represent them. But an attorney doing that just for the purpose of making a point to FB is highly unlikely. So sad.
        Though I’d love to know HOW Facebook even figured out that I’m a RSO since it was a relative that made the page for me under HER own name and e-mail address to begin with. And the original intention for the page was to sell my items in the collector groups after realizing I was losing so much money to eBay and their over-priced seller fees.

  5. Mike

    I understand that the crimes that precipitated these draconian registration laws were horrendous. There should be a public response. I think all can agree with that. However, the 03 Doe decision where in their infinite black robed wisdom the SCOTUS decried that registration was not punishment, but a remedy needed to promote the public health. That was a stretch. The legislative response was to open the gates to all sorts of hoops for citizens to jump through. Initially, the laws were based on what legislators thought might protect the public. However, we now have more than a decade of data which shows that the laws are totally ineffective. The facts behind the logic of the SCOTUS 03 decision, were not really facts but merely opinion.
    It seems to me that there should be some challenges to registration laws on the basis of a violation of substantive due process. That is if the law does not do what it is supposed to do, what is the point of the law? The same lack of facts to substantiate the effectiveness of registration laws, would seem to suggest that a case could be made that the laws are unconstitutional on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment. Living under a bridge to adhere to totally ineffective rules is not cruel?

  6. Sub Human

    I have come to know first hand that the Sex Offender Registry is only about increasing punishement and political gains for those whom will climb the sheeples ladder of fear. All scientific data totally destroys the whole concept of primary concern of recidivism. No first time offender is on the witch registry. Recidivism is spouted off by evil minds as the main reason for these statutes but that is a total lie. This Nation has now taken In GOD We Trust and certain parts of the constitution and thrown them to the wind. All to climb upon you the sheeple because you are to lazy to read to lazy to not hate and institute more mental health and a more encouraging society. The sex offender registry is not only PUNISHEMNT but CERTAINLY CRUEL, as these laws claim offenders are anti social while making laws that drive those whom have rebuilt their lives from any meaningful chance to be social. This is the most despicable set of statues because those in power have designed this to b e the precedent setter for other styles of registries as you see now emerging. By choosing a category of crime whereby there is a much more difficult path to even have a legal voice they played their best game. Now in future years it will be challenged more and more. WHO DO YOU KNOW THAT HAS COMMITTED A CRIME WHAT REGISTRY IN THE FUTURE WILL THEY OR YOU BE ON. MAYBE THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND