NARSOL affiliate files lawsuit in Connecticut

By Anthony Branciforte . . . WINDSOR LOCKS — An anonymous resident and an advocacy group that represents accused and convicted sex offenders have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the town’s 10-year-old policy barring people on Connecticut’s sex offender registry from a number of public places.

The organization, Connecticut for One Standard of Justice, says the town’s “child safety zones” — which include the local parks, public schools, library, Town Hall gymnasium, and Senior Center — violate both the First and 14th amendments.

The policy does carve out an exception that allows those on the registry to vote at polling places in restricted buildings, though they are required to immediately leave the premises after their vote is cast.

The lawsuit asks that the policy be overturned.

The plaintiffs are represented by Audrey Felson of Stamford-based criminal defense and personal injury firm Koffsky & Felsen LLC, as well as Paul Dubbeling, a North Carolina-based lawyer and former prosecutor for the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corp.

“The plaintiffs are subjected to substantial discrimination, prejudice, and irrational fears because of false concerns of an ‘alarmingly high’ recidivism rate among a discrete category of citizens,” Felson said in a statement, referencing language in the town’s policy pertaining to the likelihood that someone on the registry will re-offend.

The organization takes issue with that claim, citing two studies from the state’s Office of Policy Management examining recidivism rates in the five- and 10-year periods after a person’s first sexual offense.

Those studies found those rates to be 3.6 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively.

“By ostracizing these citizens, by shutting them out of public life, we do nothing to make our towns safer,” Dubbeling said.

Neither study specifically examined those who have been convicted of child-based offenses, nor does the town’s policy, despite language specifically addressing sex crimes against children, narrowly apply to those offenders.

Read the remainder of the article here at the Journal Inquirer.

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

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 do 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.