Sex offender residency restrictions: every source says wasteful, harmful

By Sandy . . . The Joint Standing Committee on State and Local Government in Maine and Representative Danny Martin who heads that committee are pushing for legislation that will expand residency restrictions for those on the sex offender registry in the areas of the state that have them.

Maine does not have statewide mandated residency restrictions, and a report published by another legislative committee ten years ago in Maine raises major concerns and questions about this current proposed legislation.

In 2008, that committee produced a report titled, “Maine’s Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee Study of Sex Offender Registration Laws.” It is a 37-page report representing hundreds of man-hours of research and meetings examining the effects of SORNA in their state and the alterations that were needed. SORNA, incidentally, does not require residency or proximity restrictions.

On the bottom of page 19 and continuing onto 20 of the report is a brief section dealing with residency restrictions. It acknowledges that some communities in the state have adopted these restrictions for their individual jurisdictions. And then it goes on to say:

Hearing testimony on these bills and educating ourselves about other states’ experiences with residency restrictions, the committee finds, and the research supports, that such restrictions do not increase public safety. Residency restrictions make it more difficult for sex offenders to reenter society and find stability (living and working arrangements) and make it more challenging for law enforcement to find and monitor offenders. Based on these findings, the committee recommends that the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee of the 124th Legislature considers introducing legislation that would preempt the field of sex offender management and prohibit municipalities and other entities from adopting their own restrictions on sex offenders. 

 

One little paragraph that says it all. What a shame it is that they did not proceed with the proposed legislation or, if they did, that it was not successful.

The question is, why is this current committee so determined to compound something that already has been condemned as not only ineffective but detrimental to overall public safety?

Of course, they are not the only state to do so. California, one of the harshest states historically in its erections of residency and proximity restrictions, goes directly against its own Sexual Offense Management Board, which said, “There is no research which supports the use of these strategies [residency and proximity restrictions], there is substantial research showing that such policies have no effect on preventing recidivism, and there is a growing body of research which indicates that residence restrictions actually increase sex offender recidivism and decrease community safety” (p.2).

Other states as well have jurisdictional or statewide restrictions that are in total opposition to the recommendations of the sex offender management boards that they have commissioned to give advice and oversee sexual offense laws and ordinances.

While Texas has no statewide restrictions, certain Texas cities have restrictions so stringent that registrants have been forced to give up desperately needed jobs that they were offered. There was literally no way they could navigate, by car or by bus, the route between where they lived and the location of the job without going into or through a restricted area around a school or daycare facility, and there was no place they could live closer to the job.

The report rendered by that Maine legislative committee ten years ago, that statement by the California board, and every single study or report examining the efficacy of residency and/or proximity restrictions for those on the registry are uniform in their conclusions. These restrictions are ineffective and actually harmful to public safety.

Any legislator who is advocating for such restrictions, including Rep. Danny Martin, should be made to answer directly this question: Why are you asking your constituents to spend tax dollars implementing laws that are shown by every available source to be not only useless but actually harmful to your state?

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

Sandy Rozek

Sandy is communications director for NARSOL, editor-in-chief of the Digest, and a writer for the Digest and the NARSOL website. Additionally, she participates in updating and managing the website and assisting with a variety of organizational tasks.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #38323 Reply
      Avatar
      WC_TN

      Because cold, hard facts don’t matter. This is all about a bunch of self-serving career politicians looking for the easiest, surest path to re-election, some of whom probably molest children themselves, but are rich and connected enough to keep their activities well-hidden. Politicians like Rep. Danny Martin are only playing to public prejudice.

      I hope the second the bill gets signed into law I hope a branch of NARSOL or some other similar advocacy group slaps a lawsuit on the state.

    • #38463 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim Lawver

      Being that the electronic database is being used to impose banishment reflects the intent of its original development, that is to punish in historical ways. The courts are seeing, “the clearest proof” despite their denials of it. That is what we get for untrusting our liberty to well intended professional liars representing both parties.

      Other good but obvious lies perpetrated by the like:
      Richard Nixon, “I am not a criminal”.
      George Bush, “Read my lips no new taxes”
      William J. Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.
      George Bush Jr., “There are WMD in Iraq”.
      Ron Reagan, “,We, I never authorized the sale of weapons to the Contras”.
      Barack Obama, “You can keep your coverage and your doctor” .

      So why would anyone believe in what comes from DC?I
      Nobody except those on the dole.

    • #38476 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      “… and make it more challenging for law enforcement to find and monitor offenders.”

      This would be the ONLY part of the argument that the legislature would care to listen to regarding this matter.
      Because no other criminal needs to be “monitored” like someone who offended the gawd awful laws regarding SEX!

      It truly disgusts me that this tactic of how law enforcement can’t properly monitor us is what’s always thrown into this argument. It’s no different than saying “We know they’re dangerous, so let them have places to live so we can monitor them.”

      Cuz the gang members who practically run the city streets of places like Chicago and Atlanta are NOT a danger to public safety. Nope. Only us.

    • #38742 Reply
      Avatar
      Saddles

      Actually a lot of this sex offender issue is a waste of money. One has to say to themselves for those caught up in a sex offense. we all be living in a leper colony, those that are either caught up in these sex related internet issues or those that actually do physical things.
      It would seem that governments only look at protection and don’t have compassion or know how to humble themselves or show mercy.
      If that’s the way human’s are today than I’m sure one should start reading the book “No man is an island” that might clarify things a bit or just put hash tags on those that are outcasts from society. Talk about society scandal today.

Viewing 3 reply threads
Reply To: Sex offender residency restrictions: every source says wasteful, harmful
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">