NARSOL’s Texas affiliate quoted in residency restrictions issue

By Warren Brown . . . Kyle City Council will consider passing a new ordinance which would restrict where some individuals on the Texas sex offender registry can reside, regardless of whether or not the offender is on probation or parole.

The ordinance, brought to council by Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, specifically targets offenders convicted of crimes involving minors. Of the city’s 67 residents on the registry, nine were convicted of minor-related crimes. Kyle does not have the most sex offenders in the region—New Braunfels has 106—but its ratio to normal residents is greater than many neighboring cities. According to KPD data, there is one registered sex offender for every 843 residents. “We’re really focused on creating what’s identified in the ordinance as child safety zone areas, where families can reside or families can enjoy the parks and other amenities in our community and feel safe,” Barnett said.

A KPD memo attached to the ordinance said offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat offenses.

The same memo quotes a report published by the United States’ Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART), which states 44.3% of child molesters with more than one prior arrest reoffend.

However, the same SMART report also noted “the long-term recidivism rate for child molesters categorized as low risk was less than 20 percent.”

Mary Sue Molnar, chair of nonprofit advocacy group Texas Voices, said the registry is ineffective and hurts community safety. She said residency restrictions such as Kyle’s proposed ordinance are increasingly common, but create their own issues. “It’s displacing a lot of people—people that can really reintegrate and reenter society in a good way,” Molnar said. “We’re just shutting doors on them, just shutting every door we can, which seems like the opposite of what we should be doing.”

Among the key findings in the Department of Justice’s report, “Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: How Mapping Can Inform Policy,” residency restrictions were found to make it difficult or impossible for sex offenders to find housing.

The report states this can lead to sex offenders becoming homeless, which then leads to them becoming more difficult to track and monitor.

The National Institute of Justice also states, “while these laws are popular, there has been very little evidence of their effectiveness in reducing crime.”

Read the remainder of the piece here at Community Impact.

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

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #82034 Reply

      Perry P.

      Once again; LAWSUITS!
      Nuff Said.

    • #82171 Reply

      mut

      difficult to track and monitor? i dont get that. we are forced to track and monitor ourselves for free. if they had to pay somebody the fair market value of our self-surveilance services, that would be difficult. or at least very expensive.

    • #82172 Reply

      mut

      slaves and peons were provided housing, food and medical care. some were paid too.

    • #82179 Reply

      Terry

      “A KPD memo attached to the ordinance said offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat offenses.”

      This is one reason why those required to register are seen the way there are. Just spreading more lies and false information to further their own agenda for protecting NO ONE! There are more people committing violent acts and repeating their offense than any Registrant ever has or will.

      Ridiculous!

      • #82222 Reply

        Jim

        Oh, they are definitely protecting someone Terry. There are protecting their own career. Its an issue that needs to be brought to light. These career politicians use registrants to further their career. Politicians will introduce ridiculous bills with no facts to back it up, just to get their name on a bill that has an almost 100% chance of passing. It’s the easiest way. Who’s gonna vote against a bill that allegedly protects children and at the same time damns the bogeyman further into submission. This is so, ten years later this politician can stand at a podium and brag about how his bill that was passed has protected children from violent predators (again, with no facts to back it up). The whole crowd cheers and votes for them. This is another reason why we need term limits. However, in the mean time we need to start calling out these politicians and let others know the truth about why these bills are being introduced with no facts to prove they will give the alleged protections it is offering. Let the public know that they are once again being manipulated by there government and the only protection is the protection is of the career of a politician and his personal agenda.

    • #82223 Reply

      Jim

      Basically I am agreeing with you Terry. I just wanted to make clear what that agenda of theirs is.

    • #82239 Reply

      LJ

      The other thing they mislead the public about is that 98% of child abuse is committed by someone the child knows: family, church officials, and classmates at school. That’s all forms of child abuse, why only focus on sexual abuse? No one wants to think of abuse happening in their own home, but it does, and mostly from the victims own family.

      We as a society can’t protect anyone until we are honest about the real problem and address it directly. Parents who only teach their children stranger-danger are putting their children at risk. All the LE organizations claim to be protecting children. They know darn good and well what the truth is, but they push this false narrative for personal gain. Who’s the real predator?

    • #82515 Reply

      Marvin Munn

      Punishing someone for something they may do. That is against the constitution, and since they clearly stated it as a reason, that reason should take focus.

    • #82658 Reply

      Jamba

      Exactly Marvin ,
      I never could understand how they can punish ( cancel ) someone for something they THINK they MIGHT do . Under that pretext a person who gets a DWI should NEVER be allowed to drive a car ever again . I’m betting they harm WAY more children’s lives and have a higher recidivism rate than any ex – offender . But probably 1/2 of the legislators have a DWI so they ignore those facts .

Viewing 7 reply threads
Reply To: Reply #82515 in NARSOL’s Texas affiliate quoted in residency restrictions issue
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="">

Cancel