“Don’t turn good intentions into bad policy,” says NARSOL advocate Prizio of CT’s OSJ

By Dave Altimari . . . The state Senate late Wednesday passed a bill to establish a task force to study the placement of registered sex offenders in long-term care facilities, following an incident last year in which a Massachusetts man allegedly sexually assaulted a nurse at an East Windsor facility.

The task force is a compromise after the initial bill, proposed by State Sen. Saud Anwar, D-South Windsor, drew heated opposition at a public hearing. The initial bill would have required long-term care facilities to check if prospective residents have a criminal history or are on the sex offender registry before they are admitted.

The task force will study “the impacts of residents with such status for both their own and environmental health and well-being,” Anwar said in a statement. Anwar’s district includes the Fresh River Healthcare Center, where the incident occurred last May. . . .

The law currently places the burden on sex offenders themselves to register, but Anwar’s initial bill would hold the nursing home providers more accountable by requiring them to determine if any potential resident is a registered sex offender by seeking a criminal background check through the state Department of Public Health.

Anwar’s initial bill would have barred long-term care facilities from admitting people with a “disqualifying offense” without a waiver. The disqualifying offenses listed in the bill ranged from assault, rape and kidnapping to burglary, criminal mischief and trespassing.

But Anwar’s proposal drew criticism from several different organizations as a knee-jerk reaction to one incident.

Mag Morelli, president of LeadingAge Connecticut, an association representing not-for-profit provider organizations serving older adults, told the Public Health Committee that “from an implementation perspective, this proposal raises numerous concerns.”

“It appears that the facility will be barred from admitting an applicant until it receives notification of the background check from DPH. It is unclear how long an available bed might need to be held open for the duration of a background check,” Morelli said. . . .

At one point during the public hearing on the original bill, Anwar and Cindy Prizio, executive director One Standard of Justice, an advocate for restorative justice practices and a critic of the sex offender registry, got into a heated argument after she called it “a public policy disaster in the making” during her testimony.

“Please don’t allow one sensational crime to turn good intentions into bad policy,” Prizio said. “We all want to protect our vulnerable populations. OSJ stands ready to provide help to the committee in developing an effective solution.”

Prizio said there’s no “need to create a new bill every time there is an isolated high-profile incident” and that the bill is unfair to a class of people who already have had their rights “sucked dry by the system.”

Prizio endorsed Morelli’s suggestion of convening a work group to study the issue. . . .

Read Mr. Altimari’s full piece here at the CTMirror.

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

3 Thoughts to ““Don’t turn good intentions into bad policy,” says NARSOL advocate Prizio of CT’s OSJ”

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.

  1. Tim in WI

    Talk about a line with punch!
    “Pri—- said, there’s no need to create a new bill every time there is an isolated high-profile incident” and that the bill is unfair to a class of people who already have had their resources “sucked dry by the system.”

    Is he talking, all of America or just sex offenders? His focus is on offenders. Ironically they both conclude a “work group ” is necessary which also requires resources. But who works for free? I can only wonder if the DDI will be useful to that end. One thing is sure, you cannot house an old sex offender on a database.

  2. w

    They don’t care how many lives they ruin. How many cases they need to cover-up. How much they need to bury you in. Or how many people turn their backs on you in your time of need. They got jobs and they get paid, all while being as two-faced as they can handle. They don’t care if your life sucks as long as theirs is well-off. These are the “leaders” on top of everything. And they won’t miss a night’s rest over your problems. Especially now that you’re a bonafide lepper. So if you hope to survive you better get smarter, because their endless tricks come at taxpayer expense. They WILL take your life liberty and property.

  3. nmcowboy

    I have mixed feelings you bring more attention to the issue and people are more likely to support it as they now know about it. Maybe it a well meaning person had not said anything it would have been forgotten or not because politicians seem to want to,protect society from now old people that most cases can not do for themselves and live on a fixed income? Well I hope that it not q federal law one day as offenders need that last pit of hope they will have a home in old age no matter what.