Monday, May 19, 2008

Do residency restrictions for sex offenders work?

State of Kansas says no

By Ben Bauman

VIDEO:

Kansas doesn't have any restrictions about where registered sex offenders can live.

Topeka — "They don't work."

That's the short answer from Kansas Corrections Secretary Roger Werholz when asked why the state doesn't have laws restricting where sex offenders can live.

"They don't work, and they actually make things more dangerous rather than make them safer."

Werholz and others point to research done in other states like Minnesota, Florida, Arkansas and Iowa, which actually has a residency restriction in place.

"Where the sheriffs, district attorneys and the victims' services organizations all came out asking that that legislation be repealed," said Werholz.

The reason they asked that the legislation be repealed is that a lot of the sex offenders who were required to register were absconding supervision, going underground, because they were losing their places to live.

KBI Offender search

Visit AccessKansas.org to see if an offender lives in your neighborhood or near your child's school. Another helpful Web site is familywatchdog.org.

Kansas has looked at imposing residency restrictions, but has so far decided against it. And the state has gone a step further and placed a moratorium against any city in Kansas putting in its own restrictions.

"What we want to do is not so much what makes us feel safer, but what makes us safer," he said. "It's not what the sex offender deserves. It's what we deserve and we deserve to live in a community and a state where our kids are as safe as possible. Residency restrictions does not deliver that."

In addition to offenders going "underground" and no longer reporting where they live, other states have found that residency restrictions can force offenders out of areas where they can get the treatment they need and away from available jobs.

Reader poll

What would you think of a state law restricting where sex offenders could live?

  • It'd be great. The more restrictions on sex offenders the safer the community's youth will be 7% 19 votes
  • It'd be great. As far as I'm concerned sex offenders lost their rights when they committed the crime. 14% 38 votes
  • I'd vote for a measure restricting residency around schools and other places children congregate, but not to the extreme. 11% 29 votes
  • I think any restrictions could put undue hardship on ex-offenders trying to integrate back into the community. 8% 21 votes
  • They've served their time and are punished enough being on the state offender registry. Why punish them any more. 19% 49 votes
  • It'd be wrong. The idea smacks in the face of freedom and individual rights. 36% 94 votes
  • No opinion. 1% 5 votes

255 total votes.

More like this

Comments

ZMan (anonymous) says...

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/

I want to first start off with saying I am NOT pro-pedophile or pro-sex offender but pro-Constitution. I am totally against any form of abuse to any animal or human being. Anybody who commits any crime should be punished. But, once that person has done the time they were convicted under, via contract, and is off parole and/or probation, they should be able to get on with their lives without all the rules and regulations. No other criminal has to live by such draconian laws, so why sex offenders? If we must do this for sex offenders, then I think, to be fair, all criminals must be under similar rules and regulations.

Now that that is out of the way, I am so glad you decided to stop by and check out my blog. I started this blog last year (around July 2006) to help spread the TRUTH about sex offender laws, issues and how they violate the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights and Human Rights. It was also created for sex offenders, so they have a one stop shop for everything related to them, so they can stay up to date on the laws, housing, etc.

When an ex-offender is forced to move from his/her home, thus having to sell it, cannot find another home within the law due to the residency "buffer" zones, get fired from their jobs due to being on the registry, cannot find a new job due to being on the registry, their husband/wife lose their jobs due to a significant other being on the registry, their children lose their friends and are harassed and bullied in school due to a family member being on the registry, thus destroying the children's lives, ex-offenders are forced into homelessness and to live under bridges, harassed by police, neighbors and probation/parole officers, have to wear "I'm a sex offender T-shirt" or have a neon green license plate on ALL their cars, have "sex offender" on their drivers license and forced to renew their licenses every year, forced from shelters during tornadoes or hurricanes, cannot give blood at some places due to being discriminated against for being on the sex offender registry, denied housing due to being on the registry, signs placed in their yards inviting harassment and ridicule from the neighbors, forced to move when the neighbors start picketing outside the ex-offenders home, the list is endless.

I THINK THIS IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, BEYOND THE EXTREME!

May 20, 2008 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

An excellent question. The short answer is NO. Residency restrictions do NOT work. There is an excellent article entitled, "SEX OFFENDERS AND RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS: AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS," at cfcoklahoma.com. I highly recommend reading it.

May 20, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

fallenone (anonymous) says...

"They don't work." You could not get a simpler answer.

May 20, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

I would very much like to see ktka do a special on the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), That is in my opinion another feel good law that destroys families, ruins children's lives and does more harm than good. SEE: Ricy's Story
here: cfcoklahona.com and here: cfcamerica.org

May 20, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

Fallon Campaign: Sex offender law makes children less safe - Fallon was right!
5/28/2008

Contact: Stacy Brenton
(515) 822-3029
stacy@fallonforcongress.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 28, 2008, (1:30 PM CDT) - Yesterday, The Des Moines Register praised Ed Fallon for his 2002 vote against a bill that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or day care centers. The Register said, ": he was frequently on the right side of issues:. He was the only House member to vote against the 2,000-foot residency restriction for certain sex offenders, a law that virtually banished them from many communities, making them harder to track, while driving up costs for law enforcement." http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml...
Coincidentally, voters in the Third District received a mailing yesterday asking them "Why does Ed Fallon think it's ok for sex offenders to live near schools?" As a backdrop, it included a photo of a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit looking though a fence at children in a playground. The mailer was sent by Boswell supporter Richard (Red) Brannan of Ankeny and had no return address.

Fallon said, "This is an example of cynical, negative politics. This mailer was sent out only a week before the election to make it look as if I support sex offenders. I call on Congressman Boswell to reject and renounce this misinformation and ask his supporters to cease their efforts to disparage my character and reputation."

Fallon says he voted against the bill because, "I knew that it would only make matters worse." He has been proven right.

Today, prosecutors, sheriffs, police and those who work with victims of sexual abuse agree that the bill was a mistake. The Iowa County Attorneys Association opposes the bill and acknowledges, "The research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children." Scott County prosecutor Bill Davis put it clearly when he said of the law, "It's the wrong path. It doesn't make anyone safe:." Common sense tells you why. The law doesn't keep sex offenders from visiting schools, as the mailer depicts; it doesn't restrict their movements at all.

In fact, most agree it has actually made children less safe. According to the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, since the law went into effect, the number of sex offenders that the system has lost track of has more than doubled.

State representative and retired state trooper, Clel Baulder said, "The residency restriction was passed on emotion and emotion has no intelligence."

"I opposed a bill that is now generally agreed to be a mistake - by prosecutors, sheriffs, police, lawmakers who supported it at the time, and those who work with the victims of sexual assault," concluded Fallon.

May 28, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,'' said Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team.

I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''

Visit cfcoklahoma.com for more in depth information

June 10, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

If this news media at large REALLY wanted good ratings they need to do honest journalism and politicians to tell the truth.

Most people are very unaware that more than 90% of all sex crimes against children are committed in the home and incest related. 80% of incest crimes go unreported. Bill OReilly will not tell you that.
The entertainment news media promotes bogus pictures concerning "stranger danger," "pedophilia" and "predator". They sensationalize for "RATINGS"! as well as self aggrandizement.
5% or less of all sex crimes are of the "predator/stranger danger". And Law enforcement does a great job of catching those individuals.
Politicians in this environment are quick to jump on this bandwagon for votes. They totally ignore all the facts and pass laws that actually endanger children.
Incest is NOT pedophilia. These is a vast difference. You won't hear that on the news or from politicians either.
Recidivist rates for incest related offenses are between 1 & 2 percent and that is without treatment. Once caught the abusers wake up. Treatment reduces the recidivist rate for that 1 to 2 percent by 50%. Treatment works.
The stranger/pedophile recidivist rate (70%), is what the news media and politicians apply to everyone. Including teens and children as young as 10 years old are put on the public registries and labeled with the same broad brush.
There are 60 MILLION individuals in this country who have been molested in an incest related abuse. 30 MILLION, 50% will go on to abuse a family member. With this type being 80% NOT reported. That leaves 1-1/2 MILLION victims, which really leaves 75 MILLION to go on to abuse a family member. STAGGERING!!!
We all need to understand the facts if we are going to have an impact on Child sexual abuse.
This is a community problem. The fear factor with the treatment centers is bogus. Residency restrictions and public registration protects no one and in fact endangers children.
If you go to my site, please look at the top article "Incest - A Family Tragedy" click on "Read More" and the link to Shazzam films and PLEASE listen to the blogtalkradio.
www.cfcoklahoma.com

June 13, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

angierose1977 (anonymous) says...

Please explain to me how allowing a sex offender live across the street from a school is going to help them? How about a whole house full? Right across the street from Highland Park HS is a halfway house full of registered sex offenders. That is no different than putting a recovering alcoholic in a bar and telling them not to drink. Where is the common sense in that? I can't imagine how keeping sex offenders away from kids infringes on their rights. To me it is keeping our kids safe, and making sure the offender doesn't relapse. How about this, along with therapy, we keep the offenders away from kids. That way they aren't tempted at all.

June 14, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

Who commits most sex crimes? Well, 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by those NOT on the registry. Family members and those known to the family commit 98% of all sex crimes. So much for stranger danger.
2nd question. Who is MORE LIKELY to committ a sex crime upon release from prison? Sex Offenders or NON-sex offenders?

For the answer, go here. www.cfcoklahoma.org and see the article, "Revisiting Department of Justice Recidivism Statistics and More Shocking Truths."

September 8, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justadadathome (anonymous) says...

As a parent of 3 children, I am all for knowing where sex offenders live. I am all for telling them where they can live.
But ONLY within the constraints of the Constitution.
If we allow anyone in power to do away with the Constitution, we all suffer.

Their are no easy answers in these situations, however, everyone needs protection under the united states constitution.

The courts need to do their jobs and sentence those Violent offenders, and those who will most likely re-offend to proper sentences which assign those state, federal and city staff to monitor and consel after release from incarceration, IF they are to be released.

Creating laws that again, RE Sentence persons who have already served their time, and restricting in a blanket manner where persons can live is unconstitutional.

If we begin throwing out the constitution like George Bush has, then soon the government will be trampling all the constitution for all citizens.

Can you follow that?

Retroactive punishment, Residency Restrictions... these things need not be.

Sentencing criminals, all criminals is where the Restrictions should come from.

ACLU Silent in Louisiana
http://www.aclusilent.wordpress.com

http://www.failamerica.blogspot.com
Families Against Ignorant Legislation

Remember:
"Justice will only exist where those not effected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended?

-Plato

September 8, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

swan2740 (anonymous) says...

The SUPREME COURT in 2002 - Offenders subject to the Act of registration are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. - 'only the clearest proof ' will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.

The sex offender registry itself , has proven to be ILLEGAL!

How Much more proof do they need? The Head Justices MUST intervene, enough is enough!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html.......

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SMITH et al. v. DOE et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

----------

No. 01-729. Argued November 13, 2002Decided March 5, 2003

EXCERPTS:

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169, as a useful framework.
IT IS NOTED: The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. While registrants must inform the authorities after they change their facial features, borrow a car, or seek psychiatric treatment, they are not required to seek permission to do so.

EXCERPTS:

This is the first time we have considered a claim that a sex offender registration and notification law constitutes retroactive punishment forbidden by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The framework for our inquiry, however, is well established. We must "ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish 'civil' proceedings." Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 (1997). If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is " 'so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention' to deem it 'civil.' " Ibid. (quoting United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-249 (1980)). Because we "ordinarily defer to the legislature's stated intent," Hendricks, supra, at 361, " 'only the clearest proof ' will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty," Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 100 (1997) (quoting Ward, supra, at 249); see also Hendricks, supra, at 361; United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290 (1996); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 365 (1984).

September 9, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MSLGW (anonymous) says...

Federal Judge Stops New State Sex Offender Law

A federal judge Wednesday put a stop to a new state sex offender law. The law would have reclassified sex offenders putting them in categories based on the crimes they committed.

Opponents say the new system is unfairly targeting non-dangerous offenders.

Read more:
www.cfcoklahoma.org

September 10, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )