CA - Peaceful Protest to be held in the City of Carson on March 7

Original Article

02/17/2015

California RSOL will lead a peaceful protest in the City of Carson on Saturday, March 7, in order to highlight the harm done by the city’s sex offender ordinance. That ordinance bans registered citizens from being present in or within 300 feet of public places including the library, parks and swimming pools as well as private places including fast food restaurants that have a children’s playground.

The peaceful protest will begin at Carson City Hall at 10 a.m. near the water fountain. Registered citizens, family members, and all who support them are invited to join the event. Refreshments will be served.

“This is a unique opportunity for registered citizens and those who support them to show up, stand up and speak up,” stated California RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.

The event will include a march to John D. Calas Sr. Park near the intersection of 223rd and Cluff Streets. The current city law prohibits registered citizens from visiting this park, however, family members and supporters are welcome there. Registered citizens will be served lunch at a distance outside the 300-foot limit.

See Also:

• Monthly Meeting April 11, Lobbying April 10/11 in Sacramento

WI - Milwaukee May Restrict Where Sex Offenders Can Live

Original Article

07/11/2014

By LATOYA DENNIS



The city may limit where ex-offenders can live, because many surrounding communities have done so, resulting in a high rate of placement in the city.

When sex offenders leave prison, state law demands that they return to the county where they had lived prior to incarceration. Nearly 90 percent of the sex offenders who came from Milwaukee County, now live in the City of Milwaukee, because of restrictions suburbs enacted.

Ald. Michael Murphy says the city asked the state to intervene, but because it has not, leaders here may also limit the neighborhoods where ex-offenders can live.

“You will have 117 locations to consider for your future placement, and in reality it will be more like 15 or less and what that impact will be to your operations,” Murphy says.

Under legislation a Common Council committee advanced Thursday, sex offenders could not live within 2,000 feet of a daycare, school, playground and other places where children congregate.

Murphy says if the full council agrees, there will only be one square mile within city limits where sex offenders could live.

Ald. Bob Bauman says while he has opposed residency limits in the past, they will now get his full support, for one reason.

“It increases the perception of Milwaukee as a crime infested second rate place to live and the suburbs are great and look, we can keep out all the undesirable people. And I’m just sick and tired of that paradigm being in place. And the state seems unconcerned because these are Republican suburbs by in large, and heaven forbid those representatives are going to take on these uniform residency rules. So enough is enough the city is going to join the party and it’s your problem now,” Bauman says.

The state Department of Corrections had a representative on hand at Thursday’s hearing, Melissa Roberts. She says if the map for placements changes, authorities could lose track of sex offenders. Right now, many do reside in the city, and police know where.

“The intent of the sex offender registry is to know where sex offenders live and to be able to provide that information to the general public and to law enforcement. Where there are registry restrictions in place and sex offenders don’t have a place to live we obviously have increased homelessness. So we do not know where they live and cannot follow them,” Roberts says.

Roberts says sex offenders are more of a danger to the public when they’re off the grid versus being monitored. When it comes to complaints about the high concentration of sex offenders placed in Milwaukee, Roberts says the majority are from the city.

The issue will come before the full board on July 22.

CA - Do Residency Bans Drive Sex Offenders Underground?

Original Article

07/07/2014

By Steven Yoder

Early last year, Los Angeles set aside a sliver of land in its Harbor Gateway neighborhood for the city’s newest and smallest park: two jungle gyms on a fifth of an acre.

The project was more than just an effort to increase the city’s green space. City Council members made clear that one of the park’s principal reasons for existence was to force 33 people on the California sex offender registry who were living in a nearby apartment building to move out. State law bars those on its registry from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

“We came together, working with the police department, to problem-solve, to send a message that Harbor Gateway cannot be dumped upon with a high number of registered sex offenders,” councilman Joe Buscaino said (Video) at the park’s opening.
- Just imaging how much money would be wasted if all grandstanding politician were to put pocket parks all over the state just so they can "look tough" on ex-sex offenders?  That is all this is, grandstanding!

But the state ban itself already clusters registrants into a limited number of areas, according to a September 2011 report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, which was created by the state legislature to advise it on sex offender policies.

California hasn’t been alone in its tough approach to ensuring that formerly incarcerated sex offenders pose no danger after they are released. As part of a wave of new sex offender laws starting in the mid-1990s, about 30 states and thousands of cities and towns passed such residency restrictions—prompting in turn a pushback from civil liberties advocates, state legislators and registrants themselves who argued the restrictions were not only unduly harsh but counterproductive.

But a court decision in Colorado last year could mark a shift in momentum.

In the Colorado case, _____, a high school soccer coach convicted in 2001 for a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student, was sentenced to seven years’ probation and put on the state sex offender registry.

Eleven years later, in 2012, he and his wife bought a house in the city of Englewood. But the police department told him he couldn’t live there because of a city ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds—a law that effectively made 99 percent of its homes and rentals off limits to offenders.

Englewood police also warned offenders that even in the open one percent, if they contacted a homeowner whose property wasn’t for rent or for sale, they could be charged with trespassing.

_____ sued, and last August a federal court concluded that the city’s ban went too far.

The judge ruled that it conflicted with the state’s existing system for managing and reintegrating sex offenders and could encourage other towns and cities to do the same, effectively barring offenders from the entire state. Englewood has appealed, but two of the state’s five other cities that have residence bans have softened their restrictions since the decision.

The other three are awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to John Krieger of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which represented Ryals.

Read the rest of the article

OK - Thousands come off sex offender list months after new law

Original Article

05/13/2014

By La'Tasha Givens

A new law took thousands off the sex offender registry.

Exposing yourself near a playground, urinating in public or peeping in a bathroom stall are just some of the actions that have landed thousands of people on the sex offender registry.

Now many of those names are disappearing from the list.

“If you were to slap a woman on the behind, that would be sexual battery and you would have to register for 15 years and that has nothing to do with children on the playground,” said attorney David Slane. “People who urinated in public or fall under what we call the Romeo and Juliet situation, where the young man may have been just a little bit older than the girl or vice versa. They’re the ones typically being removed.”

Slane said he’s taken on over 400 sex offender cases, more than anyone else in the state.

In many situations the offenders were on the list way past their punishment because the laws kept changing.

“They’ve had a number of changes or revisions of sex offender registration act over the last ten or 15 years and the court said those later laws could not apply retroactively,” said Jerry Massey spokesperson for the Department of Corrections (DOC).

Out of the 2,400 now off the list, Slane said most are level one or level two offenders which does not include those who committed violent and heinous sex crimes.

He also said under the new law a judge is able to decide a punishment on a case by case basis and not paint all offenders with a wide brush.

Slane said, “The more serious cases are the one we should spend our resources on, not someone who urinated in public.”

DOC officials say they still have another 2,700 cases to review to see if there are more offenders who are eligible to come off the list based on the new law.

CA - Santa Maria attorney files sex offender lawsuit against Lompoc

Original Article

04/23/2014

A Santa Maria attorney has filed a complaint in federal district court on behalf of a Grover Beach resident against the city of Lompoc over a sex offender ordinance the city adopted, claiming it violates both the federal and state constitutions.

Attorney Janice Bellucci, who also serves as president of the California chapter of the nonprofit organization Reform Sex Offender Laws, filed the complaint on behalf of registered sex offender _____, 61, who serves as a board member for the chapter.

In 1979, _____ was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, according to the State of California Department of Justice, Megan’s Law sex offender database. He has no other subsequent felonies within the state of California, according to the database.

“We filed the lawsuit because we are protecting the Constitution. That is what’s important to us,” Bellucci said.

Lompoc Mayor John Linn said the city’s ordinance, titled “Registered Sex Offender Residency Prohibitions,” was put in place in an effort to “strike a balance between letting registered sex offenders live their lives while still protecting the women and children in our community.”

According to Linn, the Lompoc Police Department and the City’s Attorney’s office worked together to devise an ordinance to best fit the city.

“State law allowed us to put the ordinance in place,” Linn said.

In her complaint, Bellucci argues the ordinance bans sex offender registrants from residing in “vast parts of the city of Lompoc by virtue of 2,000-foot ‘residential exclusion zones’ surrounding the perimeter of certain locations.”

The complaint alleges that the ordinance also significantly restricts registrants’ access to public facilities and bans them from loitering near any privately owned business with the “child safety zones” around certain establishments and facilities.

Registrants are prohibited from loitering anywhere on the grounds or within 300 feet of schools, parks, day care centers, public libraries, school bus stops, playgrounds and any location that holds classes or group activities for children.

Sex offenders who violate the ordinance are subject to punishment including incarceration up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation, according to Bellucci.

“The Lompoc ordinance violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,” she said.

In the complaint, the attorney has asked that the ordinance be declared null and void as “unconstitutionally vague” and request the Central District court allow _____ to recover all reasonable attorney’s fees, cost and litigation expenses from the city of Lompoc.

“This is a civil rights issue. Our hope is that the city of Lompoc will do the right thing and repeal their ordinance,” Bellucci said.

Linn said he and the Lompoc City Council will address the merits of the complaint once they are served with the lawsuit and they have had the opportunity to review it.

“Apparently, we are not alone. Other cities have been sued from what I understand,” Linn said.

Bellucci has sent out warning letters to more than 70 cities within California to let them know they could be sued if they did not repeal their ordinances. El Centro and Costa Mesa have repealed their ordinances, while cities including Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena agreed not to enforce their ordinances at this time. Pomona, South Lake Tahoe, National City and Carson have been sued.

CA - Sex offender wants parks proximity (Poll)

National City's Butterfly Park

Original Article

There is also a poll available so please click the link above and take it.

04/10/2014

By Ashly McGlone

Grover Beach resident asserts rights for National City visit

A registered sex offender in San Luis Obispo County is suing cities across the state, claiming he has every right to go near schools and parks — and National City has become his latest target.

_____, 61, of Grover Beach, was convicted in 1979 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14. His attorney, Janice Bellucci, says he has relatives in National City and wants to visit.

She sued the city in federal court last week over its ban on sex offenders being within 300 feet of a school, day care center, arcade, playground, park or amusement center.

Bellucci, president of the California chapter of the nonprofit Reform Sex Offender Laws, has warned more than 70 California cities, including Santee and La Mesa, that they could be sued if they don’t repeal their ordinances.

In response to her warnings, Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their prohibitions, while Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena have agreed to not enforce their rules for now, she said. Earlier this year, Bellucci sued Pomona and South Lake Tahoe as part of the same effort. She argues that the cities have passed sex offender regulations that go beyond what state law allows.

The National City Council passed the restrictions in 2005, and violators are subject to misdemeanor charges punishable by up to a year in jail or up to a $1,000 fine each day of the violation, or both.

In her lawsuit, Bellucci has asked the U.S. District Court to declare National City’s rules void — and to have the city pay her attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

In two decisions on Jan. 10 involving other lawyers and clients, the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down rules enacted by Irvine and Orange County requiring sex offenders to obtain permission from local government officials before entering a city or county park.

“The state intended to fully occupy the field of regulating registered sex offenders,” therefore the added rules conflict with state law and are void, the three-judge panel wrote in both decisions.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is seeking California Supreme Court review of the rulings.

National City Mayor Ron Morrison said city police were told to not enforce the city’s “innovative” ordinance after the Orange County decisions came down, but it would be premature to repeal the law before finding out if the Supreme Court will review the case.

The state regulates whether sex offenders can live near a park or school — or enter one. National City’s law goes further by creating a buffer zone and saying sex offenders cannot even go near such places.

Under California law, sex offenders could “wake up in the morning and walk a quarter of a mile and hang on the chain link fence at a nursery school,” Morrison said. “People expect us to do whatever we can to protect children...This was another tool in the tool box.”

In 2011, San Diego lost a legal challenge to its 2008 Child Protection Act on the same grounds, and removed its 300-foot buffer that was modeled after National City’s ordinance.

The lawsuit filed last week says that National City’s ordinance is overbroad and ends up blocking access to public transit locations and private businesses like grocery stores, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, doctor’s offices or hospitals, even where a sex offender would have “a legitimate purpose to visit, be employed and/or conduct commerce.”

“The ordinance imposes numerous life-long restrictions within the boundaries of National City which significantly restrain the civil liberties of all persons required to register as a sex offender,” the lawsuit states.

Morrison, in his eighth year as mayor and 22nd year on the council, said, “If you are a registered predatory sex offender on children, I am sorry you don’t get all your rights. You don’t get unlimited rights.”

Jessica’s Law — passed by California voters in 2006 — prohibits sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park and requires lifetime satellite monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. It also made it a misdemeanor for a registered sex offender to enter any school building or school grounds without lawful business and written permission from the school’s chief administrator.

Chelsea’s Law passed by state legislators in 2010 prohibited sex offenders who serve jail time for offenses against children under 14 from entering parks without permission from their parole agent. Sex offenders must also follow a number of other rules outlined in the state’s Penal Code.

There are at least 68 registered sex offenders living in National City, according to the Megan’s Law online database.

FL - Anti-sex offender playground recognized

Original Article

04/07/2014

By Frank Fernandez

DAYTONA BEACH - Keeping children and neighborhoods safe will be the topic of a press conference on Wednesday at a playground built to bar sex offenders from the Bayberry Lakes neighborhood.

Lauren Book, a survivor of child sexual abuse at the hands of her nanny, is stopping at the playground from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Wednesday as part of her fifth annual “Walk In My Shoes,” a 1,500-mile trek to raise awareness about child sexual abuse, promote laws to protect children and help survivors heal, said Claire Vansusteren, communications director for Lauren’s Kids.

“They created this park specially to keep sexual predators out of their neighborhood,” Vansusteren said. “That’s why we wanted to walk through that particular neighborhood to raise awareness and pay tribute to what they have done.”

The playground in Bayberry Lakes combines with a state law prohibiting sex offenders whose victims were younger than 16 from living within 1,000 feet of a school, child care facility, park or playground, and a city ordinance that bars them from 2,500 feet from such a facility.

The playground is on Cinderberry Lane between Thornberry Branch Lane and Bayberry Lakes Boulevard.

Book will be joined by Assistant State Attorney J. Ryan Will, who came up with the idea for the playground.

NH - Sex offender housing restrictions do more harm than good

Original Article

03/31/2014

Of all the constituents that politicians want to help out, sex offenders probably rank at the very bottom of the list. But the New Hampshire Senate should summon the courage to do just that. By helping sex offenders, as strange as it sounds, the Senate will end up making life safer for everyone else.

At issue is legislation that would ban cities and towns from placing broad restrictions on where sex offenders may live. Several communities have attempted such restrictions, and lower-court judges have already struck down two as unconstitutional: one in Franklin and one in Dover. In both cities, local officials wanted to keep convicted sex offenders from living too close to places where children regularly gather: schools, day care centers and playgrounds. Several other communities still have such ordinances on the books, among them Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen.

The impulse to keep sex offenders away from kids via zoning is completely understandable. But there is strong reason to resist. And there is strong reason to set such policy at the state level, rather than leaving it to individual communities.

A growing body of evidence – gathered not just by civil liberties lawyers, but from law enforcement officers, public officials and child advocacy groups – suggests that residency restrictions are placebo pills at best and counterproductive at worst. Such ordinances give communities a false sense of security while driving sex offenders underground or into rural areas where they can’t access the services that give them the best chance at rehabilitation.

An Iowa study, for instance, showed that sexual-abuse convictions had remained steady since statewide residency restrictions went into effect five years earlier but that the number of sex offenders failing to register their addresses with local police departments, as the law required, had more than doubled.

And a study in the journal Federal Probation draws a clear link between housing instability – an obvious consequence of residency ordinances – and criminal recidivism. Instead, it suggests a strategy of identifying and carefully monitoring the highest risk offenders and creating stable lives for the rest through treatment and access to housing, jobs and services.

In New Hampshire, where most towns are small and housing options that aren’t close to playgrounds and schools are sometimes scarce, such ordinances also have the effect of pushing sex offenders out of one community and into the next in a desperate search for decent housing – hardly fair to them or to those communities.

That’s why state-level legislation makes sense.

The legislation banning communities from enacting or enforcing such residency restrictions has passed the House, but Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro expressed skepticism in an Associated Press interview that it would get through the Senate. “The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack,” Bradley said. “I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions – like in proximity of schools and day-care centers – will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings.”

But the court rulings, which so far do not include the state Supreme Court, are not the best argument to counter Bradley’s fear. More persuasive is that senators who truly want to protect kids and others from attacks from New Hampshire’s 2,500 registered sex offenders, are actually heading in the wrong direction with such restrictions.

When a sex offender has served his sentence, it is in everyone’s interest that he succeed on the outside. Passing this bill would help.

NH - Bill would ban limits on sex offender residency - Court rules them unconstitutional, but politicians don't want to look "soft" on crime!

Original Article

03/29/2014

By LYNNE TUOHY

CONCORD (AP) - New Hampshire lawmakers are considering whether to bar municipalities from restricting where the state's more than 2,500 registered sex offenders can live in light of court rulings that found the restrictions are unconstitutional.

The House passed the proposed ban by a vote of 231-97 in February. The bill now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it faces an uphill battle.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged sex offender residency restrictions first in Dover, then in Franklin.

In the most recent ruling in 2012, a Merrimack County Superior Court judge said Franklin officials failed to show that barring sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, day care or playground protects children. A judge in 2009 struck down Dover's ordinance on similar grounds.

"Many individuals in law enforcement have said the restrictions have the opposite effect," said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. "They discourage sex offenders from registering and make it more difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them. It drives them underground."

Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen still have residency restrictions, Chaffee said.

"That's why this is really a state issue," Chaffee said. "When one town adopts these restrictions, it can push these individuals out of that city or town."

There were 2,566 registered sex offenders living in New Hampshire in December 2013, according to data compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. State law requires sex offenders to register with the police department of the town in which they reside but puts no restrictions on where they can live, leaving that to local governments.

_____, 32, of Nashua, was convicted in 2010 of felonious sexual assault for having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 25. He maintains the sex was consensual. Since his conviction, he has found it difficult to find housing.

"I had that one mistake," _____ said Friday. "It's not like I'm stalking little 3-year-olds. Trying to survive afterward has become harder than the original charge."

His sister offered to let him live in her home in Hudson, then discovered police had hand-delivered letters to her neighbors detailing _____' criminal conviction. His sister told him he could no longer live there because she feared her children would be bullied, he said.
- Even the public knows the online registry and notifications put lives in danger!

Hudson police say they have no residency restrictions but confirm their practice is to deliver notices to residents when a sex offender moves into a neighborhood.

"Each city has its own strict rules," _____ said. "It's like they set you up to fail."

Half the states have laws restricting where sex offenders can live. California's statute was recently found unconstitutional by an appeals court, and a higher court is likely to decide the question. In some places, tight regulations have made it nearly impossible for sex offenders to find a place to live. In 2007 in Miami, more than 100 sex offenders created a camp under a bridge because of strict limits on where they could live.

In the New Hampshire town of Franklin, Town Manager Elizabeth Dragon said its ordinance was amended to remove the residency restrictions after the court ruling. But she opposes a state law, saying other municipalities should have the opportunity to pursue a state Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the restrictions. Franklin withdrew its appeal of the lower court ruling.

"Something that works for one community may not work for another," she said.

Dragon also stressed that the court rulings could change if research links residency restrictions to public safety.

Tilton Police Chief Robert Cormier said his department is not actively enforcing the town's residency restrictions in light of the court rulings.

"The main focus here is really stringent registration and monitoring," Cormier said. "That's the biggest piece for us."

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, predicts the bill won't pass the Senate.
- Yeah, they don't want to look "soft" on criminals, especially "sex offenders!"

"The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack," Bradley said. "I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions — like in proximity of schools and day care centers — will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings."

Rep. Carol McGuire, a Merrimack Republican, said she co-sponsored the bill because she doesn't think residency restrictions are effective.

"Since other towns were trying to do the same thing, it seemed the sensible thing to do, to head them off at the pass," McGuire said.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan hasn't decided whether to sign the bill if it passes the Senate. Most Republicans in the House voted against the ban.

"The governor will listen to the views of law enforcement, local communities, advocates, victims and all stakeholders as the measure is considered by the Senate," Hassan spokesman Marc Goldberg said.

MA - Limiting where sex offenders live in Mansfield

Ronald Sellon

Original Article

03/27/2014

By Susan Parkou Weinstein

Police Chief Ronald Sellon has submitted a Town Meeting article that would restrict where the more serious sex offenders could live in Mansfield.
- We are willing to bet he will be running for congress or similar office soon.

Sellon said the sex offender registration and residential safety zone would bar Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within a 1,000-foot buffer of places such as schools, daycare centers and playgrounds and better protect children, developmentally disabled adults and other vulnerable members of the local population.

"This is an effort to further safeguard people in the community," he told selectmen Wednesday night.

There are three Level 3 and 25 Level 2 sex offenders living or working in town who have registered with police as required by law. They must register every year and the information is public. But there are no restrictions barring them from living close to a school and similar locations unless there is a provision in their probation or parole, Sellon said.

Police have been checking the compliance status of the local registered Level 2 and 3 offenders and found one Level 2 not in compliance this week. That number may change in the coming weeks, Sellon said.

According to the state sex offender registry board, Level 1 sex offenders are the least likely to reoffend and do not pose enough danger to be named publicly.

Level 2 and Level 3 offenders are considered at moderate risk and high risk to reoffend, respectively.

A dozen cities and towns in the state have adopted the stricter laws.

Sellon said he was also looking into joining a regional team to locate sex offenders and take more aggressive steps to document their whereabouts.

Selectmen said they would support the article.

"This sounds like a great idea to me," Selectman Doug Annino said.

WI - Residents seek fix for sex offender clusters in older neighborhoods

Original Article

If you want a fix for this then remove the residency restrictions, then offenders can live where they want and will not be clustering in your neighborhood due to the buffer zones.

03/15/2014

By Jennifer K. Woldt

Areas of Oshkosh once filled with modest single family homes and owner-occupied duplexes have slowly transformed into a neighborhood where those residences have been converted into multi-family homes or boarding houses that have cheap rent.

Those rental properties in the central city and on the city’s east side have, over time, become magnets for sex offenders who return to the city following release from prison. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections, which authorizes sex offender placements, says it’s a matter of pure economics — affordable rent, access to public transportation and other advantages make it a natural fit for offenders moving back into the community.
- It's a matter of residency restrictions that cause the clustering and does nothing to prevent crime or protect anybody.  You remove this and most of this goes away!

But residents of those neighborhoods are increasingly bristling at shouldering what they feel is an unfair burden, where clusters of offenders are driving down home values and contributing to the deterioration of their neighborhoods.

Those residents understand offenders need a place to live and are not trying to ban sex offenders from living within Oshkosh, they do not understand why the placement of offenders cannot be spread throughout the city.

“(Department of Corrections) need to realize they can’t use one city, one neighborhood, as a dumping ground,” said Oshkosh Councilor Steve Cummings, who has made neighborhood revitalization a central focus of his two terms on the common council.

Of the 201 registered sex offenders that live in Oshkosh, 126 offenders, or 63 percent, live in the area that encompasses the 54901 zip code, with high concentrations of offenders on some blocks and, in some instances up to five offenders living in a single boarding house.

In Oshkosh, there are eight addresses that are home to multiple offenders, according to the state’s sex offender registry.

Some cities have adopted ordinances to attempt to disperse offenders or to bar them from living within a certain distance of parks, schools and other locations. Oshkosh does not have such an ordinance, but residents of impacted neighborhoods have begun arguing that it’s time of the city to take a hard look at correcting the imbalance in offender locations.

“Our neighborhood is not suggesting extreme residency restrictions,” said Lori Palmeri, who lives in a central city neighborhood west of Main Street. “We’re looking at a solution that would be a guided placement based more on dispersion and density to prevent clustering.”

DOC silent on placements

The Department of Corrections declined multiple Northwestern phone and email requests over the past month for an interview to explain the role the department plays in determining where an offender will live.

In declining the request, a DOC spokesperson responded with an email that said in most cases, offenders are required to live in the county where they were convicted after they are released from prison, unless they have no ties to the county other than the offense. In those cases, the offender is able to live in their county of residence at the time of the offense, said Joy Staab, director of public affairs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

DOC tries to assure the residential population density of serious sex offenders is proportionate to the number of cases that originate in the county, however, DOC did not indicate whether they try to assure proportional population density within cities or among cities in a county.

Stan Stojkovic, dean of the Helen Bader School of Social Welfare at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said its important for residents of impacted neighborhoods to look beyond the just simple number of offenders in their neighborhoods.

Stojkovic, who has an extensive background in researching sex offender placement within communities, said “sex offender” is a broad term that can take on many different meanings depending on the context of the crime he committed and not every sex offender poses a danger to the community.

Many of the individuals who are required to be listed on the state sex offender registry committed offenses against a family member or friend. The sexually violent offenders only make up 3 to 5 percent of the sex offender population, Stojkovic said.

“There are guys in the bushes, but they’re far and few between,” Stojkovic said. “You’re more likely to be assaulted by someone you know.”

Managing sex offenders in a community requires a balance of protecting the community by establishing rules and supervision for the offenders, while not violating the constitutional rights of the offenders, Stojkovic said. However, he said, many community leaders prefer to highlight the fear that most offenders are violent, rather than make informed decisions and try to address the problem of managing the offenders that are in the community.

“We have to have them in the community,” Stojkovic said. “It will never get addressed if there’s lack of political leadership.”
- Politicians like to pass laws further punishing ex-offenders to help their reputations and careers, if they speak out against these laws, then they could lose their jobs, and they don't want that, so "political leadership" will never happen!

Offender restrictions

Since the mid-2000s, municipalities around Wisconsin have been enacting ordinances that have placed restrictions on where sex offenders can live in communities. At least 110 municipalities in Wisconsin have adopted some kind of ordinance, including the town of Algoma.
- And that is what is causing this clustering!

Stojkovic argues those ordinances do nothing to protect communities from offenders. Rather, Stjkovic said the ordinances are often written too broadly and include every sex offender that’s on the registry instead of focusing on the violent or dangerous offenders that the community needs protection from.

“All of those do nothing,” Stojkovic said. “It’s more political fodder for politicians who want to make hay.”

The town of Algoma enacted a residency restriction ordinance in November 2006. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders who victimized a child under 16 years old from living within 2,000 feet of parks, playgrounds, churches, schools and bike trails.

The ordinance, which covers about 99 percent of the town, does have a mechanism which allows offenders to live within the town if they already have an established residence with a family member who previously lived in the town, said town chairman Tim Blake.

Only one offender resides in the town of Algoma, Blake said.

While the restriction essentially eliminates sex offenders from living within the town, Blake said the intent was not to push offenders off on other communities.

“We weren’t looking to shove anybody anywhere,” Blake said. “We were looking to protect the kids. And we still are.”
- But the residency restrictions do just that!

Oshkosh efforts

Neighborhood advocates and the city have begun exploring options that may help prevent the clustering of offenders in a small area.

Last year, Cummings and Palmeri met with officials from the departments of corrections and probation and parole along with Oshkosh Police Chief Scott Greuel to learn more about placement of sex offenders within the community.

Greuel recently said that he does not support Oshkosh instituting a sex offender residency restriction due to concerns it may force offenders underground, resulting in law enforcement and members of the community not knowing where they are living.

Palmeri sent a follow-up memo to city leaders earlier this month that discussed alternative ways to handle sex offender placement in the city, including an option that sought to address offender density to ease the burden on neighborhoods like hers.
- A free person can live anywhere they wish.  You don't have the government telling you where you can or cannot live, so stop stomping on others rights for your false security!

Among her suggestions was creating a residency review committee that would need to be consulted before an offender moved into the community. Anouther option could involve placing offenders throughout the seven Oshkosh Police districts in the community on a rotational basis.
- Yeah like that will work!  Then you will have this committee just denying everybody the ability to move into their neighborhood, so the problem will still exist.

“I know that’s not a perfect solution since some districts don’t have rentals,” Palmeri said. “It may be the case that we not start with that approach, but maybe instead a distance requirement of how close they can be to each other.”

Palmeri said she has not received a response to her memo from the city.

While more than 100 cities, villages and towns in Wisconsin have created ordinances that restrict where offenders can live, Palmeri said the idea she has proposed — which avoids outright restrictions and instead addresses the population density of offenders within an area — is not utlitized as much. She has identified two communities, the village of Allouez and the town of Wheatland in Kenosha County, that have adopted a hybrid-type ordinance that not only restricts, but also addresses density.

“It hasn’t really been looked at in the state of Wisconsin,” Palmeri said. “I think most of the municipalities have been more clear that they don’t want them here.”

At minimum, she would like the city to create a task force to investigate the issue and work with residents and rental-property owners to address residents’ concerns.

Cummings said the city is exploring ways to limit the number of offenders who live in the city’s older neighborhoods through a zoning rule that would limit the number of non-related people who live in a unit or other moves, such as design standards or creating an apartment registry, that could be made to help reduce the number of low-rent properties in the neighborhoods by either increasing the rental price or turning rental units into single-family homes.

“The major issue why Oshkosh is a good dumping ground is the older sections of the city have very low rents,” Cummings said.

GA - Georgia Republican stands up for sex offenders’ access to schools and playgrounds

Rep. Sam Moore

Original Article

02/21/2014

By David Ferguson

A Georgia Republican state House member submitted a bill to the current legislative session that would remove restrictions on convicted sex offenders and allow them to go anywhere in the state they like, including schools.

According to the Cherokee Tribune, freshman Georgia Rep. Sam Moore (R-Macedonia) said that once they satisfy the terms of their parole, sex offenders have “done their time” and should be allowed to go forth unhindered by intrusive government supervision.

Moore’s HB 1033 would overturn the crime of loitering and loosen restrictions on convicted sex offenders, enabling them to go anywhere they like, including schools, church youth functions, parks and playgrounds. Moore said that the risk of recidivism is outweighed by the increase in freedom.

“I am OK with that,” he told the Tribune. “The reason I’m OK with that is the assumption is they have done their time. If they’re still a danger to society, they should not be free.”

“Am I saying it’s not creepy?” he asked. “It’s definitely creepy,” but worth it to avoid big government’s infringement on personal liberties.

“In my 34 years of law enforcement I have never heard of such an insane law having been introduced,” said Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison Friday. “Sexual predators are one of this country’s most violent (type of) offenders. If there’s any equal it would be an out-and-out serial killer.”
- So what about politicians who agree to wars that kill thousands or more?  Or what about drunk drivers who kill a while family?  Not all sex offenders are as dangerous as you make them all out to be, but hey, you cannot look soft on crime we understand that, got to protect your reputation!

Garrison said that to allow sexual predators to “once again lurk around our parks, around our schools, around our swimming pools” is unacceptable.
- How many sexual crimes can you show us that occurred at ANY of these places?

Cherokee Superintendent of Schools Dr. Frank Petruzielo told the Tribune by email, “The School District is strongly opposed to any legislation that would allow predators the opportunity to endanger our students, which it appears this bill would do.”

Anti-loitering laws are a key law enforcement tool in keeping adult sexual predators away from children, but Moore feels that they are unconstitutional in that they compel suspects to identify themselves to the police. HB 1033 would forbid police from forcing residents to identify themselves under any circumstances.

Moore said that he is protecting the Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens’ right to remain silent.

Sheriff Garrison blasted the bill’s potential to make law enforcement impossible.
- Oh come on, really?

“It’s insane,” he said. “If you can’t check them, how are you going to know who they are? They could be wanted for murder down the street.”
- So I guess you just want to eliminate the 5th amendment and let your Gestapo search anybody, anywhere, anytime you wish?

One of Moore’s fellow Republican lawmakers unloaded on him at the state House session on Friday morning.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted Rep. John Pezold (R-Fortson) as saying, “I am shocked and appalled anyone would suggest that pedophiles should be allowed to loiter near day care centers, schools — the places where our children learn and play.”
- Not all ex-offenders are pedophiles and by saying so could be a form of defamation!

“If Mr. Moore’s mission was to come down to the state Capitol and alienate his colleagues by staking out positions that no one in their right mind could agree with,” Pezold continued, “he can now hang a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner behind him because he has done just that.”

See Also:

• (02/28/2014) Rep. Sam Moore back tracks on his controversial bill
• (02/24/2014) Georgia lawmaker apologizes for bill scrapping sex offender loitering statute
• (02/21/2014) State representative’s sex offender bill receives fierce criticism (Video Available)

WI - Sex offender who can't find a home told to sleep in jail

Original Article

Since when did homelessness due to draconian and unconstitutional laws become a crime? If this man is not on probation / parole we do not think they can force him to stay at the jail.

02/17/2014

By Ashley Luthern

_____, a registered sex offender, has nowhere to live because of local sex offender laws so the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is requiring him to report to the Racine County jail every night, according to the Journal Times.

_____, who is applying for jobs to save money for rent, told the Journal Times that he would rather stay in the jail at night than be homeless. Some attorneys have questioned the legality of the statewide practice of holding homeless sex offenders in jail.

Mount Pleasant, Racine, Sturtevant and Caledonia have ordinances that limit how close offenders can live to schools, day cares, churches, parks and playgrounds.

See Also:

• (02/25/2014) Homeless sex offender given temporary housing

KY - Sex-offender registry misguided thinking

Guy Hamilton-Smith

Original Article

02/10/2014

By GUY HAMILTON-SMITH

I am a sex offender.

I know well the tremendous power of those words. In 2007, I pled guilty to possession of child pornography.

Nothing here is meant to defend what I did or to minimize the gravity of my actions. I had a major problem with pornography, and I was far too deep in denial and too scared to reach out to anyone.

Help eventually came when my girlfriend discovered child porn on my computer and went to the police. I was then and remain grateful to her for taking that step.

As I went through the legal process after my arrest, I developed a keen interest in the law, and a sincere desire to advocate on the behalf of those who are hated, who are lost, and who are forgotten. With luck, I managed to win acceptance to law school despite my conviction. I worked harder than I'd ever worked in my life, because I knew I'd have a lot to do to overcome my past. I did well in school, graduated, secured a job at a law firm after disclosing my past, and applied to take the bar exam.

Recently, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that I will not be allowed to take the bar exam until I am no longer on the sex-offender registry, which will be another 18 years from now.

But the point I want to make is not about me. It isn't about my case. I am not here to say whether the court's decision was right or wrong. The principles at play are much larger than me.

Strange as it may sound coming from a felon and a sex offender, I believe in the necessity of punishment. How else, after all, are people supposed to make amends for the harm that they cause?

Indeed, my experiences as a criminal defendant, my experiences in law school and by working in criminal defense inform my belief in the ideal that our justice system. That it can work to the benefit of, not only the state and the victims, but the perpetrators, as well.

After all, I believe in many ways that my life was saved by virtue of my arrest.

I am sensitive to the fact that my crime, and the crimes of others on the sex offender registry, are serious. I do not mean to denigrate the plight of victims, as I was also a victim at one point in my own childhood.

My point, rather, is simply this: punishment that becomes unmoored from considerations of proportionality, redemption and reintegration becomes poison, and we — society, victims and perpetrators — become diminished by it.

Nowhere is this more evident than the sex-offender registry. Those who find themselves constituents of the registry are routinely and uniformly denied the same second chance afforded to so many other criminal defendants after they have served their sentences.

The impetus behind the registry is the popular belief that sex offenders always commit new sex crimes. That view, however, is at odds with data from the Department of Justice and others.

For instance, a Justice study examining the records of nearly 10,000 sex offenders found that only 3.5 percent committed a new sex crime. Other studies indicate that most instances of sexual abuse are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, such as a family member, as opposed to a stranger.

There is also no evidence to suggest that sex offenders who live close to schools or playgrounds reoffend at a rate higher than other sex offenders.

The consequences of such a system are not just borne by the offenders, either. One of the common criticisms of the registry, in light of the evidence, is that it provides a false sense of security to parents.

If that is so, then invariably placing the problem of sexual offending onto just those already convicted helps in great measure to perpetuate the very evil the registry was intended to eradicate.

I know that I am not a sympathetic figure by virtue of my crime. I know that I can never change the past or undo the things that I have done.

My hope here is that we can have a discussion in this country that is long overdue — namely, what it is that we hope to achieve from our system of criminal justice.

NY - Sex offender laws must be toughened

Phil Goldfeder

Original Article

Just another politician exploiting ex-offenders, fear, families and children to make a name for himself (See this video)? This is just a placebo to pacify people and lull them into a false sense of security. The city won't be any more safe. Not all ex-offenders harm children, and this is another blanket law that treats all ex-offenders as if they do. If a person is intent on committing a crime, this won't stop them, but the fact is, most sexual crimes occur in the victims own home and family, not at some park or school.

02/08/2014

In an effort to crack down on some of New York’s worst sex offenders, Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder (D-Rockaway Park) said he will introduce legislation that would restrict them from residing within 500 feet or less from any public park with a playground.

“As a parent of two young children, I understand how critical it is that we create stronger laws to keep sexual predators out of areas where our children congregate and play,” Goldfeder said. “I drafted this new legislation to ensure that sex offenders stay out of our public parks and away from our children.”

The bill would fine tune current laws by forbidding level two and three sex offenders – which, according to the state, means individuals at a medium or high risk of re-offense – from living within 500 feet of a public park that has playground. The legislation, Goldfeder said, would close the offender loophole that currently exists and ensure that all parks where children commonly play remain off limits to those convicted of sex crimes.

Current state regulations restrict sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of parks that are attached to school buildings, but no regulation exists for parks that are not aligned with schools.

The legislation comes on the heels of Rockaway parents being outraged last month upon learning two convicted sex offenders moved into the same building on Beach 116th Street – which is situated further than 1,000 feet from the nearest school but is within a few hundred feet of the beach and public parks.

“On behalf of Rockaway parents, I applaud Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder for his quick action and response to our genuine concerns about the safety and wellbeing of our children,” said Irene Dougherty, Parent Teacher Association co-president of the belle Harbor School.

Dorothy McCloskey, director of the Friends of Charles Park, too threw her support behind Goldfeder’s legislation.

“As an advocate for the rebuilding and development of Frank Charles Park, as well as a mother and grandmother living in the community, I believe it is not only important to make our parks beautiful, but also to make them safe and secure from adults who prey upon our defenseless children,” McCloskey said.

Goldfeder has sponsored sex offender legislation in the past, including a bill signed in 2012 that requires registered high-level sex offenders to keep their photos for the online offender registry up to date by having their photo taken every 90 days.

“I will fight to ensure our families and children live in a safe community and that parents have the peace of mind they deserve,” Goldfeder said.