Register To ParticipateBehind the Times
What to do with sex offenders?
Posted on February 28, 2007 by kraus2686
Filed Under Clinton, Crime, Downtown, Noah's posts |
When the Times & Courier discovered the man selling knives to middle schoolers from a Clinton High Street store was a Level 3 sex offender last month, it lead to a few other interesting revelations: Namely, there are several Level 3s in the High Street area and just a short walk from Clinton Elementary School.
Is this legal? You betcha. Contrary to what you may think, there are no state or federal laws that prohibit sex offenders from living or working near schools, day cares or other areas where children are. Some towns are changing that, however. West Boylston recently passed a measure prohibiting Level 2 and 3s from being within 2,000 feet of schools, day cares and even churches. The law passed muster with the attorney general’s office. One passed in Fitchburg recently, however, has proven to be unenforcable in the courts. The difference, however, may be because the Fitchburg law provides criminal penalties for violaters whereas the West Boylston one incurs civil penalties. Hopefully some of the differences between the two will be discussed at the upcoming sex offender forum organized by Rep. Harold Naughton.
Should Clinton and Lancaster consider passing something like this? Should churches be included?
Comments
6 Responses to “What to do with sex offenders?”
Leave a Reply
Not that I am against any proposa llimiting areas in which convited sex offenders live, but how far can this really go? If every town passed such legisilation that eventually become restricitve to pushing sex offenders out of the sate..how long would it take the courts to view such restrictions as unconstitutional?
Tom C
p.s. my typing stinks lol
Tom C
That’s a good point, Tom. Although I don’t know all the particulars of the bylaws that have been passed, the clause about churches seems problematic as well.
The bottom line is no one wants to see a Level 3 sex offender loitering around a playground or school, but how far do we go to limit the civil rights of these people? Not that I have a lot of sympathy for them, but it does raise the issue of where to draw the line. They’ve served their time so they’ve got to live somewhere. I’m eager to hear Tuesday’s discussion and see what others think. Naughton had a good point this week, though, and that is that the system we have now sure is better than what we used to have, which was nothing.
Sex offenders need to be restricted to jail or something like a work farm. They have no business roaming freely in our society. Think of it as a form of cleanliness.
There is no cure for their disease and we are not keen on exposing our young and loved ones to these pathetic pustules of perversion.
Now there is something that I feel would fall in constitutional realms…increase the serving time for such offenses. If a person is classified by the state as level 3, which is a high probablity of repeating the offense, the arguement can be made that they are yet to be rehabilitated and required continued incarciration.
Tom C
Sex offender residency restrictions many would argue are a good thing, no one wants to be known for voting against them. Many believe if we can keep one child safe than residency restrictions work. I recently did extensive research on sex offender residency laws and found that states that have residency restrictions are are not working. In Iowa they have found that sex offenders are not registereing with the state or are giving false addresses. In Kansas prosecutor indicated that they have seen a reduction in the number of confessions and plea agreements. Both states have found they do not work. My daughter was sexually abused by her father, who is now classified as a level 2 sex offender. Honestly sex offernder residency restrictions give a community a false sense of security. Sex offenders can still walk and travel throughout the community. The majority of children abused are not abused from strangers but from someone the child knows, family members relatives and acquaintances. In Marlboro they are working on passing a similar law, it was prompted after a level two sex offender from Southboro made a sexual offense in front of 2 young girls at a bus stop. Again according to research sex offenders do not molest in their area, this residency restriction would not have protected these 2 girls. Reality is if a sex offender is going to molest a child they will, no restrictions will protect any child. We need to know where these sex offenders live, so we can inform and educated our children about the dangers that lurk in our neighborhood. I agree we need to protect our children that is why I am against residency restrictions. Consistent with research it is obvious that they harm the community. Residency restriction laws are “feel-good laws” that serve to only push aside a great social problem.