SEX OFFENDERS? NOT IN MY BACKYARD!

Residency restrictions for sex offenders like the one recently enacted in Jersey City may mean well, but are they really ‘protecting the most vulnerable'?
By Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg

printer friendly    |    add to del.icio.us     |    e-mail the author

Using only one of the criteria that now dictates where sex offenders are allowed to live in Jersey City (proximity to a school), City Belt created this rough map that shows an offender's possible housing options in the downtown area in red. The "red zone" includes a PSEG substation, PATH railroad tracks, the Jersey City Cemetery, and one tiny area next to Old Colony Shopping Center with a small amount of housing. When the other criteria are included, that pocket would evaporate, due to sports fields at nearby Ferris High School, among other factors.

Thanks to an ordinance passed late last year, sex offenders can’t live anywhere in Jersey City, save for, maybe, about one street.

The ordinance, which passed the Jersey City Council 8-0 (with Councilman Lipski absent), dictates that any person over the age of eighteen who has to register with authorities under Megan’s Law cannot live within 2500 feet of:

1.    Any public or private school
2.    Any daycare center
3.    Any day camp
4.    Any city, county or state park, including the so-called “pocket parks” within individual neighborhoods
5.    Any public or commercial recreation facility clearly designed to attract children as a “playground”
6.    Any commercial recreation facilities frequented by young people, including theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields, exercise or sporting facilities; or
7.    Any convenience store
8.    Any public library

Sex offenders who are currently living in Jersey City are grandfathered in and can stay in their homes. However, that does not extend to people in prison who previously lived in Jersey City.

“If you watch the news, all the children who are abducted and/or molested and killed are victims of previous offenders,” wrote Councilwoman Mary Spinello (Ward B) in an e-mail interview with City Belt. “I feel the rationale behind this ordinance is prevention and providing residents with some sense of security.  From what we've been told, there are not a significant amount of offenders currently residing within the city -- this is a step to prevent new offenders from moving into the area.”

When asked if the Council heard any testimony that these ordinances have cut down on sex abuse in other jurisdictions she answered, “Honestly, no.”

Councilman Mike Sottolano (Ward A), the bill’s co-sponsor, explained that he has an “obligation to protect the most vulnerable people in the city.”

These types of residency ordinances, which have cropped up across New Jersey and the country, were likely created with good intentions – but little else.

Until the last few years, only a handful of states had such restrictions, explained Jill Levenson, a professor at Florida’s Lynn University who has conducted several studies on sex offenders. In 2005 and 2006 – in part due to the high-profile murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford by a convicted sex offender in Florida – there was an “explosion” of these laws, she said. Sex offender residency laws are modeled on zoning laws that regulate where strip clubs and porn stores operate.

“The public becomes very angry and also very scared -- of course they want to do something to prevent this from happening again,” said Levenson. “Having a state law passed or changed is a very involved process. However, passing a local law, a city, town or county ordinance is usually a much less complicated process – you get a city council or county council, you get 12 people around a table, and two hours later you could have a new law.”

But fear and anger don’t make for good public policy. (Other heart-first measures like capital punishment, mandatory minimum sentencing and three strike laws have shown that.)

“These particular ordinances haven't been found to be very effective, mainly because most of the time sexual offenders are people folks already know,” said Andrea Spencer-Linzie, Executive Director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault, who pointed out that 80 percent of victims know their attacker. “We don't feel that these restrictions are very effective, without intensive treatment and support in order not to re-offend.”

One Size Fits None

“The bottom line is that social policy needs to be based on evidence,” said Levenson. “[Residency restrictions] create more problems than they solve.”

The problems they create, some fear, could actually interfere with sex offenders’ efforts not to re-offend.

“What we're finding is that people are passing these laws, and what they're doing is in fact isolating sexual offenders even more, which creates a more unstable environment for them,” said Spencer-Linzie. “I've just really heard that these ordinances are actually making the problems worse.”

Thomas Rosenthal of the New Jersey Public Defender’s Office agreed and pointed out that probation officers can and do remove sex offenders from their homes if they feel it’s risky.

“We’re concerned that towns may be enacting laws of unintended consequences, by moving these folks out of their homes – where their probation officer knows where they are, where local law enforcement knows where they are – and making them homeless,” he told City Belt.

Rosenthal said that the highest risk sex offenders are heavily monitored by the state – things like where they live, their employment, their attendance at mandated therapy, and the results of their drug tests. Because of this vigilance, he said, New Jersey’s repeat sex offender rate is about half the national average. (The national average has been measured as between 3 and 13 percent in a variety of studies.)

“What if you destabilize their lives? What if they lose hope? They’ve done everything they’re supposed to do and now they’re out on the street,” Rosenthal added. “They can’t work, they can’t get therapy, which they’re required to do. They may return to substance abuse. So basically, you’ve managed to put them back into the environment which led to their offense in the first place. You’ve destabilized their lives. How is that protecting public safety?”

The residency restrictions in some areas – like Jersey City -- make no distinctions between the different tiers of offenders. Under New Jersey law, Tier 1 (low risk) offenders must register with law enforcement; Tier 2 (moderate risk) offenders must register with law enforcement, schools, licensed day care centers, summer camps, and some registered community organizations; and Tier 3 (high risk) offenders must also alert members of the public.

So while the law treats sex offenders differently depending on the crime – statutory rape of a 16-year-old by an 18-year-old versus violent child molestation, for example -- in Jersey City all are painted with the same forever-guilty brush. And there lies the widely held belief these laws are based on – sex offenders are incorrigible.

“If you're making these mandatory residency requirements, it doesn't really allow for anyone who has been through a treatment plan or is currently in a treatment plan and doing very well,” said Spencer-Linzie. “It's like ‘three strikes, you're out.’ For some people, that makes a lot of sense. For others, it's absurd.”

Contrary to popular myth, treatment can work for sex offenders. But residency restrictions can interfere with offenders’ ability to get care and stay healthy.

“Although there's no treatment that works 100 percent for the total population, there are certain kinds of treatment that are ongoing and behaviorally based
that do help with the recidivism rate,” said Spencer-Linzie. “To mandate that people live away from support networks that help make sure treatment is as successful as it can be is counterproductive.”

The broad-brush approach also misses the crevices and idiosyncracies of individuals’ situations. For instance, the New Jersey Public Defender’s Office is suing Gloucester County on behalf of one 77-year-old convicted sex offender, A.B. (Rosenthal requested City Belt not publish the offender’s name to protect his victim.) Under Gloucester County law, Tier 2 offenders, like the plaintiff, are forbidden from living within 2500 feet of schools, libraries, day-care centers, houses of worship, beaches, convenience stores and recreational areas. Tier 1 are banned for 1000 feet and Tier 3 are banned from 3000 feet.  Offenders also can’t “loiter” within 250 feet of those areas.

On May 17, 2006, A.B. was told he must move out of his home by October 27, 2006 or face a possible fine of $1,250, or up to 90 days of community service, or a maximum of 90 days imprisonment.  He and his wife, who is mentally ill, live on $1,200 a month from Social Security, according to court papers. He’s been allowed to stay in his home until the suit is resolved.

In April 2000, in Gloucester County, he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a minor. In July 2000 he pleaded guilty to sexual assault in Camden County.  His three victims ranged in age from 21 months to six years old.

A.B. must register under Megan’s Law and undergo lifetime monitoring, treatment and drug testing. A.B, like all offenders in New Jersey under community supervision, must have his home approved by his parole officer and have permission before moving.

The New Jersey Public Defender’s Office is arguing that these residency restrictions don’t only punish offenders twice, and thus violate double jeopardy, but they also supercede state law, creating an “unworkable, confusing and inequitable patchwork of divergent restrictions,” according to court papers.

‘Solving’ the problem?

Levenson explained that several offenders have relayed to her the “greatest irony in all of this,” that residency restrictions can often relocate offenders to riskier situations.

“There was a case that I testified in about an offender who was mentally ill and mentally retarded,” she recalled. “He was going to be placed in an adult group home for mentally disabled adults, but it was within 2500 feet of something. So, is it better for this guy to be living outside of the buffer zone in some transient motel with crack addicts and prostitutes, or in a place where he's supervised 24 hours a day by people who know how to deal with a mentally ill, mentally retarded person who might be a danger to kids?”

So what can work? It’s a more tedious solution than a law with a cute nickname. It’s not only treatment and more resources for offenders, but also for those abused.

“We know that there is a relationship between early maltreatment and future violent behavior, and that includes neglect, physical abuse, witnessing domestic violence,” Levenson said. “But we also know that the protective services and foster care programs are poorly funded, understaffed, the first to be cut in budgets.

“The abused child of today that everyone feels bad for is going to be the ostracized sex offender of 20 years from now if no one wants to help him now.”

Comments

[leah simon]

Keep writing these articles. The public must be educated with the facts and not with emotion as the politicans are expert at doing. Sex offenders rate of recidivism is about 5% according to Dept of Justice statistics. This is far lower than other comparable felonies. The majority of people on Megan's Law list are not sexually violent predators but they have grouped everyone as such. Residency restrictions and GPS systems don't work. They are also very expensive to implement and maintain. Why aren't other states listening to Iowa who is suffering the consequences of passing one of these laws a few years ago. Their law encforcement is trying to get it repealed. Doesn't that speak volumes to the ineffectiveness? Learn from other's mistakes instead of repeating them yourselves. That's smart!

[Bennie Walton]

It is continuously said these laws are made in "good intentions". These laws have no good intentions when they are one-size-fits-all. When antidotal, empirical, and actual data and informations are ignored, one cannot say "good intentions". What is happening is outright political arrogance, political postering, willfull ignorance, and self forced denial of truths and facts.

[Bennie Walton]

Re-submitted with spelling corrections.

It is continuously said these laws are made in "good intentions". These laws have no good intentions when they are one-size-fits-all. When antidotal, empirical, and actual data and information’s are ignored, one cannot say "good intentions". What is happening is outright political arrogance, political posturing, willful ignorance, and self forced denial of truths and facts.

[coresa]

Your going to push the sex offenders out in the country that there going to probable kidnap a kid and abuse that kid but you won't be able to hear the kid sream.

[Angry in PA]

My son was taken by his father that he had not seen in 13 years, my son is only 13 I left when he was 6 weeks old I called the police and they said that he had every right since we did not have a custody order. I called children and youth and they said they weren't getting involved. Yesterday after 2 weeks we finally got into court come to find out after not seeing the man for 13 years I wasn't too up to date with what he had been up to. Aparently he was charged in Berks County PA with sex crimes to 2 small children. The only thing that they conviced him was witness harassment ( go figure) well aparently Berks County Children and Youth were not aware that he was in Lancaster County living with my son and 2 very small little girls. Apparently Children and Youth have stated that he is NOT allowed around children. Children and Youth aparently works in a different capacity and they feel he is a threat to children I told them this!! So thanks to this miscarriage of justice my son had to spend two weeks with this man who couldnt even come to court yesterday since he was having chest pains(yeah right) and his girlfriend told my son that I am killing his dad because this is too much stress on him. My son is upset and thinks that I am the bad guy since in their opinion I am distroying his life. This is rediculous He is to be removed from his girlfriends house where the 2 small children are living I just think that it is a shame that it took of this to get someone to finally address this issue all of this happened in the same state so why was it not noted in every county's Children and Youth Services I understand their criteria is different that the police that is no excuse for the fact that if he is on one Children and Youth services list that he should not be on all of them they shouldnt wait until something like this happens to do something about this type of situation. The idiot was convicted to harssment I dont think that it is a strong leap to guess why he was found not guilty of the other charges.

[jeff paul portal]

well for me i suggest working from home and make your living on it . and its possible i have been doing this for about a year i am preety much happy with what i am making .

[Generic Viagra]

Good work,thanks for sharing this information!!!