Despite their legal shortcomings, Residency Restrictions are a very real possibility in some states.
In Florida, for example, convicted sex offenders can be released without a formal address. Many of these criminals have ended up living under bridges and in homeless encampments. Now, a similar situation is arising in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If this is the case, what should be done?
Residency Restrictions Violate Sex Offenders’ Rights
Residency restrictions violate sex offfenders’ rights, especially if they prevent them from living close to family or other social venues. They also prevent them from working, which means they cannot find housing and employment. If you are facing a similar situation, speak to a criminal defense attorney in your area. This article will discuss the pros and cons of a residence restriction and how it can help you.
In New York, many cities and counties have enacted their own sex offender residency restriction laws, including preventing registered sex offenders from living in certain areas. The City of New York, for example, prohibits registered sex offenders from living near youth centers, schools, and community centers. The Village of East Rockaway has a similar residency restriction policy, prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any community center, school, or daycare center. In Waterlo, residents are prohibited from living within two miles of an athletic field, golf course, or skating rink.
They Waste Resources
Many sex offenders receive probation and not jail time, but that doesn’t mean they are always guilty of sexual offenses. California’s sex offender registry lists 239 mandatory restrictions on convicted sex offenders. The majority of those restrictions have to do with children. Turner’s crime is considered more heinous today than it was when Megan’s Law was passed 20 years ago.
While there is no universal registry to keep track of convicted sexual offenders, many states maintain databases of these offenders and put some of the information online. This helps police identify and track sex offenders, but it doesn’t completely prevent reoffending. For that reason, it’s not a bad idea to keep a record of sex offenders. The good news is that if someone is caught, it’s easy to find out where they’ve been.
They Waste Time
The Public Safety Realignment plan put forth by California Governor Jerry Brown reduced the accountability for repeat felons, including sex offenders, and allowed parole violators to avoid prison entirely. But because the prison population was overcrowded, this policy has created a revolving door that has made it difficult to catch these offenders. And when they do walk free, they commit new crimes. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has been tracking these parole violators’ activities to see which offenders are committing the most.
While the law is designed to discourage such crimes, it may actually make fighting the crimes harder. This system frequently uses things that were meant to be used for another purpose, and some people don’t agree on how society should deal with those who commit sex crimes. In addition, banning convicted sex offenders from being around children doesn’t stop them from committing new offenses. It seems that the majority of new convictions are for people who aren’t registered sex offenders.
They Create “Collateral Consequences”
In recent years, the debate over collateral consequences has become increasingly heated, and with good reason. The racial consequences of collateral punishments are politically and socially intolerable. While there are arguments for both sides, they are unjustified in most cases, and the public is not willing to support them. In the United States, the effects of collateral consequences are disproportionately racial.
As an example, a citizen who parks their car illegally in a parking meter is often fined $5, but a convicted sex offender may soon be able to drive away free. In this case, the collateral consequence is out of proportion to the offense, and violates the requirement of publicity. In other words, collateral consequences are not appropriate for all felons.