An article from last week’s Laker/Lutz News highlights just how dangerous an uninformed legislator can be.

In the article, Commissioner Moore makes several statements indicative of his clear lack of information on the topic of sex offender management. By pushing for an increased residency restriction, he could actually be making his county LESS safe by (a) driving offenders underground, (b) destabilizing offenders and thereby increasing the likelihood of recidivism and (c) creating a false sense of security.

Below is a copy/paste of the article with commentary inserted.

New ordinance could have predators on the run

On the run where? To the neighboring county? To the “pockets” of availability where they will concentrate and where those children are not as important? Or does he mean that literally the registrants will go on the run and abscond from registration so that we don’t know where they are? A 2009 white paper by Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board concluded that residency bans don’t lower recidivism and could actually increase the risk to the public. According to the paper, that’s because they drive offenders underground or toward homelessness, making them harder for police and probation officers to track

Registered sexual predators and offenders already have to stay at least 1,000 feet away from areas where kids might congregate. If Mike Moore gets his way, those convicted of sexual crimes could be pushed back even further.

Moore, who joined the Pasco County Commission last month, is expected to propose a new countywide ordinance in January that would increase the distance registered predators and offenders have to stay away from children areas at 2,500 feet, or nearly a half-mile. That would include everything from schools and day cares, to the thousands of bus stops located around the county.

And if that means there’s nowhere left for predators or offenders to live, Pasco County sheriff Chris Nocco says he’s OK with that.

He’s OK with it? What other provisions of the Constitution is the Sheriff “OK with” violating? Last we checked banishment was considered punishment and requires due process of law.

“It’s not a bad day if they all leave the county,” he said. “You get a guy who did a sexual battery on an 11-year-old girl, and I propose that anybody who is against this, let that person move into your house. If you feel like we’re beating up on that person, let them move into your house, or let them move next door to you.”

How about the people who didn’t “do a sexual battery” on anyone? What about those who had consensual relationships with people a few years younger than them? What about those who never touched anyone or ever attempted to? What about sex offenders who are minors themselves? Sheriff Nocco perpetuates the myth that all sex offenders are predatory strangers who directly victimized a child. “Let them move into your house” is another oddly ironic statement, since the majority (93%) of molestations of children are not committed by strangers but by people who are known and trusted within or about the family. These are people who are already “let into the house”. It’s far more likely that a child will be violated by an uncle than a registered sex offender.

It’s not clear exactly where those who are convicted and registered predators and offenders would be able to live, but Moore said during a news conference Monday there are some pockets in the county that would still be legal if the ordinance were to pass. It might come off as highly restrictive for those who have been convicted of crimes, but the safety of children should come first and foremost, the commissioner added.

Yes, it’s unclear where they will live and when you reduce housing options you increase homelessness. California is taking steps to repeal their residency restrictions. Before their residency restrictions were passed eight years ago, 88 paroled sex offenders were registered as transient in California. Within five years, that number spiraled to 1,986. Housing instability is a trigger for recidivism. And what about these “pockets in the county”? Are children in those pockets less important than the rest of the children if the “safety of children comes first and foremost”?

“Anything we can do to reduce the opportunity for sexual offenders and sexual predators to come into contact with these children is a positive for us,” Moore said. “Looking from the outside and looking in, they’ll understand that Pasco is a safe place.”

“Understand that Pasco is a safe place”?!?! That’s a hugely irresponsible statement to make. When 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for child molestation were of first-time offenders, how can anyone create such a false sense of security?

Although Moore has not discussed the proposal with other commissioners, he said he has talked to the county attorney, Jeffrey Steinsnyder. A draft of the ordinance might echo similar ones in other areas, including one in Miami-Dade County. The ordinance there strengthens state law that already restricts those convicted of a sexual battery, lewd and lascivious act on or in the presence of a child under 16, the sexual performance by a child, or selling or buying of minors for portrayal in sexually explicit conduct, to reside within 1,000 feet of any school, day care center or playground.

The Miami-Dade ordinance, however, only restricts residency within 2,500 feet of a school. The Pasco ordinance, Moore and Nocco said, also would include bus stops, day care centers, libraries, assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

“Anywhere that our most vulnerable citizens congregate,” Moore said.

Does Moore realize that residency restrictions impact where registrants can “reside”. It’s considered where they sleep at night, generally between 10PM and 6AM. During the day, registrants are able to be within these 2500 foot buffer zones. Arguably, most children are not in school, day care centers or waiting for their school bus between ten in the evening and 6 AM, which makes proximity to these places irrelevant. Also, if you force registrants into these remote “pockets”, they will likely have to travel more during the day to visit with family or commute to work, passing a greater number of schools, day cares, bus stops, etc. on their way.

The Miami-Dade restrictions were enough to prompt the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit in federal court, claiming the ordinance is too onerous, and does not give registered predators or offenders any place to live.

Moore won’t let this hamper his efforts to move the proposal forward, however.

“We can’t be scared of lawsuits when we propose an ordinance,” he said.

In fairness, Moore is right; you should not be scared of lawsuits. You should, however, be scared of the other unintended consequences and at minimum have the facts in hand when proposing an ordinance. There is an underlying reason why these lawsuits have been filled both in Miami-Dade and across the Country. There is a wealth of research published on the topic of residency restrictions. There is empirical evidence to consider, which should carry more weight than what a politician’s opinion.

Such an ordinance would have to be approved by the full county commission, which will not even officially get an introduction to Moore’s plan until its next regularly scheduled meeting on Jan. 13.

Nocco was a vocal supporter of Moore during his political campaign to replace longtime commissioner Pat Mulieri. Nocco appeared in a television advertisement as well as mailers supporting the commission campaign.

Published December 10, 2014

DC VIGIL: March 15th @ 10AM EST. Attend in person or via Zoom. CLICK HERE FOR INFO
+
Share This

Let's Spread Truth

Share this post!