“It’s common sense. Why would you have a sex offender own a trailer park with kids?” Daggett said. “It’s all about opportunity and power, and they gave him both.”
So Daggett has been pushing for a state law that would establish zones near schools and parks in every Maine municipality where sex offenders could not live. Currently it’s up to cities and towns whether to restrict where people convicted of sex crimes against children can reside. Daggett wants to make the “sex offender-free” zones mandatory across Maine.
Motivated by her traumatic experiences and a desire to help other survivors, Daggett has jumped into a longtime policy debate that pits a victim’s sense of justice against the tangible needs of offenders upon their release. There is no evidence residency restrictions make children safer, and people on the Maine Sex Offender Registry are already monitored by police and face difficulties finding housing.
Apparently she is of the opinion that her feelings and opinions outweigh all others and she should get her way regardless of the impact on others simply because she was the victim of a sex crime.
Lauren Book wannabe. The only difference is that her daddy doesn’t have most of the state government in his pocket.
I am in no way defending crimes especially against children but again its the mans Trailer park!. You dont have to rent or stay!. Should we takeaway a Car Lot away from somebody that owns that for some related crime? Maybe he needs to hire somebody to run it or maybe only adults like a 55 and over. Its his Businesses and I dont believe anybody has that right. The Trailer Park was not the issue in my mind and if he paid the time for the crime it should be over. When does it stop? its hard enough to find housing and work when you are a ex offender. If it happened in a Van or at a lake or a Mcdonalds should those all be banned also? These feel Good Laws need to stop and fact based evidence should be used.
Quote from the linked article, “Lindsey Daggett was 15 years old when she confided in a family member that she had been sexually abused. The man who had molested her for nine years was her mother’s boyfriend.”
Once again, just as in Lauren Book, the laws being submitted to committee would have made absolutely NO difference in their situation if they were passed. And residency restrictions will not require this person to sell his Trailer Park. And, the person was known to the victim, as in 95% of instances.
So, go ahead and make yourselves feel better while you take people’s rights and freedoms to pass laws that will do NOTHING to reduce crimes of this type.
Comments can be sent to [email protected]. Excellent use of evidence-based research.
In California, Janice Bellucci and ACSOL defeated all these residency and presence restrictions, city by city, County by County. (Now our only restriction is “presence on school property” for which the school’s permission is required).
Many thanks, Janice and ACSOL!
I think this line says it all “Motivated by her traumatic experiences and a desire to help other survivors”. I’ve thought about this quite a bit and I honestly think one of the reasons why the SO laws are the way they are is because there are so many people out there who have unresolved sexual experiences (assaults and otherwise). IMHO I think it would make sense for the SOMB’s to refocus as SORB’s (just rolls right off the tongue doesn’t it?) so they are Sex Offender Recovery Boards where the charters would be for not only helping those who have offended, but for those who have been offended against in their recoveries.
That is of course unless the SOMB’s make their living off of making sure victims always stay victims.
I am hearing more retaliation and vindication from Ms. Daggett in her plight. I am not hearing that laws or procedures she’s proposing are based in any evidence based practice. If she and people advocating for similar laws were honest and showed the data, they would show what they are suggesting is actually counterproductive to public safety. Homeless and unemployed ex-felons (sex, drug or otherwise) are not safer or more stable to the community than supported, employed and housed ex-felons. Vindictively seeking to ensure certain people who committed a certain crime cannot live, work, or participate in society does nobody any good.