IN: Senate approves bill limiting when sex offenders can move, workplace contact with kids
House Bill 1687, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Monday, gives communities more control over who’s moving in. Under the bill, offenders looking to move will need to show a local judge that they have employment, housing and a familial relationship waiting in their new community. Group housing, notably, would not be acceptable
Michael Harris, director of sex offender law reform group Indiana Voices, has argued the bill is too restrictive.
“It seems a bill aimed at keeping registrants from going to counties where services are available,” Lewis said. The broad workplace provision could keep sex offenders from working in placed like fast food restaurants, he added.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seems directed at generating and increasing avenues for recidivism, another bill disguised as “Public Protection”.
This is a great law that’ll give more safety nets to catch the bad actors. Great Job Indiana!
You forgot to add that you were being sarcastic.
Let’s talk about recidivism. The recidivism rates for people who have been convicted for a sex crime is extremely low. Installation of these restrictions would doom any chance of someone being able to rebuild a life post conviction. Especially those who don’t have family. It’s unnecessarily cruel without addressing the problem of preventing sexual assault.
the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend, is what RECIDIVISM is
I feel bad for you indiana residents, born in indy myself. But these laws are wonderful for when this eventually gets back to the supreme court as all of this is unbelievably unconstitutional and no longer can the SC say that being a registrant is like signing up for a costco membership. The registry is a litany of horror across the USA. Luckily I live in cali where there are virtually no restrictions.
I would suspect these intend limitations are unconstitutional.
WTF?! You have to do all that crap just to be “allowed” to move?? I suspect this limitation in movement is actually unconstitutional.
You would expect correctly, David. The challenge is getting a court brave enough to say so.
I find it remarkable that laws are still being passed when so much research has proven they are pointless. And all were based on a made-up story and made-up statistics. The SCOTUS needs to admit they were wrong and correct it’s self.