A group of convicted sex offenders has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a far-reaching ordinance in Apple Valley that severely restricts where they can live, alleging that the ordinance effectively bars them from living anywhere in the city.
In a federal class action lawsuit filed Wednesday, three sex offenders seek an injunction preventing the city of Apple Valley from enforcing the ordinance, which prohibits people convicted of certain sex offenses from living within 1,500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, churches and child care centers. The ordinance is so extensive that more than 90% of the residential properties within the city’s boundaries are off-limits to offenders, the lawsuit states.
I think I’ve mentioned this before but I’ll say it again now;
The idea of saying that not allowing sex offenders to live where they want instead of becoming homeless and/or unstable will possibly lead to reoffending is probably not the best thing to say to fight these ordinances.
If I were a judge, I would take that to mean that if the offender doesn’t have a stable home, that offender is going to go around raping and molesting people. That’s not going to go very well in fighting the registry itself and all it’s other restrictions.
What I see potentially happening with sex offenders not having a stable home is that they’ll end up sleeping somewhere on the streets that might fall into “criminal trespassing”. Such as sleeping in abandoned buildings that are unsafe. Or possibly robbing people and places to get by. Or even turning to drugs and alcohol.
But to keep using language which insinuates that we’ll go around kidnapping and raping is probably not in our favor. So, can these attorneys please stop saying it like that? Or does anyone here disagree with how I’m thinking such language might be translated by the judges hearing it said that way?
I agree with Maestro that homelessness does not necessarily lead to further sex offenses. In fact there is no reason that it should. If it does then that individual has problems beyond homelessness. I can see where it could lead to despair, loneliness, a desire to escape the situation, a desire for solitude, self pity, even a desire for death. But to think that the very act that got the individual into their situation to begin with will be a logical solution, I hardly see as a potential solution to homelessness. That is unless a prison cell with security, a place to sleep, meals, and a place to shower is more attractive than homelessness. I suspect that most people so charged have goals beyond that. Sometimes, what we need more than anything else when one is in despair is rest and refreshment of the spirit. Today’s laws are not well attuned to that and myth, paranoia, along with targeted/fake news does no contribute to restoration. The threat of sexual offense repetition is not really a good approach to solving the draconian law problem.
I respectfully disagree, Capt. Munsey and Maestro.
There are several risk factors that decrease recidivism one of which is housing stability. Homelessness removes housing stability and therefore increases risk of recidivism. As you mentioned, the feelings of isolation, depression and despair that come with homelessness also increase risk. Homelessness can also create other risk factors, such as substance abuse. There are also homeless status offenses (such as vagrancy and trespassing) which are more likely to cause an individual to go back into the criminal justice system and harm stability.
Several years ago, Jill Levenson, Alissa Ackerman, Andrew Harris and Kelly Socia did a study that found, “The transience of registered sex offenders (RSOs) is a major impediment to reentry success, particularly because it has been linked to increased absconding and recidivism, and thus decreased community safety.” So this topic has been studied.
I must respectfully disagree with FAC on some points of their comment. I agree that homelessness can contribute to criminality that might not otherwise occur but sexual recidivism, as I see it, has no connection to homelessness. Sexual perversion is a character flaw not a homeless driven action. To say that homelessness is going to increase recidivism will only push those who are trying to recover further into the recesses of society. What data is available to relate homelessness to recidivism? We do not need to scare the public with possibilities rather than facts.
Exactly. The public is not actually opposed to rehabilitation. Residency restrictions remain popular only due to a not-in-my-backyard problem: by all means seek rehabilitation, but go rehabilitate somewhere else, and keep my neighborhood registry-free.
That’s not the same as arguing before a judge, of course. I suspect that these two lawyers are making the best arguments that can be made right now, given the state of the law.
It is still beyond me to understand how something in one section of the country can be unconstitutional and not unconstitutional in another part of the country. To my understanding any part of a state constitution that is in violation of the US Constitution is illegal and not valid.
Pls tell me they are using competent lawyers for this type of action. NARSOL does not even appear to have an affiliate there.
They are using ROCKSTARS!!!!
Adele Nicholas and Mark Weingberg out of Chicago and Dan Gustafson out of Minnesota.
Thank goodness for that (and for them).
If it turns out that it is declared unconstitutional, will we look to do it here as well?
We already have a SORR challenge in Miami-Dade that is in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals right now.