Ohio bill would add victim’s residence to residency restriction
The Ohio House of Representatives nearly unanimously passed House Bill 102, which would prevent people convicted of sex offenses or child-victim offenses from living within 2,000 feet of their victim’s home, and from loitering within 1,000 feet of the victim’s residence.
Currently, Ohio law prohibits sex offenders from living near schools, day-cares, and child-care facilities — but does not bar them from living near their actual victims. One of the sponsors, Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), said he introduced the bill after a local family reported that their perpetrator lived next door to their child. According to the family, the child is now afraid to even play in the backyard because of the offender’s proximity. Klopfenstein argued this change is needed because “80% of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows.” He said the prior lack of any proximity restriction meant victims—and often their children—might remain under the same roof, or next door, to the person who abused them, preventing healing and safety.
HB 102 passed the Ohio House with an overwhelming vote of 89–2 and now goes to the state Senate for consideration. Supporters argue the bill strengthens protections for survivors by adding a layer of safety where none existed. Opponents warn of unintended consequences. One significant obvious concern is that the law would require offenders to forever track where their victim lives to avoid unknowingly violating the distance restriction.
While an individualized approach (preventing a registrant from living near their actual victim as opposed to preventing them from living near any place where children are) can be viewed as a better alternative than blanket restrictions targeting all registrants, it’s important to remember that individualized restrictions can already be imposed as part of a sentence.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A little from column A
A little from column B
Me personally, I am blessed to have some semblance of a relationship with my victim. I lived 2 thousand miles away and she was consulted and agreed to my moving to the state where she lives along with the rest of my family.
I’ve been here 1 1/2 years and all is well.
Holidays are spent at her house where she prepares the meal. I don’t reside there nor do I sleep there. She lives local.
I think the new regulation with the blanket ban is overreach. I think these things should be looked at on a case by case basis.
In as far as the victim not being able to heal, I think maybe the consortium of they got this one wrong for certain cases.
My ex wife and her husband and all four of my grown children and their respective spouses were consulted and agreed that healing begins with proximity. I’ve lived on one of my son’s property since my arrival to include a move brought on by public notification of my PFR status.
It’s not just us that are affected by the scarlet letter. One more turn of the screw is not going to make anything better.
I think they got this one right.
Just my 2 cents.
At least Ohio has some sense, when it comes to something like this, even if it’s still not great. Unlike scorched Earth Florida.
This actually sounds like a perfectly reasonable restriction unlike 95% of the others that tend to get added.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm………
It seems pretty darned disrespectful (to me) that a sex offender would move in next door (or stay living next door) to a child victim. It seems like it would tend to cause pain and fear in the child.
I think I may be in the “torches and pitchforks” camp on this one.
But ……… If any ex-offender was
1) that foolish
2) that callous
…. I suppose the parents could get a restraining order. …. Still, though…..I can definitely understand where the parents (and this lawmaker) are coming from. I mean, the NERVE!! (Seriously)
I could see if it were maliciously moving next door as some petty power move, but if that’s where the person lived before, they should be able to live there again, albeit with restrictions that can already be imposed by a court with no need of yet another law mostly designed to further some random lawmaker’s career.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………. (Usually, I would automatically say “Let the person live where they want”, but on this one…….)
I can see both sides of this one………
I think it should be up to the court rather than a blanket ban, though. The circumstance is so unusual, it seems. And there may be times (albeit rare) when there is no objection. What if the victim turns 18 and wants to move in with the offender? I mean, it DOES happen sometimes.
I think we should always err on the side of personal Liberty. After all, this country was built on the concept of personal Liberty, wasn’t it?
I don’t get the motivation to make it where people on the registry just can’t live anywhere.