Comments on: Ohio bill would add victim’s residence to residency restriction

By: James

James — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:30:42 +0000

I see this as helpful to the cause. Since they openly admit the the perp often knows the vic (80%) it can also be used to show that the broad restrictions are pointless. Also this shows what many of us know. Most PFR’s want to be as far as possible from the victim and anyone they know as the allegations and information travel fast. This registrant is playing with fire and likely to get us all burned.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 10:17:05 +0000

I think taking aw but away blanket residency restrictions but having a victim residency restriction is a more fair balance. But I also believe that each situation is different and should include input from the victim (or their guardians) as well as well as risk assessments and due process.

By: tearfuleagle

tearfuleagle — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 02:39:21 +0000

Thumbs up on this bill. What has been missed is Roy Klopfenstein said “80% of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows.” Hey Florida, wake up. HB45 Thumbs down.

By: Michael Pierce

Michael Pierce — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:39:41 +0000

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.

By: PFR

PFR — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 23:01:23 +0000

I think they got this one right.
Just my 2 cents.

By: JJJJ

JJJJ — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 21:32:49 +0000

In reply to Ben.

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?

By: Tereto

Tereto — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 21:25:37 +0000

At least Ohio has some sense, when it comes to something like this, even if it’s still not great. Unlike scorched Earth Florida.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:23:32 +0000

This actually sounds like a perfectly reasonable restriction unlike 95% of the others that tend to get added.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:07:52 +0000

In reply to JJJJ. 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.

By: JJJJ

JJJJ — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 19:54:33 +0000

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)