There is no better way to educate the public on the TRUTH and FACTS surrounding “sex offender issues” than to post comments beneath misguided articles online.

Here’s an example of one such article from the Santa Clarita Valley Signal: “Sex offender Law: Fight or Punt?”

The article plays into very misguided fears that somehow residency restrictions make communities safer. In fact, they don’t. We encourage you to share this information under the article on the Santa Clarita Valley Signal page.

 

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Impede Safety Goals, 2012

“…sexual recidivists do not appear to live closer to schools or parks than non-recidivists, suggesting that residential proximity to such venues is not a contributing factor to re-offending. Furthermore, sex offenders rarely prey on young children in or near parks, libraries or schools and sexually motivated abductions of children are very rare events. Laws restricting where sex offenders live or work will do little to prevent the most common circumstances in which children are sexually abused, through positions of authority and familiarity.”

 

Efficacy of County-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions in New York, 2011

“Overall, the present study supports prior research that found residence restrictions were not effective at incapacitating recidivistic sex crimes that were committed against either children or adults. Given that many of these crimes occur among acquaintances and not among geographically proximate strangers (Greenfield, 1997), as well as indications that these policies are passed for political reasons, this finding is not surprising.”

 

Sex Offender Housing Restrictions, 2011

Research shows that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.”

“The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety.”

 

Sex Offender Residence Restrictions, 2010

“There is no research to support that adult sex offenders’ proximity to schools or parks leads to recidivism. Researchers from the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that not one of 224 recidivistic adult sex offenses would have been prevented by a residential restriction law. In Florida, researchers found that the distance adult sex offenders lived from schools and daycares was not associated with recidivism; recidivists did not live closer to schools and daycares than non-recidivists (Zandbergen, Hart, & Levenson, 2010). The bottom line is that adult sex offenders do not molest children because they live near schools.”

 

Residential proximity to schools and daycare centers: Influence on sex offense recidivism, 2008

“Proximity to schools and daycares, with other risk factors being comparable, explains virtually none of the variation in sexual recidivism. Sex offenders who lived within closer proximity to schools and daycare centers did not reoffend more frequently than those who lived farther away. These data do not justify the widespread enactment of residential restrictions for sexual offenders. The time that police and probation officers spend addressing housing issues is likely to divert law enforcement resources away from behaviors that truly threaten our communities in order to attend to a problem that simply does not exist.”

 

Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions, 2008

“Residence restrictions appear to interfere with social support and stability for most registered sex offenders. Many reported transience as a result of housing restrictions, including multiple moves and homelessness.”

“Residence restrictions were especially detrimental for younger offenders. They experienced more transience and homelessness, probably as a result of being unable to live with their families in residential neighborhoods near places where children gather. Similar findings were documented in Indiana (Levenson & Hern, 2007). Because most young adults are still dependent on their parents financially and psychologically, housing laws may be uniquely problematic for this subgroup.”

 

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: How Mapping Can Inform Policy, 2008

“If unable to find legal housing, offenders may report false addresses, become homeless or go underground. Others may be forced to live in rural areas with less access to employment or mental health services. Even in rural areas where schools and day care centers are more geographically dispersed, most unrestricted land is forest or farmland.”

 

Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota, 2007

“Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions lawOnly 79 (35 percent) of the cases involved offenders who established direct contact with their victims… A juvenile was the victim in 16 of the 28 cases. But none of the 16 cases involved offenders who established victim contact near a school, park, or other prohibited area.   …even when offenders established direct contact with victims, they were unlikely to do so close to where they lived. This may be due mostly to the fact that offenders are more likely to be recognized within their own neighborhoods. As a result, when direct contact offenders look for a victim, they are more likely to go to an area relatively close to home (i.e. within 20 miles of their residence), but still far enough away (i.e. more than one mile) to decrease the chances of being recognized.”

Share This

Let's Spread Truth

Share this post!