Ten reasons why sex offender residency restrictions are a bad idea
1. Lack of Evidence of Effectiveness: Studies indicate that residency restrictions do not significantly reduce recidivism rates among sex offenders (National Institute of Justice).
- Pushing Offenders into Isolation: Residency restrictions often force offenders to live in areas far from essential resources, such as employment opportunities and rehabilitation programs, which are crucial for reintegration (Beth Huebner).
- Homelessness and Instability: These restrictions can lead to homelessness, as offenders may struggle to find compliant housing, increasing the risk of reoffending (Mitchell Hamline School of Law).
- Increased Difficulty for Law Enforcement: Homeless or transient offenders are harder to monitor, complicating law enforcement efforts and potentially compromising public safety (U.S. Courts).
- Arbitrary Boundaries: Residency restrictions often use arbitrary buffer zones around schools or parks without evidence that such zones effectively reduce risks to public safety (Taylor & Francis Online).
- False Sense of Security: These laws can create a false sense of security, as most child sexual abuse cases involve offenders known to the victims, not strangers (Cato Institute).
- Disproportionate Punishment: Residency restrictions often apply uniformly to all sex offenders, regardless of the nature of their offense or risk level, leading to disproportionate consequences (Beth Huebner).
- Potential Violation of Civil Rights: Critics argue that these restrictions may infringe upon constitutional rights, such as freedom of movement and equal protection under the law (U.S. Courts).
- Economic and Social Burden: Homelessness and unemployment resulting from residency restrictions can impose long-term societal costs, including increased reliance on social services (Mitchell Hamline School of Law).
- Risk of Concentrated Communities: Forcing offenders into specific areas can lead to clustering, creating neighborhoods where social services are overwhelmed and public safety risks might increase (FIU Digital Commons).
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do we care about #4? Really? They impose this concept and this is an outcome they impose on themselves. Should be Nine reasons…
You’re absolutely right. They brought it on themselves. But the more reasons the registry is ineffective the better.
YES, we care about #4. We especially care about #4. It’s the one argument that legislators may actually listen to, that being the extra costs and marginal returns of tracking registrants.
I’ve never heard of a legislature or a legislator bemoaning the cost of the registry and it being difficult for LE to do their job related to it. If you can find and prove a legislature or legislator bemoans the cost and low ROI on it, then kudos to you. They can go seek more money from the Feds, et al.
Allowing PFRs in Florida to register changes to “vehicles owned” via the online FDLE system, a minor “improvement” over the previous in-person reporting requirement, was supported by FDLE over multiple legislative sessions. I also believe, although I cannot find the original source, that the Florida Sheriff’s Association supported this change too. That’s not exactly the same thing, but it’s a small amount of progress in the right direction based on how sprawling the Florida registration system has become and officials recognizing that they lack the resources to fully implement it.
Also, a few years ago California significantly modified its registry laws, which used to require lifetime registration for all PRFs, to allow most of those within its scope to eventually petition for removal. None of these changes would have been possible if not for our movement.
The point I made is about the legislature or a legislator who doesn’t bemoan it being difficult, not FDLE or anyone else who sees the reality of it and then seeks changes as they did not bring it upon themselves initially when elected officials did and don’t care about the difficulty of the registry overall for all involved.
In CA, Tier 1 and Tier 2 can petition for removal, not Tier 3…yet. Out there, it wasn’t the legislature or legislator that complained either (as was initially mentioned above in this thread), but the masses in this movement who wanted to right a perceived wrong.
We, all, know it is large and unwieldy, ineffective and cumbersome, but does this matter to those who want political credibility when the next election comes around? Nope.
I would like to address point 1, “Lack of Evidence of Effectiveness”. This is not only applicable to SORNA and related laws but to all laws and regulations. The USA at all levels of government continue to pass laws at an alarming rate. They are not being made based on actual facts or left in place because they are providing the desired result, but mainly for political and/or personal gain. Laws and regulations should not be allowed to be arbitrary and new laws and regulations should be reviewed a set time after passage to ensure they are providing the desired result and if not, be automatically repealed. When that senator or representative gets up and explains all the things a bill will do if passed into law, the American public should demand it does exactly that.
There is not a single SORNA related law passed that has made one bit of difference acorrding to numerous peer reviewed studies and yet, most States and the Federal government continue to pass them like the world will end if they don’t.