Wednesday, March 2, 2011

How far can - or should - communities go to restrict sex offenders?

Original Article:
http://www.lohud.com/article/20090202/
Written by Nancy Cutler
How can communities most effectively - and legally - protect themselves from convicted sex offenders? What kind of restrictions should be placed on the day-to-day lives of those deemed most at risk of re-offending? What role should local governments play in shaping those measures?

A recent state Supreme Court decision asserts that state regulations supercede local measures when it comes to regulating where convicted sex offenders can live. New York state has myriad laws regarding sex offenders, from Meagan's Law, which requires convicted sex offenders to notify law enforcement when they move into a community, to newly enacted guidelines and procedures concerning where the most dangerous sex offenders can live.

The Jan. 23 ruling by state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly invalidated Rockland's Pedophile Free Child Safety Zone Act, enacted in 2007. The local law has been the subject of several legal challenges, as have some of the 80-plus similar laws that have been adopted from Niagara Falls to Long Island. Such sex offender zones usually target those classified as Level 2 and Level 3 offenders. Level 2 designates a moderate risk of re-offending; Level 3 refers to those deemed at high risk of committing another crime.

Kelly's ruling in New City dismissed a probation violation against Yoel Oberlander for moving to a residence within 1,000 feet of a "Rockland County pedophile-free child safety zone," which included schools, child-care facilities, park playgrounds, youth centers and public swimming pools. Because the judge has ruled that the local law is pre-empted by state law, the county attorney has said that an appeal is unlikely, according to a county spokeswoman.

The court decision has implications beyond Oberlander's probation or even Rockland's safety zone law. Similar laws, including one in Putnam County, which recently updated its child zone law, ostensibly to avoid legal challenges, could also be in jeopardy. Westchester also has been considering child safety zone legislation. A New Jersey court last year struck down local safety zones, citing their interference with parole and probation officers' efforts to find suitable housing for offenders.

'Not in my backyard'

Judge Kelly expressed concern about "not in my backyard" residency requirements creating a hodge-podge of restrictions throughout New York. "Sex offender residency restrictions are multiplying throughout New York State, as local legislatures scramble to outmaneuver each other with highly restrictive ordinances designed to banish registered offenders from their community," Kelly wrote.

Indeed, that's what happened after the Rockland County Department of Social Services arranged for another Level 3 sex offender, Christopher Palma, to be housed in Ulster County. Palma had been admitted to the county's Summit Park hospital for two weeks, but when it was time for him to be discharged, Palma said he couldn't find housing that complied with the county's child zone law. He ended up staying at the county-owned facility for 19 months; under state law, he couldn't be discharged without a place to go. After Palma's relocation to Ulster was revealed in the local media, Ulster officials protested, and now that county is considering similar residency regulations for sex offenders.

When Rockland's child safety zone law was passed by the county Legislature and signed by County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, its limitations were duly noted. Some said it offered a false sense of security. The prime sponsor, Legislator Ed Day, R-New City, said it should not be seen as a total security blanket for children; it's just another tool for law enforcement. 

Vanderhoef has repeatedly said that the state must establish standards for housing sex offenders. Gov. David Paterson, when signing the recent updates to state law, directed state social service, parole and probation officials to address "a coordinated and comprehensive statewide policy that will both protect the public and ensure that there is suitable and appropriate housing available for sex offenders in every community in the State."

Rockland probation officers have complained that the child zone law has left few places in Rockland for sex offenders to reside, making it more difficult to monitor dangerous people. Day, a retired high-ranking NYPD officer, dismisses those complaints; he notes that other sex offenders have found places to live in Rockland, notwithstanding the restrictions.

Another take on offenders


Human Rights Watch U.S. researcher Sarah Tofte, based in Manhattan, examined residency restrictions in a 2007 report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." No evidence could be found to show child safety laws diminished crimes against children, her research found. The organization monitors and defends human right issues around the world.

"For registered offenders, the main impact of the laws may be simply to drive them underground or to uproot them from their families and communities," the report states. 

Family support, counseling and employment are seen by many in the criminal justice community as strong motivators against recidivism. Her report concluded that, "Residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders should be determined on a case-by-case basis, for example by courts or probation and parole officers, and be subject to periodic review."

Paterson, in a memorandum on the state law last year, underscored the challenge of finding appropriate housing for offenders, a burden that falls on local probation and social services officials. Some probation and social service officials have said that by making it so difficult for them to find housing, sex offenders can slip into homelessness, which creates barriers to tracking their comings and goings - a dangerous proposition.

New York has tough laws


Kelly noted in his ruling that a 2005 state law barred sex offenders whose victims were minors and who were under parole and probation supervision from residing within 1,000 feet of schools. "In fact, New York has one of the strictest sex offender residency law(s) in the nation," Kelly wrote. As well, New York's Megan's Law shows the state's intention to manage the sex offender issues, according to Kelly's ruling. The state's newest sex offender regulations, which went into effect this month, mandate that local probation departments take responsibility for approving housing for sex offenders, Kelly notes. As Paterson wrote in his signing memorandum: "This bill recognizes that the placement of these offenders in the community has been and will continue to be a matter that is properly addressed by the State."

State regulations acknowledge a need for buffer zones, but demonstrate a long-term goal of reintegrating offenders into the community, Kelly stated. "Local residency laws don't," he said. "They permanently exclude offenders from communities, setting off a chain-reaction of fear-driven and increasingly restrictive laws."

Where does all this leave safety-conscious local communities? Still searching for answers as to how they can keep children safe - within the boundaries of the law.

The writer is Rockland opinion editor.

Chris Palma, a convicted sex offender, spent nearly 19 months in Summit Park Hospital after being unable to find housing in Rockland County. / Vincent DiSalvio/The Journal News

Coming up . . .

What should communities do to protect children from convicted sex offenders? What strategies work and which ones don't? Sarah Tofte, a researcher with Human Rights Watch and author of 2007 report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States," addresses those concerns with the Editorial Board in an Editorial Spotlight at 11 a.m. Tuesday. To watch the LIVE Web cast, go to lohud.com/editorialspotlight. Click on the "Cover It Live'' feature at the right of your screen to submit questions during the session. For more information about Tofte, read her report at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

One To See Change Past Posts

One to See Change Blog List

"When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect."
~Adlia Stevenson U.S. Vice President (1893–1897) and Congressman (1879–1881)

On a Personal Note

Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts regarding the issue of citizens’ rights, particularly addressing certain sex offenders’ crimes that do not fit the devastating, inequitable and endless punishment given.


As you know, many young men and women lives across the nation are being destroyed by incarceration, life-time registry and restrictive laws that do more harm than good. For those individuals, there is no second chance.

Below is a personal letter to President Obama:
* * * *
“Dear President Obama,

I truly agree with your sentiments that individuals, such as ex-felons, should be able to receive a second chance at life. Since we all know that one can veer off that path of life and travel along rough, rocky terrain, sometimes running off and ending up in some ditch. We all have made our fill of mistakes and sometimes those held a costly consequence that changed life forever. So we lived through it, trying harder to make things right with family, friends and those around us, but what about those who aren’t able to make things right even if they tried…because they’re labeled as too dirty, a leper, a person who is rejected from society and home.


But what if they’re a seventeen year old and had sex with a fifteen year old, consensual at that? Or they’re a teen that had gotten so enraged after a breakup that he sent out naked pictures of his girlfriend on his cell phone or email? Or an individual urinates where someone just happens to see them?


All are wrong and a travesty but do they deserve the life of no second chance with a registry that ends all. They are labeled, no jobs, no where to live…they have been deemed a menace to society, a plague. These certain circumstances, and many other situations similar to these, I believe still deserve a second change.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


After my son’s early release and two years of prison, I thought I had handled that fact graciously knowing after serving his time he would be able to get that fresh start, that second chance. He was an exemplary inmate, GED, college courses and vocational classes. Little did I know that a second chance on the outside was the farthest from the truth? He now struggles and lives in a trailer park sharing a trailer with another and surrounded by others in the same rocking boat, one to float endlessly in shark infested waters. I see him little because of probation requirements (he couldn’t live with us because we were 800 feet near a school). My family is afraid of what would happen to them if he lived with them…vigilantism. My son has no other place to stay since others condemn him of his crime that is screamed from the highest rooftop. Sex offender, sex offender!

Not all sex offenders are pedophiles or predators but some are simply young kids that make one stupid and rash decision that eventually changes everything, and they have no idea what they’ve done until their life is never their own. Exactly, where is that second chance for those sex-offenders who are lumped together with pedophiles and predators? Now, it makes me sick to think of my son’s future and many like him that are on the registry and many with no second chance…ever. I am asking you as a mother and as another concerned citizen of the United States that these laws are looked at again and taken into serious consideration in what they are doing to the Constitution of the United States, not for sex offenders in general but the future rights of every citizen, before anymore are put into effect. They unjustly strip an offender of their rights and place them in a guillotine that can be easily set off by anyone and at anytime. Where is the second chance for ex-sex offenders in the present, pending and future laws?”
* * * *
What truly saddens me is the weakness and deterioration of what the sex offense issue is doing to our once, great nation. Across Europe, others are seeing the injustice and disregard of rights, but we ignore this problem and it makes me wonder where humanity is heading….

We have become a hysterical society in which our latest witch-hunt is a sex offender--no matter his/her crime.

Below is a email sent from a foreign advocate to a father of a sex offender:
* * * *
“The tragic story of your son's death is just so sad that it's difficult to explain how. It was very hard to read your letters. It seems almost unbelievable that this can take place in a democracy! From our point of view, there is no justice in this. Not in any way: not for you, your son, the former girl friend – or even the state.

It is an abusive legal system. It seems barbaric. And we are so very sorry that this takes place. That's why it's so important for us to try to neutralize the debate with this…, hopefully making some changes. ….. to show the every day life of the sex offenders, trying to show how they keep on being punished, even after served prison time…..But we will for sure tell the story of the injustice that your son has been exposed to.”
* * * *
I appreciate everyone's commitment and backing to protect everyone's civil rights, plainly as noted in the Constitution of the United States and is presupposed, giving ALL men are “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”