States Examine Residency Restrictions for Individuals Convicted of Sex Crimes January 22, 2008
Posted by FairSentencing in : Current News , trackbackIn the past decade, more than 20 states and hundreds of municipalities across the nation have enacted laws restricting where sex offenders may reside. Most of these laws prohibit sex offenders from living within 500 to 2,500 feet of schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, and other places frequented by children. The purpose of these laws is to decrease opportunities for sex offenders to have contact with vulnerable populations, which lawmakers believe will ultimately reduce the risk of child sexual abuse and sexual assault.
Opponents of residency restriction laws, however, raise questions about their effectiveness in preventing further criminal activity, pointing to studies that show no effect on recidivism (for example, see “Level III Sex Offenders: Residential Placement Issues” from the Minnesota Department of Corrections). They also highlight the unintended consequences of such restrictions, such as greater difficulty monitoring sex offenders who are under community supervision. Residency restrictions often leave many neighborhoods and housing complexes off-limits to registered sex offenders, leading some of these individuals to become homeless and/or transient and making them less likely to report to their parole or probation officers.
In response to these concerns, some state legislatures are re-evaluating their residency restriction laws. Other states have seen challenges to the constitutionality of these laws:
- Georgia: A Georgia law adopted in 2006 (H.B. 1059) banned all registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any “area where minors congregate.” In November 2007, the state Supreme Court struck down this law, ruling that such restrictions violate the property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.1
- Iowa: Since 2002, Iowa law prohibits individuals convicted of sex crimes involving children from living within 2,000 feet of schools and childcare centers. The state Supreme Court has upheld these restrictions twice, most recently last December, ruling that Iowa’s law does not violate the due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In 2006, the Iowa County Attorneys Association, a group of county prosecutors, published this “Statement on Residency Restrictions in Iowa,” claiming that the restrictions may cause sex offenders to become homeless, change residences without notifying authorities, register false addresses, or simply disappear. The report also recommended several alternative policies the state could adopt.
- California: In 2006, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 83, which prohibits all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. In December 2007, the state Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of this law. The court will hear the case of four recent parolees who claim the application of these restrictions is both unconstitutional, because it punishes individuals who had already served their sentences when the law was passed, as well as an unreasonable condition of parole, since it leaves many parolees with no place to live.
Residency restrictions are among many issues relating to persons convicted of sexual crimes that policymakers, criminal justice officials, advocates, and others are currently discussing in the states. To view examples of recently enacted laws concerning sex offenders, see the Reentry Policy Council’s 2006-2007 legislation roundup.
The Council of State Governments Justice Center, which coordinates the Reentry Policy Council, has received funding support from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, to develop a policy guide which will help policymakers and practitioners make thoughtful, informed decisions when examining housing options for adults who have been released to the community after serving time for committing sex crimes. For more information on this project, click here.
Loading ...
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?