« Ind. Law - Because of two conflicting laws, Lake County Councilman Will Smith Jr. on council until sentencing | Main | Ind. Decisions - More on: Supreme Court issues confusing ruling re Mental Illness and Competency to be Executed »
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Law - More on "Georgia's top court overturned a state law Wednesday that banned registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate"
Updating this ILB entry from November 21st, Laura Bauer of the Kansas City Star reports today under the headling "Georgia ruling on sex offenders prompts other states, including Missouri, to re-examine laws." The story begins:
A Georgia Supreme Court ruling has refueled the debate on whether states should restrict where sex offenders live.As noted in the earlier entry, Indiana has at least one similar case pending at the trial level. See this August 19th ILB entry for the most recent info the ILB has.The Georgia court struck down its residency restrictions last week, giving opponents of such buffer zones hope that other state laws will be reviewed and possibly overturned.
“It certainly sends a message that creating laws that render people homeless is not in anybody’s best interest,” said Jill Levenson, a professor at Florida’s Lynn University who has done extensive studies on the effect of residency restrictions. “In theory, I believe this could pave the way for a U.S. Supreme Court case.”
At least 21 states — including Missouri — have laws that ban registered sex offenders from living within a specified distance of schools, day-care centers and in some cases parks, swimming pools and bus stops. After high-profile child abductions and sexual assaults, parents across the nation fought for the buffer zones, urging lawmakers to protect their children from sexual predators.
Some authorities think the laws, if properly enforced, are helpful.
“I do think there’s an increased danger if a sex offender is in close proximity to children that they’ll re-offend,” Platte County prosecutor Eric Zahnd said. “Many are pedophiles in the truest sense of the word.”
But for the past three years, opposition to residency restrictions has grown. Opponents say buffer zones create a false sense of security for parents because offenders are restricted only in where they live, not in where they go. Also, Levenson said, in the vast majority of cases children know their molesters.
“They’re not strangers lurking in schoolyards,” she said.
Opponents also say that residency restrictions lead many offenders to stop registering, which they are required by law to do; become homeless; or move to rural areas where they can’t be easily tracked.
In Iowa, where courts have upheld the buffer zones, authorities estimate that they have lost track of many offenders and say it will only get worse. That’s why Georgia’s ruling was “monumental,” said Corwin Ritchie of the Iowa County Attorneys Association.
“When these laws were first bantered about, they sold an awfully convincing bill of goods, that they are awfully good safety measures,” Ritchie said. “I think in Georgia they are seeing the full impact of the unintended consequences and saying this is not constitutional.”
[Thanks to How Appealing for the link to the Kansas City Star story today.]
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 29, 2007 03:55 PM
Posted to General Law Related