|
|
|
|
NOTE: Advertisements at the top of this page are placed there by our web hosting company and while we encourage you to visit the companies that may interest you; they DO NOT reflect the opinions or are an official sponsor of the Sex Offender Solutions Network.
Twenty Findings of Research on Residential
Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the
01) Housing restrictions appear to be based
largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: (a) all sex
offenders reoffend; (b) treatment does
not work; and (c) the concept of
“stranger danger.” Research does not support these myths, but there is research
to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender
residence restrictions. (A Report to the
02) Research shows that there is no correlation
between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or
improving the safety of children. (
03) The resulting damage to the reliability of
the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety. (
04) There is no demonstrated protective effect of
the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement
resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. (
05) Many prosecutors have observed that the
numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused
a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where
defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In
addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to
enter plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving
child victims in order to protect the children from trauma of the trial
process. (
06) Recommendations: (a) Shared Living Arrangements appear to be a
frequently successful mode of containment and treatment for higher risk sex
offenders and should be considered a viable living situation for higher risk
sex offenders in the community…. Recommendation (b) Placing restrictions on the location of
correctionally supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex
offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control
sexual offending recidivism. (Report on Safety Issues
Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the
Community; Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice,
Sex Offender Management Board)
07) The number of sex offenders who are
unaccounted for has doubled since the law went into effect. (
08) There is no accommodation in the current
statute for persons on parole or probation supervision. These offenders are
already monitored and their living arrangements approved. (
09) [This policy] is contrary to well-established
principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders….These goals are
severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of
children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practice. (
10) 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. (
11) Some offenders are attempting to comply by
providing descriptions of where they are actually living….”under the 7th street
bridge,” “truck near river,” “rest area mile marker 149,” “Flying J, in truck,”
“in tent, S side of I-80,” “RV in old K-Mart parking lot,” “I-35 rest
area,”….Two listed Quick Trips…. For the first time, sex offender treatment
providers tell us, sex offenders are absconding in larger numbers. (
12) When a brutal sexually violent crime occurs,
such as the one that occurred in
13) The Board of the
14) Housing restrictions have passed in most
localities with little resistance. Child safety is rightly the primary concern
when sex offender restrictions are imposed. It seems to make sense that
decreasing access to potential victims would be a feasible strategy to
preventing sex crimes. There is no evidence, however, that such laws are
effective in reducing recidivistic sexual violence. On the other hand, such
laws aggravate the scarcity of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them
out of metropolitan areas and farther away from the social support, employment
opportunities and social services that are known to aid offenders in successful
community re-entry. (Sex
offender residence restrictions. A Report to the
15) Despite overwhelming public and political
support, there is no evidence that proximity to schools increases recidivism,
or, conversely, that housing restrictions reduce reoffending or increase
community safety. (Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to
the
16) Based on the examination of level three
re-offenders, there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or
school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses noted…
Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the
general public, but it does not have any basis in fact…it appears that a sex
offender attracted to such locations for purposes of committing a crime is more
likely to travel to another neighborhood on order to in secret rather than in a
neighborhood where his or her picture is well known. (Level
Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the
Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections)
17) Having such restrictions in the cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul would likely force level three offenders to move to
more rural areas that would not contain nearby schools and parks but would pose
other problems, such as high concentration of offenders with no ties to the
community; isolation; lack of work, education and treatment options; and an
increase in the distance traveled by agents who supervise offenders. Again, no
evidence points to any effect on offense rates of school proximity residential
restrictions. (Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement
Issues, 2003 Report to the Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections)
18) Since blanket proximity restrictions on
residential locations of level three offenders do not enhance community safety,
the current offender-by-offender restrictions should be retained. Proximity
restrictions, based on circumstances on an individual offender, serve as a
valuable supervision tool…Most of these supervision proximity restrictions
address the issue of the offender associating or interacting with children or
minors, rather than where the offender resides. (Level
Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues, 2003 Report to the
Legislature, Minnesota Department of Corrections)
19) A significant number of offenders have
married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the
residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. (
20) A tight web of supervision, treatment and
surveillance may be more important in maintaining community safety than where a
sex offender resides. (Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living
Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community; Colorado
Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal justice, Sex Offender
Management Board)
http://www.dc.state.ks.us/SOHR/Twenty_Findings_on_Restrictions_for_Sex_Offenders.htm
Click Here
to Return to HOME PAGE
bravenet.com