Today the New York Times published an editorial, “The Pointless Banishment of Sex Offenders”, which questions the adoption by some states, counties and cities of residency restrictions which prohibit where a registered citizen may live. The editorial notes that such restrictions have resulted in sending “tens of thousands of people to the fringes of society, forcing them to live in motels, out of cars or under bridges” and that “there is not a single piece of evidence” that these restrictions protect children. The editorial also notes that “judges have been pushing back” against residency restrictions in state Supreme Court decisions in Massachusetts, New York and California.
The timing of this editorial in an important publication is a significant windfall. It comes at a crucial time in our march toward the elimination of residency restrictions in the state of California. In fact, it comes on the very day that the first city whose restrictions we challenged in court — Grover Beach — is scheduled to take its first formal step toward repeal of its residency restrictions. If Grover Beach takes that step, it will join the cities of El Monte, Downey and Corona as well as Riverside County on the path of justice and humanity.
There are many more California cities and counties, however, that continue to restrict where a registered citizen may live. They do so despite a recent California Supreme Court decision which determined that residency restrictions violate the constitutional rights of registered citizens on parole to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive government actions. The Court also stated that residency restrictions do not bear a “rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children.”
The Court’s rulings are essential to our cause of eliminating residency restrictions and are supported by a recent study from the California Sex Offender Management Board which noted that “there is no evidence that residency restrictions are related to preventing or deterring sex crimes against children.” The Board added, “to the contrary the evidence strongly suggests that residency restrictions are likely to have the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense.”
As the New York Times editorial board stated today, “(i)t is understandable to want to do everything possible to protect children from being abused. But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose a risk at all. Blanket residency restriction laws disregard that reality – and the merits of an individualized approach to risk assessment – in favor of a comforting mirage of safety.”
May this message be heard by all, including the judges who will ultimately decide the fate of residency restrictions in the state of California. For once the mirage vanishes, we will all live in a safer and more just society.
Read all Janice’s Journals
I know this wrong forum. But my little boy was hit by truck while riding scooter with fiend.his fiend died and he is in hospital. Please pray for him. I love so much so much and can’ there him be there. My heart is tearing apart. Please pray for him.
I agree overall with the observations of the NYT editorial board’s 9/8/15 post and the Journal entry here — I do.
I just ask that we also consider all the other ways and means that “registration” occurs – including registration of online identity, etc etc. These too, as banishments and tools of the “containment model”, are abridgements and violations of civil and constitutional rights. And have no basis in actual facts or evidence. CA SB448 comes to mind. If you have businesses or are searching for work or just living modern life with various forced online identities – and miss reporting one – you can be imprisoned. And what logistical mechanisms are in place to actually accurately comply with such law?
Stances can be made to approach all this from give-and-take negotiation and acceptance of small or partial piecemeal victories. But let’s also consider too the “all of us or none” approach. Registration of any kind is unacceptable, unless all other forms of offenses require equal registration. And in that case, democracy, liberty, civil and constitutional rights are indeed a mirage.
There are many voices in a peaceful protest against tyranny by government or mob mentality. There is room for the incremental and all-of-us-or-none approach both. Which is most effective for our lifetimes or beyond, is still an open question.
Posed to the group: Thoughts, experiences, beliefs, actions?
Bravo, I couldn’t agree more.
I just spoke with a friend of mine who just heard of a case in Nebraska that seems to have what it takes to dismantle the whole registry and failure to register cases in the state after a man took his failure to register case to trial and won. The Jury came back with two points and if anyone has the nerves and resources to tackle the challenge, it would remove the registry entirely in Nebraska. The first point is none of the 12 jury of his peers could understand nor follow the vague laws. The other is that they found the laws unconstitutional. I’m sure you will be getting an email from someone soon about this.
Two Words:
Jury nullification.
This is a very well written article. We also have to remember that there are some (actually many) individuals who haven’t even been convicted of a child related offense or the crime was victimless (internet related ect). So, as mentioned so much in the past, all offenders can’t be put in the same category. Furthermore, I think the recent study conducted by the Department of Justice says it all (less than 1 %). Lets wake up. There are certainly a lot of offenders that should be on parole ect, but what about Grandpa living in Leisure World or the idiot who got caught in a massage parlor 20 years ago and received Summary Probation? California, start reading the studies and lets institute a tiered system so we can all move on with our lives.
Nicholas can you please cite the case. I have 2 great lawyers already working on something similar and if love to bring this to there attention.
I completely agree that we are definitely near a turning point with this registration nonsense. And it is thanks to you, Janice, for starting the fight and encouraging our community to show up, stand up and speak up. Many, many thanks for your tireless efforts and strength.
Thank you for your prayers. It is not sure how much injuries he has. he is so tough. I cry and pray to Buddha
Senate Bill 448 is scheduled to be heard by the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly on Friday, September 11. It is important that we all make calls to that committee starting at 8:30 a.m. and continue doing so until the bill is heard. The phone number is 916-319-3744. Please call early and often!
A friend of mine has been busting heads and shaking things up in the senate. Although political timing is important positioning our concerns in the ears at the top helps as well. Sometimes pressure is best utilized when applied from more than one direction and/or angle.
I am lucky so far, that my city hasn’t enforced the residency laws. I will be homeless (and unemployed) if they ever do! Pray for the day Calif’s S.O. Registry is segmented so that lower level offenders can get finite terms.
Janice,
I found it very interesting that under the current US law, applying the restriction placed on SO’s we as a group qualify as Politically oppressed. In a recognized social group that has severe restriction and oppression from our government, recently even travel restrictions http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-who-32298.html. Is this helpful?
Janice, please help me find someone in TN willing to carry the battle to the politicians like you’re doing in CA. The TN chapter of the ACLU won’t touch sex offender law challenges because they’re a small chapter with limited resources. They state challenges have been unsuccessful and they decline to even try.
Offenders in TN need someone as tenacious, dedicated, and determined as you are to see these laws up-ended.