Most of them knew what was coming, but the words still left them shocked and dismayed. Dozens of Providence men, all convicted of sex crimes, learned Wednesday from the Providence police that they had 30 days to find a new place to live. Full Article
Related posts
-
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
CT: ‘Just existing, not living’: CT residents retroactively added to sex offense registry seek reprieve
Source: ctmirror.org 9/10/23 Twenty-five years after Connecticut required them to register as “sex offenders” ex post... -
MT: Montana Supreme Court rules in Sexual and Violent Offender Registration Act case
Source: kpax.com 6/15/23 HELENA – A Montana Supreme Court ruling deemed legislative amendments to the 2007...
The Rhode Island legislature reacted out of fear and ignored the facts when it passed these residency restrictions. The evidence is clear. Residency restrictions reduce public safety because they result in homeless registered citizens and make it more difficult for law enforcement to know the location of those citizens. In addition, residency restrictions bear no rational relationship to advancing a state’s goal of protecting children. These facts were spelled out clearly by the California Supreme Court in the Taylor case. They could form the basis of a successful challenge in Rhode Island.
Do these people have no conscious? There is no excuse for these laws to be passed. I think Janice is right when she says they “reacted out of fear;” probably fear of not appearing like they have the well being of their citizens in mind.
You would think that by this time public officials would have started educating the populace instead of reacting to fear and dis information. They do their people a dis-service, because if this is challenged the state will probably lose to the tune of allot of the peoples money.
Well, I agree this is a terrible law. And the foregoing comments, I agree with.
Let’s think of this in another way. When I was in college, it was illegal to have a liquor store within one mile of the campus. The theory was, by having that legal restriction, the students would obviously not have access to alcohol. They would stay sober and work on their studies.
You are not going to believe what the result was. Students, it turned out, had automobiles. When they wanted to drink alcohol, they merely drove to the store and bought what they wanted. Then they took it back to their domiciles on campus. The upshot: the law was invalidated by the reality of technology, e.g, the auto. Frankly, if you have a car, these restrictions are senseless. Only the mentally defective could believe in them.
There is no greater marketing tool than fear and there is no greater bondage than fear.
Price Club