Making the Case Against Banishing Sex Offenders

Mary Sue Molnar estimates that she gets at least five calls a week from Texans on the sex offender registry who can’t find a place to live. Numerous towns around the state have passed ordinances prohibiting those on the list from residing within a certain distance — anywhere from 500 to 3,500 feet — of a school, park, daycare facility or playground. In some towns, that’s almost everywhere. “We’ve got people living in extended-stay motels,” says Molnar, who runs the sex-offender-rights group Texas Voices for Reason and Justice. “We’re in a crisis mode.” Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No one needs to make a case, u.s.citizens have a constitutional contract thats supposed to make banishment illegal until it is changed legally. The simplicty of ending this nonsense is to uphold the law, nothing more is necesssary. I would like to banish all of these right and left wing crusaders for being treasonous traitors who are making an embarrassment of the laws of this country. And send them to a communist or fasist nation where they belong.

It’s amazing, that after years of articles denouncing the false info and quotes used in Smith V Doe 2003 that those are still being used and relied on to thwart any legal action by sex offenders to stop residency restrictions:

This is a current case mentioned in the article where the city is trying to get it dismissed.

Seriously, can’t the plaintiff’s attorney say something against this motion to dismiss or counter the city’s claims of the residency restrictions being justified???

Their data is cited from 1977-2003, and most of it was just opinions of those with an alternate purpose or hearsay.

Look, here is how they close the request to dismiss:

The Lewisville ordinance was enacted to protect children, who are among the most
vulnerable members of our society and who are least able to protect themselves. Exh. B. The
ordinance protects children from those, like the plaintiff A. Duarte, who have sought to do harm
to them. This is a legitimate governmental interest given the Supreme Court’s explicit findings:
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation….‘[t]he victims of sex assault are
most often juveniles,’ and ‘when convicted sex offenders re-enter society, they
are much more likely than any other type of offender to be re-arrested for a new
rape or sexual assault.’ Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003),
citing McKune, 536 U.S. at 32-33.
The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’ Smith,
548 U.S. at 103, citing McKune, 536 U.S. at 34.
When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any
other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault. McKune,
536 U.S. at 32, citing U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex
Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p.6 (1977).
Empirical research on child molesters, for instance, has shown that, ‘[c]ontrary to
conventional wisdom, most reoffenses do not occur within the first several years
after release,’ but may occur ‘as late as 20 years following release.’ Smith, 548
U.S. 104, citing National Institute of Justice, R. Prentky, R. Knight, & A. Lee,
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues 14 (1997).