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
-
TX: Here’s how certain Texas sex offenders are getting their information taken off the registry
Source: news4sanantonio.com 11/20/23 For certain Texas sex offenders, a lifetime on the sex offender registry may... -
TX: Texas City man found guilty in sex offender murder
Source: galvnews.com 10/27/23 A Galveston County jury Friday convicted a 23-year-old man of murder in connection... -
TX: FBI sting for an ‘experienced sadist’ who would be paid $6,000 to ‘break’ a young woman
Source: dailymail.co.uk 9/11/23 The California sommelier found guilty of flying to Texas to ‘break’ a young woman...
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:
http://www.lewisvilletexan.com/xoops/uploads/476158bc-5fe3-1fd1.pdf
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).