PA: Does isolating sex offenders really work? Some experts say no

The arguments from experts who contend that residency restrictions such as those sought by Dawn Knull don’t work focus on concerns that the restrictions isolate sex offenders and make it more difficult for them to be rehabilitated.

“It is a bad idea from the perspective of public safety,” said Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which brought the case on behalf of sex offenders that led to the court striking down the Allegheny County ordinance.

Many experts have come out in recent years to say the restrictions don’t work, Roper said. Full Article


Knull effort is aimed at restricting where sex offenders live, for sake of children’s safety

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

It becomes tiresome to read articles such as this where they speak about registrants being “more likely to reoffend” because of residency restrictions.
No, registrants are more likely to “die” because of residency restrictions, not reoffend.
When you can’t find a decent place to live, you can’t find a job because most jobs require you to have an address. No job means you can’t buy basic necessities, like food. If you are living under a bridge or in a tent city, exposed to the elements, you’re more likely to get sick, but since you have no job, you probably have no healthcare benefits nor money to seek treatment.
Why in the world do people think when you are homeless, sick and starving that you’re immediate first instinct would be to go out and reoffend?
How insane.

Notice how the headline says “some” experts? Umm, no. As the journalist then (accidentally?) admits, it’s “most” experts say the restrictions don’t work. Sheesh!

Here’s a radical idea: how about using clinical assessments to determine risk? What a novel idea! Oh wait, that would mean having to do work and spend money on the “filth” known as SOs. Much easier to toss the entire onus on their backs.

“Knull effort is aimed at restricting where sex offenders live, for sake of children’s safety.”

Considering family members make up just over half of child abusers, is Knull suggesting we ban procreation and start sterilizing people?