On Tuesday night, the Boulder City Council will discuss whether it wants to draft a new policy limiting where in the city people deemed “sexually violent predators” can live.
Ahead of the meeting, District Attorney Stan Garnett urged council members to resist such a policy.
“When (a sexual predator) does get placed in the community, we want to know where they are, and if you pass ordinances that try to limit where people can live in the city, that may complicate the efforts of police and parole to keep track of them,” Garnett said.
Good article. I’m glad so many articles keep hammering that residency restrictions, and even the registry itself, are pretty much useless and actually create more issues than solve.
There’s an atty I know of in Boulder who is watching this very closely and won’t be afraid to pounce if need be to correct Boulder.
Though I support his opinion, I disagree with his rationale. He wants it as a way to be able to keep an eye on people; I see it as a way to let supposedly free citizens (i.e. those who have completed their sentences) be free.
It would have been nice to have “there’s little evidence of a strong connection between address and risk of reoffense” placed earlier in the article. But, at least it’s in there. I agree with AlexO, any public discourse that debunks anything to do with registries laws is a good thing.
All they’re doing is trying prolong the death of this dying horse…Public opinion is changing, court opnions are changing, LE and all the associated affiliates and parasites feeding of the udder are worried, and rightly so, becuase they see the writing on the wall, and they know the end is near….