With an outcry from neighbors about recently released sex offenders living under a nearby bridge, the Ringgold City Council unanimously passed an emergency ordinance banning homelessness Monday night. Full Article
This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic and if it wasn’t destroying people. The city creates a registry, the city creates laws so people on that registry can’t live anywhere, they city is creating a law to jail people who don’t have anywhere to live due to those laws they created. To add to the insanity, probation is placing the people under the bridge because they have nowhere to release them do to the strict residency restrictions imposed by the city, now the city is shocked to find out probation is placing people under the bridge, and everyone is wondering why people on the registry are living under a bridge unsupervised. Could I safely interpret this as everyone involved here is basically saying the public registry is cluster freaking ineffective sadly laughable disaster doing more harm than good? can I surmise that?
R M
Guest
November 14, 2018 1:07 pm
Email sent to the author Tyler Jett (tjett@timesfreepress.com 423-757-6476).
Dear Mr. Jett,
I am writing in regards to the article you wrote on Ringgold’s choice to “ban” sex offenders and all homeless people from the city.
First, society has been led to believe sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. This is false.
Robert Longo wrote the original 1986 non-scientific Psychology Today article stating “frightening and high” recidivism rates to be as high as 80% (35 to 80). Barbara Schwartz wrote the Department of Justice manual cited by the Supreme Court but admits she just “made up a model”. The article had 6 references including the dictionary. The “best we were doing is guesses” she says.
Second, the recidivism rate is at most 4.6% and in many states is as low as 1%.“
A. US Bureau of Justice Statistics Report published in 2003 declared that after analyzing the records of nearly 10,000 convicted sex offenders, only 4.6% of them were found to have had a previous conviction involving a sex crime against a child victim. Thus over 95% of new sex crimes against children are committed by someone who has no previous record of being convicted of a sex offense against a child.”
Third, I do realize that you are just a reporter but why not look into some facts before you report and then question those you interview? Or are you just an ignorant uninformed person of society doing a job?
If society and Ringgold want to truly help society and be safer, end the public registry (which was originally intended for law enforcement only) and then the unfounded fear and hysteria will cease.
Sincerely,
[me]
My say
Guest
November 14, 2018 3:25 pm
Well, it could be worse. At least they didn’t make it illegal for A registrant to register. With “failure to register” being a felony, it would automatically make a “registrant registering” A felony also. I think I will pick Florida as my guess for what state will try it first.
(full of sarcasm) (except the Florida bit)
USA
Guest
November 14, 2018 4:49 pm
Wow! This is very disturbing! They ban offenders from living in certain areas and making it very difficult to become employed, yet they complain when the individual becomes homeless? Wouldn’t it be easier to assist these people with employment/trades, help them obtain housing and become assets to society? I see how the US goes to foreign countries, help those in need, but yet they don’t help their own? Disturbing! California might be the worst! It’s now time to look at things in an alternative manner! I’m a Republican, but I think the new Governor (liberal) will do things differently. As I’ve already mentioned, this is a HUGE opportunity to instill new laws or amendments to SB 384! You guys can post all of the case law you want, but that will take years! We should be adding Amendments to this bill where: ie: no arrests? Additional convictions? Etc, a judge must grant it? I truly believe this bill is a winner and it’s going to be similar to getting a 17B or expungement! They might be able to deny it for 1 year etc, but the requirements (as opposed to a COR) will change. This should be our #1 Priority!
Eric
Guest
November 14, 2018 5:06 pm
The more I think about this it appears to be a calculated strategy to keep the undesirables locked up. They are not allowed to live anywhere and then they are arrested and jailed for not living somewhere.
Eric
Guest
November 14, 2018 5:27 pm
Ok, here is a link to the presidents talk on the new prison reform bill. It is an impressive talk by President Trump. The theme is that people who make a mistake in the United States get a second chance. He emphasizes opportunities at fair housing, training and jobs. All of which are currently withheld form those on the registry, and as is certainly seen in this article on denying housing and then jailing those same people for not having a place to live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am9cnBVePpI
Dustin
Guest
November 15, 2018 11:07 am
Another thing overlooked:
“In response to neighbors’ complaints, a DCS spokeswoman sent the Times Free Press a “frequently asked questions” form designed for Ringgold residents which includes a statement that the agency is not required to inform neighbors about a sex offender living nearby.”
Wasn’t the registry supposed to BE that notification? A lot of states require separate community notification when registrants move in – isn’t that redundant to the registry? Doesn’t that just further demonstrate the uselessness of at least the public registry?
David
Guest
November 15, 2018 2:00 pm
The city council could have banned ignorance ….. instantly putting themselves in violation!
This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic and if it wasn’t destroying people. The city creates a registry, the city creates laws so people on that registry can’t live anywhere, they city is creating a law to jail people who don’t have anywhere to live due to those laws they created. To add to the insanity, probation is placing the people under the bridge because they have nowhere to release them do to the strict residency restrictions imposed by the city, now the city is shocked to find out probation is placing people under the bridge, and everyone is wondering why people on the registry are living under a bridge unsupervised. Could I safely interpret this as everyone involved here is basically saying the public registry is cluster freaking ineffective sadly laughable disaster doing more harm than good? can I surmise that?
Email sent to the author Tyler Jett (tjett@timesfreepress.com 423-757-6476).
Dear Mr. Jett,
I am writing in regards to the article you wrote on Ringgold’s choice to “ban” sex offenders and all homeless people from the city.
First, society has been led to believe sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. This is false.
Robert Longo wrote the original 1986 non-scientific Psychology Today article stating “frightening and high” recidivism rates to be as high as 80% (35 to 80). Barbara Schwartz wrote the Department of Justice manual cited by the Supreme Court but admits she just “made up a model”. The article had 6 references including the dictionary. The “best we were doing is guesses” she says.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000005415081/a-frightening-myth-about-sex-offenders.html?src=vidm
Second, the recidivism rate is at most 4.6% and in many states is as low as 1%.“
A. US Bureau of Justice Statistics Report published in 2003 declared that after analyzing the records of nearly 10,000 convicted sex offenders, only 4.6% of them were found to have had a previous conviction involving a sex crime against a child victim. Thus over 95% of new sex crimes against children are committed by someone who has no previous record of being convicted of a sex offense against a child.”
http://www.casomb.org/docs/Residence_Paper_Final.pdf (There are at least 17 reports/studies that conclude the same stats)
Third, I do realize that you are just a reporter but why not look into some facts before you report and then question those you interview? Or are you just an ignorant uninformed person of society doing a job?
If society and Ringgold want to truly help society and be safer, end the public registry (which was originally intended for law enforcement only) and then the unfounded fear and hysteria will cease.
Sincerely,
[me]
Well, it could be worse. At least they didn’t make it illegal for A registrant to register. With “failure to register” being a felony, it would automatically make a “registrant registering” A felony also. I think I will pick Florida as my guess for what state will try it first.
(full of sarcasm) (except the Florida bit)
Wow! This is very disturbing! They ban offenders from living in certain areas and making it very difficult to become employed, yet they complain when the individual becomes homeless? Wouldn’t it be easier to assist these people with employment/trades, help them obtain housing and become assets to society? I see how the US goes to foreign countries, help those in need, but yet they don’t help their own? Disturbing! California might be the worst! It’s now time to look at things in an alternative manner! I’m a Republican, but I think the new Governor (liberal) will do things differently. As I’ve already mentioned, this is a HUGE opportunity to instill new laws or amendments to SB 384! You guys can post all of the case law you want, but that will take years! We should be adding Amendments to this bill where: ie: no arrests? Additional convictions? Etc, a judge must grant it? I truly believe this bill is a winner and it’s going to be similar to getting a 17B or expungement! They might be able to deny it for 1 year etc, but the requirements (as opposed to a COR) will change. This should be our #1 Priority!
The more I think about this it appears to be a calculated strategy to keep the undesirables locked up. They are not allowed to live anywhere and then they are arrested and jailed for not living somewhere.
Ok, here is a link to the presidents talk on the new prison reform bill. It is an impressive talk by President Trump. The theme is that people who make a mistake in the United States get a second chance. He emphasizes opportunities at fair housing, training and jobs. All of which are currently withheld form those on the registry, and as is certainly seen in this article on denying housing and then jailing those same people for not having a place to live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am9cnBVePpI
Another thing overlooked:
“In response to neighbors’ complaints, a DCS spokeswoman sent the Times Free Press a “frequently asked questions” form designed for Ringgold residents which includes a statement that the agency is not required to inform neighbors about a sex offender living nearby.”
Wasn’t the registry supposed to BE that notification? A lot of states require separate community notification when registrants move in – isn’t that redundant to the registry? Doesn’t that just further demonstrate the uselessness of at least the public registry?
The city council could have banned ignorance ….. instantly putting themselves in violation!