PA: Efficacy of sex offender residency rules questioned in Pa. House hearing

Source: 9/12/23

A bill that would restrict where certain sex offenders could live in Pennsylvania got a skeptical reception at a House hearing on Tuesday, with discussion centering around whether such measures actually increase public safety.

The House Judiciary Committee held an informational session Tuesday on House Bill 77, which would require that anyone who has been adjudicated as a “sexually violent predator” under Pennsylvania’s sex crimes law could not live within 2,500 feet of a school or child care center.

Although judges can impose residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis, typically through an offender’s parole conditions, Pennsylvania does not have any blanket rules on where offenders can live.

House Bill 77 would change this when it comes to those deemed violent, and also impose residency restrictions for life, not just for the term of a parole sentence.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Armind Venkat, D-Allegheny, and Rob Mercuri, R-Allegheny, whose districts share the municipality of Hampton Township. The bill is a response to a public outcry, Venkat said, that occurred when a violent sex offender moved in close to a school in the township.

But none of the experts who testified Tuesday were directly supportive of the bill, and several were explicitly opposed, voicing concern that similar measures in other states have forced offenders into homelessness or otherwise made it more difficult for them to receive psychiatric treatment, increasing the risk that they will re-offend.

Venkat acknowledged at the outset of Tuesday’s hearing that “we need to find a way to balance the safety of the community along with understanding that rendering these individuals homeless and not able to be connected would be as dangerous for the community.”

“There is no question that they may be challenging, but that there is the opportunity and ability to do so and that’s been shown in other states and municipalities,” Venkat said of residency restrictions.

However, several who testified Tuesday challenged this outlook, pointing to copious prior instances in other states where such measures have gone awry. The core issue is that, particularly in urban areas, the volume of schools and daycares effectively makes entire metropolitan areas off-limits of sex offenders.

Miller also pointed to several studies showing that registered sex offenders who committed a further sexual offense would not have been impacted by residency restrictions, given that the vast majority of sex crimes are against someone the perpetrator already knows and not against victims selected because of proximity.

“This is largely creating more problems than it would solve,” Miller said of residency rules.

Read the 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

Safety = voiding temptation to re-offend in their feeble minds

Therefore, move them away from eyesight of any temptation they may have to keep those safe, allegedly. Really? This topics need to be shelved forever in PA and elsewhere, especially FLA which is still increasing or adding distances off-limit to people.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would think either the Registries or Residential Restrictions, etc. would be effective in reducing/eliminating any offenses. Does any registry include the mandatory wearing of a physical chastity belt-type device?? Does any residency restrict preclude anyone from going anywhere and doing anything except restricting where they reside??
😖 Morons promoting useless feel-good laws.🙄

(It’s similar to promoting castration as a solution. It’s not a solution – it’s only a draconian & sadistic form of retribution! It does not remove hands that could still grope or seal mouths that could still …. well, you get the point.)

How are lifetime residency restrictions not considered punishment? Do these ” lawmakers” believe that people aren’t capable of change? I know lawmakers never change their views on registrants, but are spineless to try something new. Hey lawmakers stop with the status quo mindset of registrants the registry needs to go!!

Well seeing that residency restrictions have already been ruled unconstitutional in Pa, I don’t see how they could pass any such law or restrictions on any registered person. It will flop right away.