ME: Maine town residents tell leaders they want residency restrictions due to imaginary reoffense rates

Source: wgme.com 10/9/23

An Orrington Select Board meeting last month devolved into an explosive half-hour debate between residents and officials about where sex offenders should be allowed to live within the town.

Residents assumed that restrictions on how close registered sex offenders could live to places such as schools and parks were set statewide. But it wasn’t until an offender moved to Orrington this summer that many realized the town does not have those laws in place.

residents were surprised to learn that Maine does not have a state-wide residency restriction for sex offenders, but it offers language towns can adopt. Under Maine state law, it would only apply to someone on the registry for a conviction of a crime against a child younger than 14.

Community members are pushing for an ordinance setting a 750-foot restriction from schools, parks, playgrounds and other areas where children are the primary users, but town officials haven’t made any effort to enact it.

The proposed ordinance contains language that says people convicted of sex crimes against children have a high rate of recidivism. Such offenders have a 5.1 percent arrest rate for another crime against children within three years of their release from prison, according to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice.

A study of people released from prison for a variety of crimes found 62 percent reoffended in three years, per the DOJ.

Residency restrictions have an appeal, but can give people a false sense of security

Adopting this ordinance is not easily done, Backman said at the Sept. 25 meeting. They are easier to write when the enforcement falls on town police departments, which Orrington does not have,

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well we need to stand up and tell the bastards their stupid restrictions violate the constitution.

Talk about hysterics. Sooner or later, all those frantic Karens and Darens will, in all probability, get exactly what they want…meanwhile, sex crimes in their happy little neighborhood will *continue* at exactly the same rate (however low that may already be), as at least 90% are still being perpetrated by pretty much everyone who is *not* on the registry (likely, including those who are making the most noise about strict residency restrictions for registrants). These simple people are desperate for the *illusion* of safety…they really want to be convinced that someone, somewhere, is doing “something” to protect *their* children (because, obviously, they can’t be burdened with that responsibility themselves employing anything like intelligence, awareness, research, or common sense.)

Last edited 8 months ago by nameless

I am always dismayed but never surprised when recidivism data are so distorted.

The article says, “Such offenders have a 5.1 percent arrest rate for another crime against children within three years of their release from prison, according to a study from the U.S. Department of Justice.

What the study actually says is, “researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3 percent for the entire sample of sex offenders, based on an arrest during the 3-year followup period.” There is no mention of children, nor is there a breakdown of types of sex offenses.

The article references another DOJ study stating that, “A study of people released from prison for a variety of crimes found 62 percent reoffended in three years, per the DOJ.” True, but that is all people and all crimes. Although the DOJ study does a breakdown by type of crime with no category for sex offenders. The closest it comes is to list “Rape/sexual assault.” Those persons are certainly not representative of all sex offenders.

I suspect that most reading this post are already familiar with the true statistics, so continuing would be redundant. Trying to convince those who are in full moral panic mode is pointless as confirmation bias and willful blindness are pervasive.

“Now residents are asking the selectmen and town manager for help because they feel unsafe in their town”

Oh please help us Mr. Town Manager! Save us from the “pervert” who just moved into town!

“Backman emphasized that any new ordinance would take a lot of work — work that he would not do”

I don’t have time for this. Yah on your own!

“A poster seen stapled to a tree last week in Orrington featured a photo of Alberi’s face and warned, “Level 3 sex offender.”

You mean the same tree they plan to hang this gentleman from?

“He’s also a regular topic of discussion in a local community Facebook page with 2,000 members”

They got nothing better to do in this hick town

“An additional petition without fines was circulated too, as Littlejohn was told the fines may not be legal”

What, is Little John the town lawyer? What about Wllie Sue?

“Adopting this ordinance is not easily done, Blackman said….they are easier to write when the enforcement falls on town police departments, which Orrington does not have”

The mentally challenged people of your town aren’t buying that explanation. They believe some imaginary cop will just show up and enforce this law, because they too cheap to hire a real cop

“The group of petitioners need to do the work,” he said. “I’m not going to do that.”

LOL! I like this guy’s honest. He ain’t doing sh*t

“There are additional changes residents would like to see as well, including receiving notifications from the town when someone on the registry moves into the area….”

These clowns in this town just want to be spoon fed. The man is on the state registry, national registry, and I’m sure Homefacts and other “child safety” sites have him listed and will put out alerts on your phone apps for free! What more do these motherf*ck*rs want?

“These people move into your neighborhoods,” Steller said. “They shouldn’t be able to hide. If we have the knowledge we can protect our kids.”

Oh stop it! The man ain’t hiding! Everything about him is out there. You’re just to lazy to get the information

“The petition signatures were validated, so now the town needs to schedule a special meeting to discuss the petition”

You guys really have nothing better to do. The petition was validated. What more is there to discuss?

“I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around why this is so difficult,” Steller said. “I don’t feel like we’re asking for a whole lot, and it is public safety.”

Well you need to sto wrapping that little head of yours, sweetheart, because you’re too clueless to know that it’s not about public safety.

Maine aka Vactionland where common sense, critical thinking, evidence based on facts, and reality goes on vacation in the minds of Mainiacs.

I feel sorry for the poor tree pictured in the article. It didn’t do anything to deserve such treatment.