CO: Sex offender residency restrictions being scaled back

Admin

Less than 10 years after many cities rushed to draw restrictions and boundaries on where registered sex offenders could live, the trend is now reversing after a court case ruled one city’s restrictions in conflict of state interests. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
  24. Please check for typos, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors before submitting.  Comments that have many errors will not be approved. 
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.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“state interest in the uniform treatment, management, rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders,”

Whaaa….? Did this guy bump his head? Uniform treatment & reintegration??? Ohhhh; I get it, he’s on drug’s 🙂

0
Reply

I’m confused about the residency restrictions and preemption. Most states have set up residency restrictions and yet many municipalities within the state will tailor their own, usually with a much more onerous set of guidelines, which will invariably leave few options for registrants to reside. My confusion is how are these municipal residency restrictions any different from the park bans and presence restrictions with regards to preemption or supremacy clause? Whether the registrant is on parole, probation, or not? I’d like to see some challenges in federal court down in Florida if this approach is viable.

0
Reply

holy crap, q, what country and value system do you come from???

“Equal Protection” (core founding principle of US constitution) == “Uniform Treatment”. This shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand.

“Reintegration”?!??! Well, what else are you going to do? Lock them up forever? Never worked before, won’t work now. Criminals WILL reenter society. Neither killing them nor incarcerating them forever is practical (costs more to imprison than it does to send to Ivy-league colleges), merciful, or very Christian. If we do not give convicts the tools to re-enter society, then society is only creating more outsiders who undermine society.

And “on drugs”?!? I guess you never knew anyone who has ever taken prescription drugs. Which, BTW, are the leading drug killers in the US.

0
View Replies (1)

Every city county owes to people on registry a good settlement $$$$$$amount for scamming rights under color if law…they owe BigTime$.

0
Reply