Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Residency restrictions on sex offenders in Amarillo facing fact-based backlash

Grits is exceedingly pleased to notice the level of scrutiny being applied in Amarillo to a proposed city ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live. Reports Karen Smith-Welch at the Globe-News ("Commission undecided on sex-offender proposal," Feb. 8):
A more focused proposal for regulating where some registered sex offenders can live in Amarillo didn’t clear up questions two Amarillo city commissioners have about whether such a law would make children here safer.

“I just honestly can’t find any clear and existing and compelling evidence that an ordinance of this sort will do what you think it will,” Commissioner Brian Eades said during a work session discussion about the proposal.
Commissioners began discussing residency restrictions for sex offenders registered on a statewide law enforcement database in late 2011 but slowed the debate to collect more research.

The proposed ordinance would bar convicted sex offenders from living near public or private schools, state-licensed day cares, and public parks and pools. The measure would make it illegal for offenders to live within 1,000 feet of those places, plus public recreational areas, youth centers and video arcades.

State law prohibits certain convicted sex offenders required to register on a Texas Department of Public Safety database from living within 1,000 feet of schools and other locations where children gather. But while they still must register their residences once their supervised release ends, the state-mandated residency restriction does not continue, police officials said in November.
Further, "Eades and Commissioner Ellen Robertson Green continued to raise questions Tuesday about whether the ordinance would actually accomplish the intent of protecting children from predators. Eades has cited research that shows a majority of victims are abused by people they know. Experts who work with abused children also raised that point during a November public hearing about the proposal."

Bully for commissioners and children's advocates who're subjecting this proposal to rigorous questioning, despite the Mayor's bum rush to get the thing passed before it can be thoroughly vetted. To what additional group of ex-offenders would this apply residency restrictions, specifically? What are the recidivism rates among that group, preferably by risk level? What percentage currently live somewhere that would violate the proposed ordinance, and would they be grandfathered in? What has been the policy result from expansive residency restrictions in other jurisdictions? After all, these two city commissioners aren't the only people with serious questions about the approach.

There's little evidence residency restrictions reduce recidivism, and indeed a 2009 report (pdf) from NIJ found that "recent research suggests that such restrictions have almost no impact on sex offender recidivism and may compromise public safety." That NIJ bulletin found that "Of the 3,166 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2002, 224 male offenders [ed. note: 7.1%] were reincarcerated for a new sex offense before 2006." Of those recidivists:
Most of the offenders victimized someone they knew, which helps explain why 85 percent of the offenses occurred in a residential location such as the offender’s home. Furthermore, 113 of the 224 cases involved offenders who gained access to their victims through another person, typically an adult. For example, a male offender may develop a romantic relationship with a woman who has children. The sex offender recidivists would use these relationships to gain access to the women’s children.

Sex offenders rarely established direct contact with victims near their own homes. Sex offenders would be recognized more easily in their own neighborhoods, which may have made them directly contact victims elsewhere. When these offenders look for a victim, they usually go to an area within 20 miles of their residence, but still far enough away (more than 1 mile) to decrease the chances of being recognized.
With just five members on the Amarillo City Commission including the Mayor, critics of the residency restrictions need only convince one more commissioner to put a stop to this ill-conceived proposal. Commissioners Jim Simms and Lilia Escajeda earlier had previously supported the proposal - Simms told the Globe-News he backed the measure in order to “protect the children” - though it's possible one of them could still be swayed. He and rookie commissioner Lilia Escajeda are definitely the swing votes both sides will be courting to prevail.

21 comments:

  1. Then we need to get one more commissioner to look at the facts in a non-political way. This has been tried and has failed in many areas. Amarillo would do well to learn from the mistakes of others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Commissioners' Court was wise to investigate the truth of residency restrictions. Facts show restrictions do NOT provide greater safety for children. Thank you for this mature rather than emotional decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hurray for the commissioner who was against those residency restrictions!

    Residency restrictions will not make children safer. They only serve to keep families from living in decent housing, RSO's from getting decent jobs, and make the media and politicians look good come election time.

    An Oprah program that aired in January 2010, says that 90% of all children who are molested are molested by someone they know and trust, not by strangers. That information has not changed in the 2 years since that program aired. There are other statistics out there to support that same view.

    How will residency restrictions keep a child safe from a family member, a teacher, a member of the clergy or a volunteer leader? If you want to keep your children safe, teach them what behavior is inappropriate from people they know. Teach them that while the majority of adults they know and trust are really trustworthy, some are not and how to differentiate between the two. And let them know that they can tell you anything. Most molesters threaten the child that something bad will happen to them or someone they love if they tell.

    The only thing residency restrictions do is make the general public FEEL safer and make the politicians that push them through seem "tough on crime". And while you do see on the news the teachers or youth ministers that are arrested for molesting a student, the news media keeps stressing "stranger danger". Do they not watch their own broadcasts?

    I can only believe that misinformed politicians and media, or ones who choose to ignore the facts to push through their own agendas, are to blame for the mass hysteria that tries to legislate residency restrictions. And the general public behaves like sheep and believes everything they see on the news without getting any facts on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Texas Maverick2/09/2012 08:47:00 AM

    RSO wife: AMEN

    ReplyDelete
  5. I currently live in a city that has such a restriction, and it makes me shake my head when a child is molested and the community gets outraged. After all, we have a restriction in place that should have stopped this from happening, correct? Of course, these types of restrictions get shoved down our throats because they're politically "sexy." Thank goodness there are brighter minds playing the game in Amarillo.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The truth is more police officers are convicted of child sex crimes than all other professions combined. It's law enforcement's "dirty little secret", and one we are committed to exposing. Police officers use their positions of trust to violate our children. Their victims are threatened with physical harm and told no one will believe their word over that of a police officer. Please visit our Facebook pages to learn more about this insidious epidemic that is plaguing every police department in the entire country, then warn everyone you know to watch their children closely, and never leave them alone with a law enforcement officer; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594?sk=wall

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've heard that in some communities, RSO's are "ghettoized" into the only housing that meets the requirements of the local laws, zoning out just about everywhere in town for one reason or another. One or two cheap motels are the only housing that meet the requirements. For those that are in treatment and taking it seriously, this can be a really poor predictor of success. Contrary to popular perception, sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism than many other crimes like burglary, and not all RSO's are pedophiles, or even rapists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 9:43- that sounds like an outlandish statement regarding law enforcement. I haven't found any information to support your claim. Do you have any links to studies to verify that? I'm interested in seeing what research has to say about that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Take a few hours and peruse our wall where we have documented thousands of cases from all over the nation:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594?sk=wall

    ReplyDelete
  10. We are the ONLY organization in the country that compiles statistics on law enforcement officers who commit sex crimes. Did you expect the FBI to do it and publish their findings on their Uniform Crime Database? Not a chance. They try and keep the incidents quiet just like the media does. And we exposing this on out Facebook wall.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would call your facebook page a "listing of allegations" rather than a documentation of convictions...but be that as it may, the reputation of law enforcement officers isn't the topic here, and most folks on this site aren't big fans of law enforcement anyway.

    The residency restrictions are silly, just like "drug free zones" and "gun free zones", which are not really established to benefit the public welfare, but rather to enhance charging and punishment....all of which just leads to more people unnecessarily locked up, and unable to find jobs or housing upon release.

    Unless we adopt the death penalty for all of them, there has to be a much better answer....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Our Facebook page has links to the actual media sites where the stories originate. The media gets their information straight from the courts. It's as close to actual documentation that you can get. Everyone tries to downplay this issue including the media. They hide these stories and unless you find them within an hour of them first being published or use specific search terms, you'll never hear about them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. well 9:43 i'm going to have to agree with Prison Doc and A Texas PO.

    Those statements of yours are about as far out there as the continual criminal stupidity that comes out about sex offenders!

    Yes we all know law enforcment have comitted sex crimes. So has EVERY OTHER profession and faction on the planet. I have never seen anyting ANYWHERE to say they do it more or less than any other.

    personaly i think it's more of the same thing with sex offenders.

    Having a headline "cop involved in sex crime" sells just as many if not MORE newspapers or tv adds as

    "sexual attack on a child"

    never mind it's only 1 out of a million crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sexual assault has been proven for decades by psychiatrists all over the world as not being related to sex but rather power and control. Who amongst us desire power and control more than others? Remember, we only document cases of officer-involved child sex crimes, if we documented ALL officer-involved sex crimes, the list would be 10X as big as it is, and also require us to hire a full-time staff to monitor the reports.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 9:43, your hatred of the police and that of your ilk knows no bounds. While there have been cops convicted of child sex crimes, 99.99 percent of the several hundred thousand cops in the U.S. would never consider committing a sex crime against a child, your bogus 'documentation' notwithstanding.

    Let me put it in language that you can understand: You are a no good fucking liar!

    ReplyDelete
  16. BGB, facts speak for themselves. And we've determined that the vast majority of cops who cry foul regarding our Facebook pages are trying to deflect attention away from themselves.

    Let me put it in language you can understand: There's room for you on our wall if you are ever caught...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sex offenders? We're just talking about Romeos and Juliets, right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hmmmm BarkGrowlBite....you know what they say....those who protest the loudest often have something to hide. And...where do you get YOUR figures from? I know of two former police officers in Collin County alone that are now registered sex offenders..and both of them committed their crimes while on the force. If you do the math, that is far, far, far away from your "99.99%" figure. hmmmmmmm

    ReplyDelete
  19. 9:43

    Either put up or shut up. A facebook page is not evidence. Do you have hard data? Then show it. If not, then all you have is a smear campaign. Allegations mean nothing unless they are backed up with proof.

    While you at it, stop hiding behind the anonymous tag. If you have evidence, you will have to show yourself in court if you plan to present it, so you might as well start practicing standing in the daylight now.

    ****
    Regarding the original topic: What weight has been given to the public perception of safety provided by the "usual" restrictions? While it's great to see government officials trying to do things intelligently, will there be a public backlash at the "soft on perverts" city commissioners that will undo their work?

    ReplyDelete
  20. So what is the law in San Antonio regarding restrictions ? Where can sex offenders live ? Or not live ? My husband will be moving to SA, and was sentenced as a sex offender as a juvenile ..... I'm so confused ??

    ReplyDelete
  21. I hope that your husband wouldn't be covered under those residency restrictions(for some sex offenders) that were being considered in Amarillo. Juvenile records should be closed to all but police unless adult convictions are added. I wonder, too, whether Amarillo did pass the residency restrictions after all the evidence that they were useless?

    ReplyDelete