Sunday, August 5, 2012

NY - City repeals sex offender law

Original Article

This is good news, but it's not good enough.  Residency laws are passed on emotions, not facts, and the facts are, they do not work, they only force people a way from support, homes, jobs and living under bridges, which could make some, who are truly dangerous, even more dangerous.  All residency laws should be repealed!  Telling someone where they can and cannot live, is unconstitutional, period!


By Rikki Cason

With little options, the City of Lockport Common Council voted to repeal a local code regarding sex offender restrictions Wednesday.

In July, City Attorney John Ottaviano recommended this decision based on the recent overturning of similar local laws throughout New York state because they are more restrictive than the state law. He said courts will not uphold this local law and will not enforce it.

The city adopted this in 2006, stating Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders can not live or be within a 1,000 foot radius of a school, park, nursery school, child care facility or playground.

The state law requires the 1,000 feet restriction pertain only to a Level 3 sex offender who is on probation or parole.

We don’t have a choice,” said Common Council President Joe Kibler.

At a public hearing before the vote, several residents spoke out in support of keeping the law in place.

This law is to protect our children,” said one resident. “The most innocent and defenseless people in our community and we need to protect them from the people that do them wrong.”
- So if that were true, then what about the dealers selling your kids drugs, the DUI offender who just ran over and killed a whole family, the school bully, identity thieves, burglars, and all other criminals who target children as well as adults?  Why are you not pushing to create an online registry for all other criminals?

Other residents encouraged the city to take a stance against the state and keep the law in place.

Mayor Michael Tucker said they agree with the comments from the public and do not want to make this decision, but have to protect the city from potential lawsuits.

Our hands are tied on this,” said Tucker.
- Funny, but I thought the Constitution was also to tie your hands so you don't pass unconstitutional laws based on emotions and which eradicate people's rights?

If a sex offender sues the city, Tucker said they will have to give them thousands of dollars.

I have faith it will get attention in Albany,” Ottaviano said. “People across the state are furious.”

He said municipalities across the state are being forced to repeal their local laws and people are in an “uproar.”

Ottaviano suggested residents who want to do something to fight this, they should start a petition or write letters to the senate.

After repealing Chapter 151 of the code, the council passed a resolution to urge state legislators to work with Sen. George Maziarz and Assemblywoman Jane Corwin to adopt a law that would prohibit Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders from taking up residency within 1,000 feet of any child centered gathering place, such as a school, park or day car center.
- Where someone lives has no bearing on where, when or if they will commit another sexual related crime, they don't work, so all residency laws, even state laws, should be repealed.

Both Corwin and Maziarz have been leading advocates on strengthening state sex offender residency laws.
- Of course they have, they want to look good to the sheeple so they will vote for them later.

CA - California Law Review - Sex Offender Civil Commitment - The Treatment Paradox (12-31-2010)

View the document

Twenty-one states and the federal government have civil commitment schemes that provide for the further confinement of sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. These schemes survive constitutional scrutiny on the grounds that they are not a second prison sentence, but rather serve the non-criminal ends of protecting society and helping treat violent sex offenders. The underlying legislation confirms the treatment objective by elaborating statutory guidelines for treatment programs.

This Comment argues that treatment-although guaranteed by statute, legislative findings, case law, and the constitution-is an empty promise. Indeed, participation in treatment harms the very offender that it purports to help. This treatment paradox arises because successful treatment and relapse prevention require that an offender discuss his sexual fantasies and past transgressions; yet, unprotected by privilege or confidentiality, these cathartic admissions are utilized in civil commitment proceedings to secure further confinement. Because the prosecution heavily relies on treatment records to show that the offender continues to suffer from a mental abnormality and because the completion of treatment does not favorably impact an offender's chance of release, offenders often elect to forgo treatment. This treatment disincentive effectively denies offenders the opportunity to heal and to obtain release from commitment through treatment, an opportunity envisioned by statute and by the civil commitment scheme's constitutional underpinnings.