Video here. After being released from prison there are all sorts of laws prohibiting them from living near different places, but the end result of all those laws combined together severely limits the places where they can live, and as a result many become unable to find apartments and end up having to live on the streets.
Not true they can live in remote locations, go to a remote spot of a swamp your fine. Or they can re-offend and go into a nice homey prison doing some non-sex crime like robbery or something.
What's this? Sex offenders not being provided with accommodation on release from prisons? My heart bleeds for them! Maybe they could help themselves by finding work like everyone else, then they might not have so much time to think about perverted sex.
A whole load of ignorant, short-sighted and vindictive responses here. It should be obvious that having people living on the streets is bad for all of us and society in general regardless of who the people on the streets are. If people are released from prison, it makes practical common sense to make it possible for them to make themselves positive contributors to society. Not caring about or even actively supporting things that make it more difficult or even impossible for them to do so is actually dangerous, actively promoting a situation that makes it more likely they will re-offend or get dragged down in to other criminal and socially harmful behaviour, just like homeless people without criminal records can. You might think you’re just not caring about the criminals but you’re also not caring about prospective victims too. But I guess as long as you get your sick thrill thinking about a criminal suffering, that’s OK.
What, are you 'feeling sorry' for paedophiles and rapists now? You're never happy unless you're championing the rights and welfare of er, minorities, are you!
No, as I made perfectly clear, my concern is about potential victims and wider society. If we’re going to release people from prison, we must be expecting them to continue as productive members of society. Releasing them but them deliberately putting barriers preventing them from doing that is irrational (that isn’t to say there can’t be reasonable restrictions, such as preventing them working with children, only that they need to be implemented in a viable and practical manner). We either accept them as legitimate members of society or we don’t release them in the first place (and deal with escalating costs of unnecessary imprisonment).
Actually there is a whole town designed and built especially for those on the sex offender registry. Children not allowed and it is the middle of nowhere.
You do realize how easy it is to become a sex offender...right? I worked with one. He was 20, he had too much Corona, and he took a whiz in someone's shrubbery.
When sex offender laws were tightened, everybody in prison knew they cannot live at aunt Martha's house, without the risk of it being picketed, or generally ****ed with. They claim homeless, though many have homes they don't want made public. Like the guy down the street.
If by 'whiz' you mean he urinated in someone's shrubbery, and subsequently faced criminal trial for it, then I don't believe you.
This is actually true here in Washington St. If you are driving down the road, and pull over to take a piss, in what can be considered a public place,( someone"s bushes), you can be arrested on a sex charge.
Spot on. Basically, a DA decided to inflate his numbers, and turned what should have been a ticket for public urination into a scarlet letter.
I don't know where this 'Washington St is (presumably the US), but if someone needs to have a pee so badly that the bladder might be compromised, or the urine starts to back up into the kidneys, then I refuse to believe that anyone who relieves themselves (provided it is done discreetly) in a public place would or should be arrested/charged for 'a sex offence'.
"Two of those states specify that the urination must happen in front of a minor." What? Why must it happen in front of anybody, never mind a 'minor'?
Different States have different requirements. State Statutory Citations Restriction Alabama § 15-20-26(a) A sex offender may not live or work within 2,000 feet of schools or childcare facilities. Arkansas § 5-14-128 (a) A level 3 or 4 (most serious) sex offender cannot live within 2,000 feet of schools or daycare centers. California W&I Code § 6608.5 (f) (2005) Penal Code § 3003 (g) (1) (3) A sexually violent predator or a serious paroled sex offender cannot live within one-fourth of a mile of a school, and high-risk paroled sex offenders cannot live within one-half mile of a school, daycare center, or place where children congregate. Florida § 947. 1405 (7)(a)(2) A sex offender whose victim was under 18 years old cannot live within 1,000 feet of schools or places where children congregate. Georgia §§ 42-1-13 and 42-1-15 No sex offender may live, work, or loiter within 1,000 feet of any school, childcare facility, school bus stop, or place where minors congregate. Illinois § 5/11-9.3 (b-5) A child sex offender may not live within 500 feet of a school or school property. Indiana § 11-13-3-4 (g) (2) (A) A violent sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of any school property while on parole. Iowa § 692 (A)(2A) A sexual offender may not live within 2,000 feet of a school or childcare facility. Kentucky § 17.495 A sex offender may not live within 1,000 feet of a school, childcare facility, ball field, or playground. Louisiana §§ 14:91.1 and 15.538 A sexually violent predator and serious paroled sex offender may not live within 1,000 feet of schools or related school activities, including school bus stops for life or duration of parole or probation. Michigan §§ 28.721 to 28.732 A sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of school safety zone. Minnesota MSA Chap. 244.052 et al. The parole commissioner determines if a level III sex offender may live within 1,500 feet of school zones. Missouri § 589.417 A sex offender may not live within 1,000 feet of a school or childcare facility. Ohio § 2950.031(A) A sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of any school, childcare facility, or place where children gather. Oklahoma OSA Tit. 57 § 590 A registered sex offender cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school. Table 1: –Continued- States With Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws State Statutory Citations Restriction Oregon §§ 144.642 (1)(a) and 144.644(2)(a) The Department of Correction decides where and how close a sex offender can live to a school or daycare center based on a decision matrix. South Dakota § 22-24B A sex offender cannot live or loiter within 500 feet of community safety zones. Tennessee § 40-39-[2]11(a)-(b) A sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of schools, childcare facilities, or the victim. Texas Texas Govt. Code Chap. 508.187 (b) The state parole board decides how close to a child safety zone a paroled sex offender can live or visit. Washington §§ 9.94A.712(6)(a)(ii) and 9.95.425-430 A sex offender convicted of a serious offense with a high-risk assessment (Level II or III) cannot live within a community protection zone (within 880 feet of any school or daycare center) West Virginia § 62-12-26 (b) (1) A paroled sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school or childcare facility. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm 21 States. https://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2006/oct/prop83/ncsl_residency.pdf this was in 2006, 2007 though. I think it's called residency restriction Laws.
And it would make sense, right? To keep a certain distance between them and the children? Makes a little sense. Some might find this discriminatory and bias and judgmental and character prejudicing.
The most important questions I have are ..... is he really guilty or just the victim of a feminist with a vivid imagination and no scruples? And ..... has the law been tweaked so badly that a "sex offense" includes staring at a woman's breast with a low cleavage?
I don't get why sex offenders are on a public list but other criminals aren't. This is controversial but I support criminal records being completely private for employment purposes because punishing ex-cons after prison only drives them further into a life of crime. Of course there can be laws against sex criminals taking certain professions.
