Town in Maine plans to ban sex offenders from public places

[jerry611]

MILLINOCKET - The town is poised to become the state's first municipality to enact an ordinance banning convicted sex offenders from loitering at parks, schools and other places children gather.

Attorneys from the Maine Municipal Association generally approved the proposed ordinance that town officials hope to have enacted by October, Town Manager Eugene Conlogue said Monday.

"They see no reason why we cannot do it," Conlogue said.

The Town Council and Conlogue have been awaiting a review from MMA, an organization of state municipalities that helps cities and towns address common issues and problems, since early June.

(more)

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=138429

[femmedem]

1. Banning sex offenders from public parks?

Some sex offenders are homeless, and they sleep in the parks, at least in my city. And they are often banned from shelters and public housing. Where are they going to go?

[Ian David]

3. Probably those nice, new prisons that Halliburton is building? n/\t

[Atman]

13. How is this legal?

If the offender has paid his debt, then he is just a citizen. An ex-con, sure, but still a citizen who will be expected to pay taxes to keep up those parks he's being denied access to. It doesn't seem right.

[flobee1]

2. At this point

Why not just jail them for life without parole

These people have already served their time

[muryan]

6. Yes those poor sex offenders

They just dont get a fair shake.

[jerry611]

10. The problem is we lump all sex offenders into one group

You can't do that...

[muryan]

11. the majority fit into one group

the exception is when a 16 year old has sex with a 19 year old who is her boyfriend, and the guy goes to jail for 10 years.

[Atman]

14. Or urinating on a tree in public. Or consensual homosexual sex.

All manner of "sexual offenses" have nothing to do with offending anyone, like the case in Mass mentioned in this subject line. Two men caught in the woods having sex. No one was around, no one reported them...they were caught by an undercover cop cruising the same woods. Who did these men hurt? Why are they to go the rest of their lives having to report to every police jurisdiction into which they move? Why do they have to brandish a scarlet letter so their neighbors can egg their house and slash their tires? For having consensual sex? We don't even need to go to the urination thing. Even more bizarre description of "sexual offense." Peeing. Watchout breast feeding mothers! You're next!

[muryan]

18. Ive never seen a case of those offenses causing a person to be labeled

as a sex offender. Sex in public is indecent exposure and a misdemeanor, but doesn't fall into the realm of a sexual offender. at least thats the way it is in ohio. The public urination just seems ludicrous.

[Atman]

19. I just told you of one. The gay consensual sex.

It happened in MA, and one of the parties sued to get his name off the list. I don't recall the outcome of the lawsuit, but it's real. And public urination was explicitely listed on a list of "sex offenses" which got you on the registry in some states, and was published in a thread on DU yesterday

[muryan]

20. Thats really pathetic

I guess Ohio has something else right (besides football) by not having that kind of law on the books.

[jerry611]

21. No, look at it this way....

Age of consent in Canada is 14. The World Health Organization reccomends age 15. In most European countries it is 14 to 16.

I'm not saying that is right or not. That's a totally different debate. All I am saying is that many of these people we label sex offenders who played around with 16 or 17 year olds would not be considered a sex offender in most other countries. Their "relationship" would be accepted and legal.

[msongs]

4. does that include priests and republican congresspersons? nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. No, it's part of their job descriptions.

[saigon68]

15. No the Priests just go after little boys to "Counsel" them

[cynatnite]

5. That's a law suit waiting to happen...

It won't get far. This article made me laugh.

[Sherman A1]

8. Agreed

[rpgamerd00d]

7. Schools, fine. Parks/beaches? No.

Schools are specifically designed to have children present.
Parks/beaches are public property and parents are responsible for their childs activities in these locations, not the state/town.

Republicans should be against this (its "big" government interfering with our lives).
Democrats should be against this (its a civil rights violation).

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Harassment to drive them elsewhere. File a suit watch them buckle.

[madmusic]

17. It's legal.

Iowa Supreme Court upholds broad sex offender residency restrictions

Today the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Seering, No. 34 / 03-0776 (Iowa July 29, 2005) (available here) upheld the state's broad residency restriction on sex offenders. Here is the introduction and conclusion from the opinion, which insubstance echoes the Eighth Circuit's similar ruling about the same law in Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussed here):

In this appeal, we consider the constitutionality of Iowa's statutory prohibition against convicted sex offenders living within two thousand feet of an elementary or secondary school or child care facility. The appellee, a convicted sex offender, brought a successful constitutional challenge to the statute in the district court. The State appeals from the district court’s ruling. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....

We conclude Seering has suffered no deprivation of his federal or state constitutional rights related to substantive and procedural due process, ex post facto laws, self-incrimination, or cruel and unusual punishment. We also observe that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected similar challenges to section 692A.2A under the Constitution of the United States. See Doe, 405 F.3d at 723. This opinion is consistent with our approach and supports the conclusion we reach today.

This is an interesting and important opinion that seems likely to just add fuel to the on-going sex-offender panic. Indeed, just earlier this morning, this story from New Jersey noted that a local township lawyer cited to the Eighth Circuit's Doe v. Miller ruling to support his township's decision to extend its residency restriction "to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living near roller rinks, movie theaters and amusement parks."

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2005/07/iowa_supreme_co.html

California's "Jessica's Law" has a much more severe provison in it, coming up for vote in Nov.

[Nevernose]

16. Are their different levels of sex offenses in Maine?

Something like a "four" needs extra watching, because they are more likely to reoffend, and a "one" doesn't justify as much supervisor?

Couldn't the ordinance ban only levels 3 or 4, or whatever system they use, and still be fair?