Georgia Supreme Court overturns ban on sex offenders living near kids

[kurth]

Ga. court overturns restrictions on where sex offenders live
By BILL RANKIN, RHONDA COOK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/21/07

The Georgia Supreme Court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a provision of a 2006 state law that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, schools, churches and other places where children congregate.

In striking down the residency restrictions, the justices said they can amount to an "illegal taking" because they force sex offenders who are homeowners to abandon their homes if a place where children congregate is suddenly built nearby.

"Sex offenders face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes in order to comply with the restrictions," Justice Carol Hunstein wrote.

"It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected," Hunstein added.

http://www.ajc.com/traffic/content/metro/stories/2007/11/21/offenders_1122.html

[madeline_con]

1. "... suddenly built nearby..."

What a crock! Nothing gets 'suddenly built'.

They have plenty of time to sell and get the hell out!

WAAA! The sad lives of the sexually deviant! :cry:

[AndyTiedye]

3. It Might Be Pretty Easy to be Branded as "Sexually Deviant" in Georgia

[madeline_con]

4. Which makes me wonder how this passed.

There are signs with the 10 Commandments in people's front yards. It's not the first place I'd expect this.

[TheWraith]

16. You'd have a point if it weren't for the broad definition of "sex offender."

That's my biggest opposition to the whole issue: the phrase "sex offender" is unneccessarily vague. Most people hear it and think child molestor or rapist, but they aren't aware that you can also be labeled a "sex offender" for crimes such as prostitution (either paying or providing), indecent exposure (however that is defined), or something as simple as being caught doing it with your significant other in a car or a secluded portion of a park. In short, the term and the restrictions that come with it are way too vaguely applied.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. I know a "sex offender"

He grabbed a stolen jacket off a young female repeat shoplifter who had left the store wearing it,

the term "sex offender" is thrown around way too much in this country, you can be deemed a sex offender for public urination.

[Suich]

5. FINALLY!

A voice of reason, and on Thanksgiving Eve, to boot!

I could not agree more...thank you!

:hi:

[madeline_con]

6. It's possible to look these offenders up.

Then decide if we want them living near schools and day cares.

I can't get all worked up over a youthful indiscretion that was blown out of proportion and resulted in statutory a rape conviction, but some of these people should be kept in jail.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. if you look this guy up...

It says he assulted a minor, the one sentance descriptions make it kind of difficult to pass judgement. The fact the minor was a shoplifter and he was grabbing a stolen garment is not mentioned.

[madeline_con]

12. The freaks' report says "lewd and lascivious" on a minor...

Assault could be grabbing a kid's arm and telling them to stop kicking a dog.

Most people realize the distinction between those caught in an unfortunate situation and child molesters.

[varkam]

15. I respectfully disagree.

When most people hear the term "sex offender" the first thing that they think of are sexually dangerous predators - they do not realize nor appreciate that most people on the registry pose little to no risk.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. yeah... because the guy who threatened to burn down his house

was totally interested in his side of the story.

[varkam]

13. Unfortunately....

the descriptions of crimes on state registries are often just the reproduction of the statute that they were convicted of. In other words, there are almost zero details as to the circumstances of their crime.

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that proximity to places like schools increases recidivism rates. There is, however, evidence to suggest that residency restrictions increase recidivism rates via a number of different routes such as homelessness, forcing them onto the edge of town where there are no job opportunities, mental health services, community support, etcetera.

Moreover, I doubt if you would want the general public involved in assessing the risk of specific individuals. The vast majority of people on the registry do not commit another offense, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management - though there are certainly categories of offender that pose higher risks. Unfortunately, your average-joe is not in a position to make that assessment. Risk assessment is usually done through a qualified mental health professional (read: a psychologist that has been trained to work with sex offenders).

[aikoaiko]

9. Public urination will not get you on the Registry in GA

;)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

10. if they charge it as indecent exposure it can

[aikoaiko]

11. I don't think so.

http://services.georgia.gov/gbi/gbisor/disclaim.html

*The following offenders are required to register:

Offenders placed on probation, parole, supervised release or released from prison after July 1, 1996, for one or more of the following offenses:

* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-1 Rape
* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 Sodomy (against a minor); Aggravated Sodomy (against a minor or an adult)
* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-3 Statutory Rape (unless the age of the perpetrator is 18 years of age or younger)
* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4 Child Molestation; Aggravated Child Molestation
* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-5 Enticing a child for indecent purposes
* O.C.G.A. § 16-6-22.2 Aggravated Sexual Battery
* Kidnapping of a minor, except by a parent
* False imprisonment of a minor except by a parent
* Criminal sexual conduct toward a minor
* Solicitation of a minor to engage in sexual contact
* Use of a minor in sexual performance
* Solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution
* Any conviction resulting from an underlying sexual offense against a victim who is a minor
* Use of a minor to engage in any sexually explicit conduct to produce any visual medium depicting such conduct
* Creating, publishing, selling, or distributing any material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct
* Transmitting, making, selling, buying, or disseminating by means of a computer any descriptive or identifying information regarding a child for the purpose of offering or soliciting sexual conduct of or with a child or the visual depicting of such conduct
* Any conduct which, by its nature, is a sexual offense against a minor (this language replaces O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12 (a)(4)(A)(vii)

[varkam]

14. "Any conduct which, by its nature, is a sexual offense against a minor"

That sounds very broad to me. According to Human Rights Watch, there are 19 states where public urination will get you placed on the sex offender registry if a minor sees it. I'm not sure if Georgia is one of those states or not.

[aikoaiko]

20. Unless you can show me a case where public urination led to be on the sex offender list in GA

I stand by what I said.

I'm open to being wrong about this issue, but I've not heard of such a case in GA.

[varkam]

21. Perhaps not GA.

Though I think that the point here is that it should not get you on the registry at all, period.

ETA I think it would be safe to claim that statutes in Georgia make provision to place people on the registry who expose themselves to children, as do all other states. The fact is that many other states do include public urination in view of a minor under this type of statute - though, again, I'm not sure if Georgia does or not.

[aikoaiko]

7. This law was controversial when it passed because it included school bus stops too.

and there are lots of them -- everywhere.

We'll have to come up with a better law in GA to help keep sex offenders away from the kids.

[Richard Steele]

17. I think it would be hard to find ANY home that wasn't within that 1000-foot limit.

At least inside a town or city, anyway.

I don't think I've ever said this before: I agree with the Georgia Supreme Court!
Quick, someone fetch my smelling salts!

[DeSwiss]

19. I agree with the decision....

...because we can't just kick-out our problems for someone else to deal with. Which is what often happens. Many known sex offenders can't be found because they've left their jurisdictions. Which is what happens sometimes when they can't find a place to live that complies with the terms of their releases. So when that happens, where do they go? Who are they violating then? In some other towns in rural areas where depopulation has been going on for years, the sex offenders are beginning to out number the existing residents. Should country folk now have to pay, and risk the safety of their children for what is primarily a big city problem? This is nothing more than a modern form of shunning. Why is it that we can develop such grand technologies and come to understand the inner workings of the basic elements of nature, but behaviorally we continue to reach back into the Dark Ages for solutions to our problems? Solutions that we already know don't work?

I agree that sex offenders of children should not be around kids. And it doesn't help that many who are, (e.g. - the clergy) get away with it for years without anyone's knowledge except the victims. And their stories hardly ever get told in time to do anything while its going on. If it is true that most sex offenders of children were abused themselves, then we are only continuing the cycle when we try to push it away rather than deal with it head-on. If the states want to keep predators off the streets, then they need to increase the amount of time they must serve as their punishment. Otherwise a person could be "restricted" as to where they can live in perpetuity. Which means there is no such thing as ever being able to serve one's sentence and get on with their lives.

Murderers are often released from prison and yet no one is demanding that they be kept away from children. Indeed sex offenders of all types should be kept away from those who could become their victims. The question is, who is that? We've relied upon our technology and scientific acumen to address so many problems, and the only one that we know that works in these cases, is castration. Is that where we are now? Chemical castration only works when the drugs are taken and the side-effects discourage many for doing so regularly. So until medical science can pinpoint its causes and a means for effectively addressing them, then keeping sex offenders in prison longer seems the only solution.

What this is really saying is that when the state releases a sex offender, they believe that they will offend again. Its not an open admission, but true nonetheless. But bank robbers are released from prison all the time. And they rob banks again too. But at no time are they not permitted to live within 1000 yards of a bank. Physical abusers, particularly men who beat up women are also released among us again. Where do they go? Are they to be restricted 1000 yards from all women? At the base of this is the fact that America is still suffering from its Puritanical roots. And that has translated into bizarre legal consequences, such as a teenager being given an harsh sentence for a BJ -- which has already happened in the great state of Georgia. Maybe if we stopped demonizing the Satanic gateway drug of marijuana, we might have some room in prisons to keep these bastards locked up. But no, we won't do that. Because that would make to much damned sense....

IMHO

[varkam]

22. A response.

...because we can't just kick-out our problems for someone else to deal with. Which is what often happens. Many known sex offenders can't be found because they've left their jurisdictions. Which is what happens sometimes when they can't find a place to live that complies with the terms of their releases. So when that happens, where do they go? Who are they violating then? In some other towns in rural areas where depopulation has been going on for years, the sex offenders are beginning to out number the existing residents. Should country folk now have to pay, and risk the safety of their children for what is primarily a big city problem? This is nothing more than a modern form of shunning. Why is it that we can develop such grand technologies and come to understand the inner workings of the basic elements of nature, but behaviorally we continue to reach back into the Dark Ages for solutions to our problems? Solutions that we already know don't work?

It seems that this is premised on the notion that there is a high recidivism rate among sex offenders. This is an unfortunately widely-held belief, erroneous as it is. The Department of Justice reports a 11-17% recidivism rate among sex offenders over a five-year follow-up period for any new sex crime depending on which study you look at. That's much lower than a general recidivism rate around 70% for a three year follow-up period. There are, however, certain sub-groups of offender that post a much higher risk (such as offenders whose victims are of the same sex and were strangers to them), but even they fall short of general recidivism rates.

I agree that sex offenders of children should not be around kids. And it doesn't help that many who are, (e.g. - the clergy) get away with it for years without anyone's knowledge except the victims. And their stories hardly ever get told in time to do anything while its going on. If it is true that most sex offenders of children were abused themselves, then we are only continuing the cycle when we try to push it away rather than deal with it head-on. If the states want to keep predators off the streets, then they need to increase the amount of time they must serve as their punishment. Otherwise a person could be "restricted" as to where they can live in perpetuity. Which means there is no such thing as ever being able to serve one's sentence and get on with their lives.

Some should not, as some sex offenders are predators - though there is an important distinction here. Most sex offenders are not predators, and most predators are not sex offenders. The vast majority of sex crimes in this country are committed by people who are not on the sex offender registry. Similarly, the vast majority of sex crimes against children are not perpetrated by people who are strangers to the victim. They are, by and large, the victim's family members, friends of the family, teachers, clergy, etcetera. To your average child, the sex offender down the street probably poses the least amount of threat to the child. That's due in part to the ever-increasing list of crimes that get one placed on the sex offender registry. The term sex offender has become an umbrella term, encompassing everyone from the predator who kidnapped and raped several children to the 18 year old who, when he was 16, had sex with his underage girlfriend.

Moreover, several states are enacting civil commitment procedures with sex offenders. In some states, when a sex offender is up for parole, the state can choose to pursue a civil commitment hearing to determine whether or not this individual is so dangerous that they must then be indefinitely incarcerated in a mental health institution rather than be let out. There are several problems with this procedure, though, that call into question the constitutionality and rationality of these procedures.

What this is really saying is that when the state releases a sex offender, they believe that they will offend again. Its not an open admission, but true nonetheless. But bank robbers are released from prison all the time. And they rob banks again too. But at no time are they not permitted to live within 1000 yards of a bank. Physical abusers, particularly men who beat up women are also released among us again. Where do they go? Are they to be restricted 1000 yards from all women? At the base of this is the fact that America is still suffering from its Puritanical roots. And that has translated into bizarre legal consequences, such as a teenager being given an harsh sentence for a BJ -- which has already happened in the great state of Georgia. Maybe if we stopped demonizing the Satanic gateway drug of marijuana, we might have some room in prisons to keep these bastards locked up. But no, we won't do that. Because that would make to much damned sense....

Again, the available data disagrees with you here. The vast majority of sex offenders do not re-offend. Furthermore, there's no empirical basis for residency restriction laws. In other words, there is no evidence that proximity is in any way related to recidivism (at least not in an affirmative way - there is evidence to show that residency restrictions actually increase recidivism). Indeed, almost all sex offenders who do re offend made initial contact with their victims through social relationships - not proximity.

[DeSwiss]

23. Thank you.

Your information has been very enlightening with regard to recidivism rates among this group of offenders. Although I wasn't attempting to advance the idea that sex offenders and in particular those who abuse minor children, was necessarily higher than other types offenders. If I did, please excuse my lack of clarity. But that the perception that they do is what we are dealing with. One assumes (often erroneously) that elected officials will pass laws that have a bearing in reality and maybe science. At least some of the time. But as I stated in my initial post, our repressed attitudes about sexuality I believe is the engine that drives the decisions we've made in this regard, and which appear to be onerous ones. In the end, both for the offender and for us. On the other hand, I understand why people react so viscerally when innocent children, who cannot protect themselves, are the victims. Thirty plus years ago I worked in corrections with violent juvies. So I was much more conversant on such things back then.

And I also agree with your assessment that the more likely sexual abusers of children will be known to them through the relationships you mentioned. To me, it often seems that we continue to pass these kinds of laws in reaction to media hysteria more so than in an attempt at making decisions based upon the reality. The fact that its fairly difficult, if not impossible to institute a 1000 yard restriction for such offenders upon release, doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone when they were drafting these laws before passage. They were most likely responding to some media story which tend to get people riled up and who then want their leaders to "take action."

And this is what we get when our emotions ruled our decisions. Thank you again. This has been an illuminating subject.

:)