Abuser (Registered Sex Offender) allowed to live in Exclusionary Zone

[andrew76]

Is it just me or is this screwed up and backwards.My abuser is a registered sex offender and lives in a exclusionary zone that was made by the county in which my abuser lives.

The thing that gets me the most hot under the collar is, I know there are kids that live on the same street as my abuser and the county is allowing my abuser to stay in an area where there are also private schools and daycare centers within this exclusionary zone.

I really feel like telling off every commissioner of this county and telling the sheriff's office that they need to do their job and protect those around my abuser.All it will take is one slip up by my abuser and another person could be harmed and no one but myself cares about this.

Anyone else in the same boat and know how i feel ?

 

[Russ2]

Hi Andrew,

Don't tell them off, but do tell them.

...if you don't, who will?

Good luck,
Russ

 

[Ken Singer LCSW]

Andrew:
It is likely that the area he is in does not have a retroactive condition, that is, if you are living there when the law is passed, they can't make you move. It may just mean that no one with a sexual conviction can move into that area.

While it may make sense to "move them out", consider this:
a) he is in a location where his PO knows where he is. Many offenders who are forced to move from their homes go underground and the authorities lose track of them;

b) states with restriction laws are now seeing the unintended consequences of offenders living in truck stops in their cars and having to move where they may not be able to get treatment;

c) the Iowa district attorneys state association, which at first supported the restrictive law in that state, issued a 5 page statement earlier this year saying the law was not promoting community safety but actually making things worse for child safety. (You can google the statement and see what law enforcement there feels about these laws);

d) Georgia passed a restriction zone that included school bus stops in the state. This put much of the state off limits. Potential victims are going to be identified if there is a warning sign posted to advise convicted sex offenders that they cannot live near this child;

e)90% of victims know or are related to their abusers. How does excluding known abusers protect potential victims from abusers who have not yet abused anyone (or where the abuse is in the family and people are reluctant to report?)

f) while these laws make people feel good, they have no evidence of being effective. In fact, the loss of housing, jobs and therapy destabilizes some abusers and makes supervision and safety more difficult.

There are other reasons, aside from Constitutional issues, that these laws don't work. Unfortunately, they make it look like the local politicians are doing something and the rest of us get a false sense of security that we're sending our problem into someone else's neighborhood.

In NJ, we had a rash of these laws being passed, even in communities with no registered sex offenders. The politicians made statements like, "We don't want to be the last community to pass this kind of ordinance", and "We don't want them all moving here."

While it might be natural to say, "If they didn't commit the crime, they wouldn't have this problem" or "Too bad for them". However if you want to protect children, there are much better ways to do this than residency restrictions.

Ken

 

[reality2k4]

Andrew, it does make sense to keep him where he is. If he was moved, it would give him greater freedom to do bad stuff.

There are a few who should live on a desert island that I could mention.

ste