I think that there should be two possible results for sex offenders:
You are too dangerous to participate in society. They are jailed/hospitalized until they can be safely released into society.
You have paid your price and may return to society with all the rights and freedoms as a citizen.
Any other result seems criminally unfair.
Smarter people than me would decide who belongs in each category.
Can’t speak to 1, but pretty sure 2 is false unless NJ lost a lawsuit or something recently. As of 2013, many NJ municipalities had sex offender residency restrictions for people in the state registry. Were you just speaking statewide, Loach, or was there some big change?
ETA: Google suggests that they lost a lawsuit. I expect over the next five years that this will happen in many more states too.
People are often “punished” beyond their sentence. People who file bankruptcy have a hard time buying a home or getting a car financed. A former acquaintance of mine will never be able to work in the financial industry again because she was busted for illegal drugs.
As far as living restrictions, I’d imagine the vast majority of offenders accept living restrictions as a condition of being released on parole/probation. Otherwise, it does seem overreaching to dictate that all sex offenders are prohibited from living within x feet of a school. There’s a real difference between an 18 year old convicted of statutory rape and a violent offender who targets elementary kids. If they lump them all togther, it’s just another example of laws created for re-election campaign ads v. a law that makes a serious impact on crime.
Heh. If this is the worst that will happen, then I can certainly breathe easier. But I dunno.
I hope something similar to this now applies to Texas. And dad pees indoors.
No it’s not fair. The restrictions should have imposed in the sentence. Often that restriction should be anywhere greater than 0 feet from an interior prison wall. In addition, all criminals should have living restrictions placed on them at time of sentencing. We have to stop sending criminals back into the environment they came from when they turned to crime.
It strikes me as unworkable more than unfair. In the best of worlds, it would be easy to just cast (the worst kind) of sex offenders out into the wilderness, but we expect every offender to toe the line and re-establish themselves into society, complete with a job and housing etc.
If their crimes were made public, there’s bugger-all chance of ever getting another job. Ever. Anywhere. Sex offenders are pariahs in the truest sense of the word, so they end up (in Australia at least) on the dole. Assuming they have no prior wealth or family support, people who live on unemployment benefits long-term have to live in the cheapest types of housing, which invariably is smack dab in the middle of areas with lots of families who unsurprisingly have lots of kids.
So where do they go?
Sure, they could re-locate to a regional area with a lower density and greater mix of housing. But even if they were living miles away from the local school, once the community got wind of the new arrival (and with the advent of social media, they would definitely find out), a lynch-mob mentality would surface and the offender would be hounded out of town.
Then what? Where do they go?
If as a society we’re going to impose restrictions, then we have to provide alternative and safe living arrangements for people post-prison IMHO. Otherwise we might just as well shoot 'em the day they’re released from prison, because they’re fucked no matter how rehabilitated they are!
Just my two-bob’s worth.