11/20/07
Sex Offenders Closely Monitored -
Categories: Opinions, Police Department, Neighborhoods -
Douglas
@ 07:38:04 am
|
Most North Texas cities verify the residence and other information of registered sex offenders only once per year, while a few do so twice per year. Police Chief Mitch Bates presented information on Garland's unique program of monitoring registered sex offenders at Monday's Council work session. Garland verifies such information much more often, at least four times per year. The effort is led by a special task force composed primarily of department detectives but are assisted by the Neighborhood Police Officers on the actual verifications.
Integrating the NPO's strikes me as a particularly effective move because they are the most familiar with individual neighborhoods in their district and have the greatest opportunity to monitor specific situations even more frequently when appropriate. While cities cannot ban sex offenders, with Garland's program and the additional review by probation officers, offenders living locally are much more closely monitored.
A recent article in the Dallas Morning News presented updated information to an earlier series on registered sex offenders. The article dispelled several misconceptions about the public's exposure to registered sex offenders. An important consideration understanding the risk from a sex offender is the vast majority of sex offenders were known by the victim or the victim's family prior to the incident, ninety percent or more. Jackielynn Floyd offers additional information and observations.
Chief Bates reported that incidents in Garland are on par with area cities. There had been a slow increase in the number of incidents per year but Garland saw a decrease when the four-times-per-year program was instituted.
Garland does not have the "safe zones" that some cities have created. Some feel that is a mistake but, as the article mentioned above states, there is no data that shows such zones to be effective. If there were such data, I would be a proponent but I fear such zones can create more problems than they attempt to solve.
Garland's current distribution is presumably similar to a lawn evenly covered by leaves. If we start to rake a zone around the house, trees, fences, and other "protected" objects, we are inadvertently concentrating leaves in piles in the remaining areas. If you happen to live in one of the clear zones, it might bring some sense of protection. If your child is in one of the areas where offenders have been concentrated, your feelings are going to be radically different. Nothing shows the zones to be effective and they may well create inequitable situations that put some children at much greater risk of incidence. The best protection for all children is to be aware of where your children are and who they are with.
As previously posted, residents can evaluate their risk by consulting the Police Department's map that shows where all registered sex offenders in Garland live. Offenders are ranked as high-, medium-, and low-risk. Chief Bates reports the ratio in Garland is 16-51-33, respectively. Other information provided includes a photo, address, age, race, gender, and offense.
There are currently 16 sex offenders registered in District 1.
Additionally, residents can register their phone numbers with Garland's CodeRED program that can issue an alert to phones registered to a certain geographic area, including personal mobile numbers.
Garland's method of monitoring registered sex offenders currently appears more effective than methods used in other area cities and it is more equitable to all children. At the same time, it is important to constantly review the data as it is generated to make sure we are doing as much as we can to continue protecting our children and other residents.
Chief Bate's presentation and the Council's questions and comments can be viewed here (covered in two clips).
I posted last year on the Council's previous discussion of sex offenders.
UPDATE: Based on some recent public comments, some seem to be under the impression that the Council can create a “safe” zone around parks and schools and other areas that would prohibit registered sex offenders from ever being in that zone. We cannot. We could follow the route some area cities have taken to create zones that restrict how close a registered sex offenders can live to such areas, be we can't forbid them from being in the city, nor can we prohibit them from ever being within the “safe” zone. Those cities that have adopted residency restrictions are now being challenged on the validity of those ordinances because “banishment” as such was outlawed with the adoption of most state constitutions. |
Comments:
Perils of bans on ex-sex offenders
Thu Nov 29, 3:00 AM ET
Last week, Georgia's supreme court became the first high court in the US to overturn a state law that restricts areas where former sex offenders may live. More than half the states have such laws, and many amount to banishment. Perhaps this decision will nudge politicians to reconsider these laws.
The Georgia case wasn't argued on the emerging view that the residency bans are counterproductive. Rather, it turned on an unusual application of the Fifth Amendment, which says the government may not take private property without just compensation.
The case concerned Anthony Mann. In 2002, he pled no contest to "indecent liberties with a child," then served four months in jail, followed by probationary supervision. In 2003, he married and bought a home in Georgia. Mr. Mann made sure it did not lie within 1,000 feet of any area where minors gather as defined by the state.
But a day-care center moved to within 1,000 feet of the Manns. His probation officer said he must move or face arrest. Mann sued, arguing the law was unconstitutional because it amounted to an illegal "taking" of private property.
The state supreme court unanimously agreed, adding that Mann faced repeated uprooting. This time, a day-care center broke the 1,000-foot barrier, the court found. Next time it could be a playground, a school bus stop, a skating rink.
The ruling voided the residency part of Georgia's sex-offender law. The decision, though, may not have much legal impact outside the state. Most state residency bans aren't as severe, and the case rests uniquely on property rights.
But the ruling will do well if it persuades lawmakers that blanket residency bans are no response to public fears stemming from tragic, high-profile cases of convicted child predators repeating their crimes.
Such fears are understandable but misplaced. About 80 to 90 percent of child sexual abuse occurs with a family member or someone a child knows. And sex offenders have among the lowest recidivism rates of any class of criminals. Yet sweeping residency restrictions that focus on "stranger-danger" have multiplied in states and cities.
Several studies show no correlation between child sex offenses and where perpetrators live. Law enforcers now argue that bans make things worse. Zones overlap, ruling out living possibilities in urban areas. Offenders are forced into rural America, far from jobs, treatment, and family, which provide stability and rehabilitation.
Meanwhile, many bans don't distinguish between a child rapist and an offender who had consensual sex as a teen. There are 14,500 people on Georgia's sex-offender registry; about 40 of them are labeled "predators." Yet the ban covered them all. States report that bans have forced thousands of ex-offenders into homelessness and caused them to no longer register.
Politicians can respond to public anxiety through greater education about warning signs of abuse by family and others whom kids trust. They can focus resources on serious offenders who may repeat.
Instead of passing blanket laws that include all ex-offenders, they should leave the job of determining where such people should live to the professionals who know these cases and who have made these determinations in the past – probation officers and treatment providers.
11/29/07 @ 12:42 Comments are closed for this post.
