Criminal Justice

Sex Offender Restrictions Turn Residents of New York Into Residents of Limbo

|

Among the policies that have been widely adopted in this country to deal with sex offenders, two of the worst are residence restrictions, which are not only ineffective but counterproductive, and civil commitment, which allows the government to continue detaining offenders after they serve their sentences by relabeling them patients. New York has managed to combine these two themes by imposing residence restrictions so onerous that sex offenders due to be released from prison cannot find legal places to live. The solution: keep them locked up.

Under New York's Sexual Assault Reform Act, which took effect in 2005, level-three sex offenders and all sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18 are prohibited from going within 1,000 feet of a school or any other facility that mainly serves children. The New York Times reports that "lawyers who represent sex offenders have prepared a map showing that nearly all of Manhattan is off limits." That means sex offenders not only are not allowed to live in Manhattan; they are not even allowed to visit or pass through it, unless they can somehow do so without running afoul of the 1,000-foot rule. Yet somehow they were allowed to stay in Manhattan homeless shelters until last February, when the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision suddenly realized that was illegal. Under the new policy, sex offenders are allowed to live only in the few homeless shelters that comply with the 1,000-foot rule, although I'm not sure how they manage to get to those locations without coming impermissibly close to one school or another.

Due to the shortage of legal residences, the Times reports, "dozens of sex offenders who have satisfied their sentences in New York State are being held in prison beyond their release dates." Most of those offenders (about 70 out of 101) are New York City residents—or were. Now they are residents of legal limbo, and "some have begun filing habeas corpus petitions in court, demanding to be released and claiming the state has no legal authority to hold them."

In a lawsuit filed last April, a sex offender who was ordered to leave his Brooklyn home because it was too close to a school argues that New York's limits violate his rights to intrastate travel and to free association (including association with his own family). He also argues that the restrictions amount to ex post facto punishment—a plausible claim given the complete absence of evidence that such rules serve a legitimate regulatory function.

As the Times notes, residence restrictions in some jurisdictions have forced sex offenders to live in bizarre and isolated places such as an encampment under a bridge in Miami and  a trailer in the parking lot of a prison on Long Island. That sure looks a lot like punishment, and there is no reason to think it protects public safety. If anything, this sort of banishment makes recidivism more likely by sending the message that there is no hope of living a normal life.

NEXT: Third Time the Charm in Iraq?, Ferguson Cop May Not Have Been Badly Injured After All, More Fun in Ukraine: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Police chief fired. Ok to bite just don’t bite the masters hand.

    http://www.nbc4i.com/story/263…..misconduct

    1. Linked off that same article:

      http://www.nbc4i.com/story/263…..hol-levels

      “Whoops”. And, of course, everyone’s passing the buck when it comes to blame. Bonus quote from a defense attorney who obviously doesn’t want to get on the bad side of the prosecutors’ office.

  2. The Big Apple let’s very few live in it unmolested.

    1. Second comment, and incorrect use of “let’s”

      Slipping…

    2. So a bunch of people on Reason are extreme minarchists approaching if not dyed in the wool anarchists. A lot of them, in the cases of crimes most severe argue that banishment is a better alternative than capital punishment or imprisonment. Aren’t these laws essentially that- banishment?

      I know that reads like I am playing gotcha with tons of snark, but I would be interested in people like Epi among others clarifying the position. I’m really not trying to be an asshole. I’m trying to understand the distinctions here.

  3. WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

    (how anyone could be in favor of this shit, I’m not sure. How anyone could think this does anything but make children LESS safe, I’m not sure. Of course, we just saw a poll that said that a majority of people think 12-year-olds shouldn’t ever be left alone, so we know that people are idiots.)

    1. How anyone could think this does anything but make children LESS safe, I’m not sure.

      ERMAGERD, MY CHIRRUN! YOU HATE MY CHIRRUNZ! GO BACK TO SOMALIA, YOU FUCKING ANARCHIST!

  4. You know, if you are a society and a nation of let’ say … 300 million people, how many people in that society, if asked straight up, would think that it’s a good idea to create a large underclass of half citizens, 1/3 citizens, 1/4 citizens, non-citizens, etc., who have absolutely no way of getting a job so they can support themselves, who have no hope at all, but who still must live among the rest of us because they have nowhere to go.

    We are creating a dystopian nightmare and one day it’s going to blow up and when it does, it’s not going to be pretty.

    1. Relax, they can all make a living selling us full citizens the pot and coke we need to cope with dealing with the government.

      1. Until we become one of them for buying the ‘forbidden’ stuff that they are selling us.

    2. Hasn’t this country always maintained a significant underclass of citizens? The criteria for being underclass constantly changes, but we apparently want an underclass because we sure go out of way to ensure one exists.

      1. The problem is that the population is increasing recently, along with the inhumane treatment.

    3. My only hope is that when they snap they go after the politicians and bureaucrats, not random citizens.

      1. That’s the ‘problem’: they never seem to! For a population said to be so extraordinarily ‘dangerous’ they almost never commit acts of violence and never against those who support their continued degradation. Sex offenders are seen by law enforcement and prosecutors as a passive and non-combative population.

    4. They are outlaws- exlex– outside the legal system.

  5. I understand the initial impulse behind this sort of legislation: nobody wants the child molester hanging out near the playground, or living next door to it. But as is so often the case, once the bandwagon gets rolling, common sense goes out the window. “500 feet? Let’s make it 1,000 to be safe.” “And not just elementary schools, but high schools, too!” “And….” Pretty soon, you end up with an absurd situation like this.

    1. And children are now 26 yeas old, so that means colleges are off-limits too.

      1. Only because Rethuglicans, sigh. The brave and daring Democrats of the New Soviet People’s Revolution tried to bring a bill to make one a child until 40, but, the party of NO…

    2. I really think 10,000 feet sounds much better. It’s got all those lovely zeroes in it…

  6. I say hang em all in public.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

    1. Can we get a new AnonBot? This one went off the deep end fast

      1. I think he’s talking about state legislators. Finally, he’s making sense.

  7. If only those creepy pervs hadn’t molested children, likely the most heinous crime known to man as such an egregious crime of child molestation deforms anyone for a lifetime, well, maybe the creepy pervs wouldn’t have it so tough.

    On a side note, 42% of all millionaires living in New York state live in the Manhattan borough of New York City. It looks like Manhattan millionaires have bought the legislators they needed to keep heinous child molesters out of Manhattan.

    1. Except you can hit the sex offender registry for pissing in public. Nasty? Sure. Worthy of making someone an infinite pariah forever? Probably not.

      1. Except that is another issue, which ought to be dealt with accordingly.

        Nice try though.

        1. No – you need to narrow the category first, then intensify the punishment.

          1. I’m not obligated to do anything.

            Age of Consent laws seem quite unambiguous for the various states.

            Sometimes, bad people need to live with the consequences of being bad people.

            Even though USSC Robe Anthony Kennedy says otherwise, sex crimes have life long effects that victims suffer. Those murdered escape suffering.

            1. “I’m not obligated to do anything.”

              Yes, you are – you are obligated not to satisfy your bloodlust on innocent people.

              1. Are you on drugs? What causes you to hallucinate and see “bloodlust on innocent people”?

                1. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, I understand you to be saying that you want to see people on the sex offender registry punished as harshly as possible even if some of the people on that list should not be there.

                  You seem to agree that some laws need to be changed so that not all of the people who currently wind up on the list wind up there, but you still want them collectively punished for being there whether they deserve to be there or not.

                  That is where I see bloodlust being served on innocent people.

                  1. You are misunderstanding.

                    Merely, I filled in the gaps that Reasonoid Jacob Sullum purposefully avoided to share with the culties, the Reasonvoids at Reason.com.

                    Subsequently, owing to cognitive dissonance being suffered by the culties, they’re going after the messenger rather than receiving the message.

                    If I were putting forth an argument, my argument would be a cogent one, unlike the emotional drit in share comments here. I’d challenge exactly how can the agents of the state have pre-crime omniscience to label anyone Level 3?

                    I might propose that once anyone gets released from prison, their obligation ceases and the rights of others become void.

                    I might focus on the rehabilitative versus punitive aspects. However, what I would not do is is blather about emotional irrelevancy.

                    1. Reason’voids’.

                      Can we drink for that?

                    2. When did you develop the wont always to seek permission before acting?

                    3. Well you could have been concise in your very first post, but since you are an intellectually dishonest lying sack of shit trying to give yourself a platform, you didn’t. Go fuck yourself.

                    4. “Well you could have been concise in your very first post, but…”

                      ~ dinkster

                      My first post consists of a mere two sentences. The first sentence has a scant 39 words consisting of 230 characters, including spaces. The second sentence has a scant 41 words consisting of 239 characters, including spaces.

                      You would need to ratchet up your IQ by a few magnitudes to pack as much intel in as few words as I do.

                      “…but since you are an intellectually dishonest lying sack of shit trying…”

                      ~ dinkster

                      Before you can ascertain if another is being intellectually dishonest, you would need an intellect suitably smart enough for such an undertaking.

                      Alas, you have deprived everyone of your hidden wit, dinkster. Instead, you have opted for ad hominem. Thus no one can see the debate genius lurking inside you.

                      Good luck!

                    5. So are you going to address the question or continue to deflect?

        2. OK, how bout a couple of high school kids biffing each other, and then the guy gets on the registry because he 18 and she’s 17?

          1. That wouldn’t happen in New York. Anyone at least 17 has capacity with respect to sexual matters.

            1. Ok, how about 16 and 17 then?

              1. What about that scenario? Elsewhere in the comments, I wrote an outline of NY law, which is what Jacob Sullum wrote upon.

                The age of consent in New York is 17. Anyone 16 lacks capacity in New York and thus cannot offer sex nor accept offers of sex.

                If someone is 16 or 17, and has sex with anyone lacking capacity, that is anyone under 17, that one is liable for sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor.

                Anyone 17 having sex with anyone 16 is taking advantage of that one who is 16. New York legislators have deemed those 16 or younger as children. Citizens seem to agree.

                New Yorkers face the weird scenario when each of two having sex are 16. The courts view both as perps of each other and victims of each other.

                Those 16 are kids. They like to think of themselves as adults, but they are not. Anyone who sees kids, 16, as adults has serious mind issues.

                Those seeking sex ought to steer clear of anyone under 17. In New York, those seeking sex with anyone under 17 ought to get their urges in check and seek help if they can’t.

                Living is serious. Perhaps many should awaken to reality.

      2. “Except you can hit the sex offender registry for pissing in public.”

        ~ perlhaqr

        No one in New York can be charged much less convicted of sexual offense for pissing in public. The foregoing article deals with New York and not another state.

        New York State Sex Offender Registry Registerable Offenses

    2. 18 year old dude gets nude pic from his 16 year old girlfriend, taken by her and sent by her. He’s now a sex offender:
      http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/…..index.html

      Teen commits suicide after being charged with a sex crime for prank during a football game. After all, exposing your dick to other children i.e. running naked on the field in front of other teenagers = sex offender registration:
      https://reason.com/blog/2013/10…..otentially

      1. Elliot had consensual sex with his girlfriend, and of course he became a sex offender. He was killed a so-called “pedophile hunter” simply going through names on the sex offender registry.

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..ed-justice

        Tony at 16 had consensual sex with his sister at 15. That triggered lifetime, mandatory sex-offender registration (similar for all consensual incest, including cousin cases in most states):
        https://reason.com/blog/2010/08…..the-scarle

      2. Marie Claire tells the story of Frank Rodriguez, a Texas carpenter who is listed on his state’s sex offender registry because he pleaded guilty to “sexual assault of a child.” That “child” was his high school girlfriend, Nikki Prescott, who was nearly 16 at the time; today she is his wife and the mother of his two daughters.
        https://reason.com/blog/2011/07…..e-my-victi

        And don’t forget this recently dropped case, only because of the bad publicity for the DA and police, for a 17-year old dude texting pics together with his girlfriend, which would have resulted in sex offender registration:
        https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..tion-and-p

        1. Texas isn’t New York nor is Virginia. Neither Texas legislators nor Virginia legislators have anything to do with laws for residents of New York.

          If you don’t like laws in those states, move there and do something about those laws.

          The article above deals with heinous Level 3 convicted sex criminals of New York State, arguably the worst kind of criminal.

          You might have argument if you were to challenge how can those who label others Level 3 and thus deemed likely to repeat prove Minority Report pre-crime omniscience.

          1. From the article:

            “level-three sex offenders and all sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18”

          2. All the sex,offender registries suffer from this kind of mission creep. You are in the wrong, here, and feeding the fires of a particularly useless and cruel witch hunt. Back down, please.

            1. Mission creep against sex creeps notwithstanding, according to New York law, a Level 3 convicted sex criminal gets deemed a high-risk of repeat offense and thus a threat.

              Thus, New York legislators have decreed through law and agency such heinous persons have the duty to maintain lifetime registry and that legislators and their agents have the right to know where Level 3 sex offenders live.

              You might have argument if you were to challenge how can those who label others Level 3 and thus deemed likely to repeat prove Minority Report pre-crime omniscience.

              Others might have argument for lifetime incarceration.

              Living is serious. Perhaps many should awaken to reality.

              1. Again, from the article:

                “level-three sex offenders *AND* all sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18”

                Emphasis added.

                1. The age of consent in New York is 17. Anyone 18 or older becomes a rapist upon conviction in New York for having sex with someone lacking capacity to consent.

                  If someone is 16 or 17, and has sex with anyone lacking capacity, that is anyone under 17, that one is liable for sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor.

                  Having reached the age of majority in New York, 18, anyone becomes liable for various degrees of rape, all felonies:

                  ? 3rd degree rape if rapist is 21 or older and the victim is 16 or 15
                  ? 2nd degree rape if rapist is 18 or older and victim is 14 or 13
                  ? 1st degree rape if rapist is 18 or older and victim is 12 or younger
                  ? 1st degree rape if rapist is 16 or older and victim is 10 or younger

                  Anyone with good sense would see all of these laws as reasonable.

                  As to the misdemeanors, those become “registerable” offenses only if the victim is less than 18 or where the defendant has a prior conviction for a sex offense, a sexually violent offense, forcible touching or sexual abuse in the third degree or an attempt thereof even if registration was not required for the prior conviction; regardless of when the prior conviction occurred.

                  Other misdemeanor offenses for registry include unlawful imprisonment and patronizing a prostitute, 3rd degree, when the prostitute is 16 or younger.

                  Living is serious. Perhaps many should awaken to reality.

                  1. So, if two 16 yr olds have sex, which one gets put on the list? Maybe both? Using that logic, that someone under 17 cannot give consent, they both should be on the list, but that’s not the reality. Usually, it’s the male or sometimes they go after the one who is older if one exist (which is usually the male). Sorry, but in most states, this law is bias and the girl usually doesn’t have to have much proof either. Not to mention how many girls out there have lied about their age? Lets face it, teenagers are going to have sex just like people are going to smoke weed whether it’s legal or not. Do they really deserve to be treated like this? Marked a perverse criminal for the better part of their life; it isn’t justice, it’s insanity.

                    1. Perhaps a primer on jurisprudence would help you, concentrating on capacity and authority.

                      You seem to not like Anglo-Norman-American jurisprudence.

                      In New York, don’t have sex with anyone under 17 and you are golden. Don’t trust what anyone says.

                      Legislators and jurists have deemed that anyone under 17 lacks capacity to decide sexual matters.

                      No ID, no sex. Not 17? No sex. What is so hard about that?

                    2. You can continue to lick the boot on your neck and try to apply the same boot on other people’s neck, but hey guess what? There are some who don’t subscribe to your bullshit authoritarian view.

                      There is absolutely nothing that gives your viewpoint legitimacy. Just because the state says so? Just because some judges say so? So some arbitrary positive law which is 99%+ of all law that fucks people over is seen as just just because someone scribbles down on paper that is so?

                      It does not matter if goddamn motherfuckers like you comprise the majority.

                      FUCK LEGAL POSITIVISM.

                    3. You continue to think with the mind of a stubborn, nasty child.

                      My record on reality is quite strong. Unlike all the Reasonvoids culties here, I live as a consistent libertarian.

                      Reasonvoids culties here are little more than indoctrinated Rockefeller Republicans.

                      REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA’S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

                      Get back to me when you learn anything about Anglo-Saxon-Norman-American jurisprudence.

                      Good luck! Enjoy!

                    4. Show me a logical proof of the correctness and universality of your so-called Anglo-Saxon-Norman-American jurisprudence.

                      And if it’s logical correct, why does it continue to change? That’s like stating 1 + 1 = 2, until one day you decide to make arbitrary exceptions, like in some cases where you prescribe the result to be 3. Just because of your subjective and relative “jurisprudence”.

                    5. You ask much for someone who, upon suffering a bout of cognitive dissonance, resorted to ad hominem.

                      Facts remain. Legislators of the State of New York have deemed capacity to decide having sex at 17 and have deemed no one has authority to decide sexual matters for anyone.

                      That is why parents can’t peddle out their daughters for favors accrued by having their daughters giving up sex.

                      Oh and unless you can get outside the universe and have more energy than the universe so that you can track every atom and report on the state of every atom at all times, everything is subjective.

                      Agreed upon concepts of right and wrong have served the mankind of Anglo-Saxon-Normans and their descendants quite well for centuries. Without them, you couldn’t share your silly, mind-disorder driven opinion though the Internet as there wouldn’t be any Internet.

                      Good luck!

                    6. You’re asking that people should move if they don’t like it. Why?

                      If you believe in property rights then the state and other people have NO jurisdiction over your property (including the property of your body). This is a first principle stemming the the universal principle of self-ownership.

                      Authoritarians, whether they hail from the left or right, must always ultimately assert that collective rights trump individual rights.

                    7. Explain to us how, exactly, your reading comprehension skills could have led you so far down the wrong path as to believe you have read anywhere, anything close to “if you don’t like it, move”.

      3. Your first link deals with an incident in Florida. Well, that seems like a bad law, but that is Florida law.

        The article deals with New York law and rules. The legislators of the State of Florida have no legislative jurisdiction over New Yorkers.

        Your other link deals with an incident in Alabama. The legislators of Alabama have no legislative jurisdiction over New Yorkers.

        In that sob story, the boy who committed suicide was not put on a sex offender registry nor was he convicted of anything. He wasn’t even charged with any violation much less a crime.

        Seriously, if you are going to put forth an argument, you must do much better than you have thus far. A far better argument would be to claim that once anyone serves a full sentence in prison, any duty to politicians or citizens ought to cease.

        Politicians nor citizens ought to have the right to keep tabs on anyone after sentences have been served. To argue in favor of the status quo is to argue in perpetual punishment, which seems cruel and unusual unless one is kept incarcerated.

        According to New York law, a Level 3 convicted sex pervert gets deemed a high-risk of repeat offense and a threat. Such heinous persons must maintain lifetime registry.

        That seems like a small duty to be released from prison considering the alternative could be life in prison. Some would like capital punishment served on such wicked ones.

        1. The Florida and Alabama laws are misrepresented here as well. It’s pure Reason fantasy. I’m beginning to think the magazine title is an appeal, not a declaration.

          1. Ah, good Tina. You have it figured out.

            Editors of Reason.com pick and choose articles for publication to push the agenda of the major contributors, not unlike lobbyists who push their agenda with legislators.

            The sycophantic readers of Reason.com fail to see this aspect of reality.

            The handlers claim to represent libertarianism and so the readers, having been indoctrinated, believe they have become libertarians. However, they have not.

            The cult handlers of Reason.com preach a progressive, liberal social agenda to gain support for a big business agenda. It should be clear to all that pushing for legalization for gay marriage, for pot smoking, for illegals, is the opposite of libertarianism.

            Authentic Libertarians push for fewer laws not more.

            The editorial board consistently panders to pot-smoking 20- dumbsomethings who prove to be easy pickings as their liberal public education masters have already soften them to the ideas of gay marriage and illegal aliens become legalized immigrants.

            Reason.com likely is the biggest political sham site on the Internet today.

            1. Define libertarian.

                1. Your blog reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. The book paints a sordid picture of the collectivization of human interests and the consequent abridgement of individual liberty. Then Bradbury spends the afterword decrying the influence of minority interests in today’s society.

                  What is the difference between decriminalizing something and legalizing it? And how does one have a government with no laws?

                  1. Seriously, does such confusion exist for you that you fail to see the difference between decriminalizing something and legalizing it?

                    If you claim to have read my blog, you should have learned the difference from the cited entry above.

                    There is a huge difference between decriminalizing something versus legalizing it. Legalization adds law. Legalization doesn’t subtract law.

                    You cannot be libertarian and advocate for more law. That’s like claiming to be on a diet and then doubling your caloric intake.

                    Legalization requires law. Law imposes duty and right. There can be no right without duty, no duty without right. There can be no law without matching duty and right.

                    Authentic libertarians seek fewer laws thus to live by liberty, also said in freedom, or that realm where politicians are content to leave alone anyone. In freedom, no one has duty to another. As well, no one has right and associated power needed to enforce that right over another.

                    The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty. The absence of law with the absence of government is anarchy.

                    Who do you believe has suggested there can be “government with no laws”? Where can I read that suggestion?

                    1. Seriously, does such confusion exist for you that you fail to see the difference between decriminalizing something and legalizing it?

                      Seriously, does it take that much effort to explain the difference? You keep using the words but you don’t bother to define them.

                      If you claim to have read my blog, you should have learned the difference from the cited entry above.

                      If I had learned, I would not have asked.

                      There is a huge difference between decriminalizing something versus legalizing it. Legalization adds law. Legalization doesn’t subtract law.

                      So legalization = decriminalization + regulation?

                      Law imposes duty and right. There can be no right without duty, no duty without right. There can be no law without matching duty and right.

                      A fine axiom, I am sure, if I knew what you meant by “duty” and “right”.

                      The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty[…]. Who do you believe has suggested there can be “government with no laws”? Where can I read that suggestion?

                      Is there a difference between “absent” and “without”? If we made the laws “absent” would we not then be in the presence of no laws?

                      You are welcome to your idiosyncratic use of words, but you can’t expect other people to read your mind. Simply define the terms you are using, then everyone can be on the same page and more productive discussions can be had.

  8. The biggest problem is that you don’t have to be a “child molester” to be on their sex offender list. Many on the list are men/ boys who were with a girl under a certain age (most states say the age of consent is 16). So, if you have a girl 15 and a boy of 16 that engage in sex, the boy can be arrested and end up on the list for usually 25 years. I’m not saying all on the list fit this scenario, but many do. There are also the males who are arrested for urinating outside who end up on the list. They need to revamp the entire system and shut John Walsh the hell up. His wife left their son in the toy department and now he wants everyone to pay for it. To have actual serial child molesters on a list would not be profitable because there are too few so, they had to find a bunch of other charges to include in order get more people on the list and to attempt keeping all of us in fear.

    1. Where are the parents to teach their children not to break laws?

      Where are the parents striving to change laws so that wrongful prosecution leveled against those 16 who have mutual voluntary sex with those 15?

      A glance at the laws of the various sates shows no state as unreasonable regarding age of consent.

      Age of Consent by State, USA

      1. Probably in the dark; I always thought that the boy had to be at least 18 to be charged if the girl was under 16. Not the case – the boy can 16 and the girl 15. The boy will be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct and end up on the list. I don’t understand why no one is screaming from the roof tops that their sons may be charged for this. I asked an attorney what do they do when both are 15 and he didn’t know. They are always looking to charge someone though, but they hand out condoms through the health dept to 13 yr olds?? I think the state should be charged with aiding and abetting since no 13 yr old should be having sex. I just don’t get it.

        1. You might have an argument about aiding and abetting. Clean it up. Make it forceful.

          1. Go fuck yourself you pedantic cunt. How’s that for forceful?

            1. You’re such a tuffy when you flex your keyboard muscles as you hoist your LCD shield.

              You’ll probably tell your friends about your internet triumph when you ride the short bus to work tomorrow.

    2. Untrue.

      Read the law, no, really, read the whole law. Read. Then read about the process by which the post-conviction designation gets assigned. You’re clearly just babbling in ignorance. You also don’t know anything about child molester conviction and recidivism rates.

      If someone tries to sell you that line of horse-crap to explain their conviction, I recommend that you do some independent research on their real record, especially before you rent them your basement apartment as your kiddies toddle around upstairs.

  9. Ok, so setting aside the stupidness of the 1000′ rule, can they not leave the city or the state?

    1. Probably not the ones on probation.

  10. Oh dear, the fantasies about homeless sex offenders under a bridge in Miami who otherwise allegedly wouldn’t be homeless have surfaced again. Only, they’re not true. Those who ended up under the bridge were being kept from preying on vulnerable people at homeless shelters; other offenders with housing nearby were not rendered homeless. The bridge meme was invented by excited journalists who somehow get their kicks out of turning vicious child sodomizers into pets causes.

    Don’t you have anything better to do? Why don’t you enlighten your readers about what one has to do to achieve a level 3 offender status in New York — high risk of repeat offense is a designation few but the worst there receive. They should never be released in the first place, but thanks to the sentencing ideologies you espouse, they are repeatedly cut loose to rape, torture and murder, again and again.

    Talk about taking away people’s rights . . . rape, torture and murder take away people’s rights. What part of this do you people fail to comprehend?

    1. thanks to the sentencing ideologies you espouse

      I’ve never seen anyone here argue for lowering the sentences for sex offenses. In fact, I’ve seen many people here say that the best thing to be done is to abolish the registry and lengthen the sentences, because if they’re really that fucking dangerous then they should be behind bars.

      So why don’t you take your statist lies somewhere else, okay?

    2. Tina,
      We are talking about people who get put on the list and are not allowed to live within so many feet of a school or other places – not people who are a level 3 offender. It doesn’t make a difference what level they are on; if they are on the list (and it is not just reserved for level 3)the restrictions apply.

      Everyone assumes if someone is on the list, they are pedophiles, rapist or just plain perverts. And yes, a person urinating outside can be put on the list. I don’t know what law you’ve read that says indecent exposure won’t land you on the list and that is exactly what someone can be charged with if they urinate outside.

      I’m amazed that at this time, there are still some who believe this list does any good. If you have sex with your girlfriend while both of you are under age and for the next 25 years, you are marked. Good luck getting a job or an apartment. You are kidding yourself if you believe that people are not becoming homeless because of this unfair law. It’s about as bad as saying anyone who get a traffic violation (ticket) should be on a public list along with someone who received a DUI. Repeat offensives are extremely low for the majority on the list. It is not filled with people who rape, torture and murder. Do a little research first and quit trying to put fear in the average person that 2/3 of the male population is out to get the children. If anyone has failed to comprehend, Tina, it’s you.

  11. No one’s asked the obvious question. How the hell can these people afford to live in Manhattan in the first place?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.