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.

Comments

[AlmightyJB]

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

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

[Andrew S.]

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.

[Fist of Etiquette]

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

[Carl ?s his ? for ?s]

Second comment, and incorrect use of "let's"

Slipping...

[Overt]

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.

[Andrew S.]

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.)

[Hillary's Clitdong]

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!

[Hyperion]

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.

[Hillary's Clitdong]

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

[Hyperion]

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

[Invisible Finger]

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.

[Hyperion]

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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

[Eric T]

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.

[Michael Ejercito]

They are outlaws- exlex- outside the legal system.

[PapayaSF]

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.

[Invisible Finger]

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

[Hyperion]

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...

[perlhaqr]

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

[userve32]

I say hang em all in public.

http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

[UnCivilServant]

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

[Unicorn Poacher]

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

[2tiredofit]

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.

[Tina Trent]

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.

[Christophe]

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

[Robert]

Probably not the ones on probation.

[Tina Trent]

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?

[kbolino]

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?

[2tiredofit]

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.

[sudon't]

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

[perlhaqr]

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

[np]

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:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10.....otentially

[np]

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.

http://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):
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08.....the-scarle

[np]

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.
http://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:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07.....tion-and-p

[Square]

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

[GroundTruth]

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?

[Square]

From the article:

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[Square]

"I'm not obligated to do anything."

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

[Square]

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.

[Square]

Again, from the article:

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

Emphasis added.

[2tiredofit]

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.

[2tiredofit]

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.

[np]

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.

[antisocial-ist]

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

[np]

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.

[np]

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".

[My Dog Bites Better Than Yours]

Reason'voids'.

Can we drink for that?

[Tina Trent]

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.

[dinkster]

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.

[kbolino]

Define libertarian.

[derpules]

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

[derpules]

Ok, how about 16 and 17 then?

[kbolino]

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?

[kbolino]

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.