Broward County Commissioners reject expert views in
preference of a hardliner approach to sex offenders.
preference of a hardliner approach to sex offenders.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
If You Need Support Please Call The Support Hotline
The Number Is 1-800-773-4319
Or You Can Email The Support Hotline.
The email Is hotline@thesupporthotline.org
The Number Is 1-800-773-4319
Or You Can Email The Support Hotline.
The email Is hotline@thesupporthotline.org
Affiliations :
Mandatory: Florida RSOL members must not be part
of NAMBLA, Boy Chat, Girl Chat or any such
organization that promotes sexual abuse in any form.
Mandatory: Florida RSOL members must not be part
of NAMBLA, Boy Chat, Girl Chat or any such
organization that promotes sexual abuse in any form.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of political, medical/scientific, economic, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107
of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
Broward County Commissioners reject expert views in preference of a
hardliner approach to sex offenders.
9/23/2009 “Broward Commissioners enacted an ordinance that bans sexual
offenders and predators from living within 2,500 feet of parks, playgrounds, schools,
bus stops, and daycare centers. Similar ordinances are in place in the majority of
Broward County cities. A large number of sexual predators/offenders were
moving into unincorporated communities such as Broadview Park - where no
residency restrictions were in place.” In researching this subject, the Broward County
Commission empowered a task force. The Purpose:
“TO REVIEW, RESEARCH, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE ISSUES INVOLVED WITH
THE RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND
PREDATORS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN SEX OFFENSES.”
What did this task force review and what did they find?
“We reviewed available research about the effectiveness of residence restrictions and
found no empirical evidence to indicate that these laws achieve their intended goals of
preventing abuse, protecting children, or reducing reoffending. For instance, officials in
Iowa examined the impact of their statewide 2,000 foot residential restriction law
which went into effect in August 2005 (and was modified by the legislature in 2009).
Researchers compared the number of charges filed for sex offenses with minor victims
in the 12 months prior to the enforcement of the law with the number of charges filed
within 24 months after implementation. No reduction in sex crime rates was detected;
in fact, the number of charges steadily increased each year. The authors concluded
that Iowa’s residence law “does not seem to have led to fewer charges or convictions,
indicating that there probably have not been fewer child victims” (Blood, Watson, &
Stageberg, 2008, p. 10). Nor were we able to find evidence suggesting that larger
buffer zones are more effective in protecting children than the state's 1,000-foot
restriction.
Researchers in Florida compared the number of recidivists who lived within 1,000,
1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers. Sex offenders who lived closer to
schools and daycares were not more likely to reoffend, and living farther from schools
and daycares did not diminish the probability of sexual reoffending. When the
distances to schools and daycares were considered along with other risk factors (prior
arrests, age, marital status, predator status), proximity was not a significant predictor of
recidivism (Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2009).
An analysis of 224 recidivistic sex offenses in Minnesota concluded that residence
restriction laws would not have prevented repeat sex crimes (Duwe, Donnay, &
Tewksbury, 2008). Sex offenses against children were most frequently perpetrated not
by strangers lurking in schoolyards but by offenders who were well known to
their victims, such as parents, caretakers, paramours of the mother, babysitters, or
friends of the family. In less than 4% of the cases was the sex offender a neighbor of
the victim. Initial contact with victims was usually established more than one mile from
the offender’s home, and predatory assaults that occurred within a mile of the offender’
s residence typically involved adult victims. Though relationships with minor
victims were sometimes cultivated within 2,500 feet of the offender’s home, none took
place in or near a school, daycare center, or park. The authors determined that an
offender’s social relationship with a child victim is much more likely to facilitate sexual
abuse than residential proximity.
In addition to the lack of research supporting the effectiveness of these laws in
preventing abuse, there is mounting evidence that these laws diminish housing
availability and increase transience, homelessness and instability for offenders.
Studies in at least three states, including Florida, have shown that most citizens live
within 2,500 feet of a school, park, daycare, or bus stop, and therefore as distance
buffers grow, compliant housing becomes harder to find. In Broward County, data
provided by the Planning & Redevelopment Division illustrated that cities with larger
buffer zones had significantly lower numbers of compliant dwellings. This raises
concerns because if sex offenders cannot find housing, they may be forced
to register as "transient," making them more difficult to track and supervise or less
likely to register with authorities. Data from the Broward Public Defender's Office
indicates that in 2004, they handled 16 failure to register cases, 50 cases in 2005, and
70 cases in 2009. Thus, since local residence restrictions were first enacted in 2005,
the number of failure to register cases has increased more than four-fold. It
should be noted that the Public Defender's Office represents only indigent offenders. It
is also possible that the current economic crisis might contribute to housing instability.
Residence restrictions and their resulting transience create burdens for law
enforcement officials as well. The BSO representative noted that these laws require
officers to identify subjects affected by the ordinance, monitor their leases, identify
violators and complete investigative packets for prosecution. The DOC representative
reported that probation officers spend time assisting offenders with housing problems
and often check dozens of addresses for compliance for a single offender.
We found that many victim advocates remain unconvinced that residential restrictions
achieve improved protection from sexual abuse. The National Alliance to End Sexual
Violence (NAESV), the umbrella organization of rape crisis centers throughout the
United States, issued a public position opposing residence restrictions, stating that
"sex offenders who continually move or become homeless as a result of residency
restrictions are more difficult to supervise and monitor, thereby increasing the risk of
re-offense."
After reading this portion of the official report we at SOSEN would like to ask. Why did
the Commission enact the 2500 foot residency restrictions? Or perhaps a better
question would be. If the commission was going to ignore the facts and research, why
did they spend the money and time to set up this Task Force?
What is most interesting about this is that when confronted with facts and research,
inelegant people will alter their thinking to come in line with such facts and research.
Not so when it comes to sex offender issues. When the word sex offender is used,
sound judgment is thrown to the wind. This is expected from the general populace,
since most people know little of the facts regarding sex offender issues. But the
Broward County Task Force dug into the facts and heard expert testimony on the
subject and yet the Broward County Commission opted for the hard line approach and
not a decision based on the facts.
What would cause men of power to ignore what is best for the constituencies they
represent? Could it be votes? Could it be that appearing to be hard on sex offenders
is better than taking the proper lead on a difficult subject?
Every person should fear the answer to this, for if the answer is either of those
mentioned, then the system of government we now have is letting all of us down.
People need leaders who make the best decisions for all the people and not just the
most popular decisions.
The evidence provided to the Commission was clear: residency restrictions are in
effective and counterproductive to the goal of protecting children. Residence
restrictions create homelessness and impede former offenders from becoming
productive, safe citizens.
Until leaders are willing to take a stand on the side of proven facts, our country will
continue to spiral out of control in a mire of ill-conceived and counterproductive laws
that cost billions of tax dollars, coddle special interest groups, while protecting no one.
Worse yet, ordinances such as these create a false security among the public.
As the Task Force found, Sex offenses against children were most frequently
perpetrated not by strangers lurking in schoolyards but by offenders who were well
known to their victims, such as parents, caretakers, paramours of the mother,
babysitters, or friends of the family.
Residency restrictions do NOTHING to stop these kinds of crimes, but they do distract
parents away from the true danger to their children: someone already known to the
child.
Are there any answers besides residency restrictions and the registry? We at SOSEN
believe that there are several answers to sex offender issues that could help to reduce
the incidence of both new sex crimes and re-offenses; all of which are based on
studies, facts and the guidance of experts in the field. Experts who have spoken
openly about the flaws in the system and yet their educated words have fallen on the
deaf ears of elected officials who are more concerned about votes than making fact
based decisions regarding former sex offenders.
SOSEN Communications Department
SOSEN.us
877-594-2228
hardliner approach to sex offenders.
9/23/2009 “Broward Commissioners enacted an ordinance that bans sexual
offenders and predators from living within 2,500 feet of parks, playgrounds, schools,
bus stops, and daycare centers. Similar ordinances are in place in the majority of
Broward County cities. A large number of sexual predators/offenders were
moving into unincorporated communities such as Broadview Park - where no
residency restrictions were in place.” In researching this subject, the Broward County
Commission empowered a task force. The Purpose:
“TO REVIEW, RESEARCH, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE ISSUES INVOLVED WITH
THE RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND
PREDATORS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN SEX OFFENSES.”
What did this task force review and what did they find?
“We reviewed available research about the effectiveness of residence restrictions and
found no empirical evidence to indicate that these laws achieve their intended goals of
preventing abuse, protecting children, or reducing reoffending. For instance, officials in
Iowa examined the impact of their statewide 2,000 foot residential restriction law
which went into effect in August 2005 (and was modified by the legislature in 2009).
Researchers compared the number of charges filed for sex offenses with minor victims
in the 12 months prior to the enforcement of the law with the number of charges filed
within 24 months after implementation. No reduction in sex crime rates was detected;
in fact, the number of charges steadily increased each year. The authors concluded
that Iowa’s residence law “does not seem to have led to fewer charges or convictions,
indicating that there probably have not been fewer child victims” (Blood, Watson, &
Stageberg, 2008, p. 10). Nor were we able to find evidence suggesting that larger
buffer zones are more effective in protecting children than the state's 1,000-foot
restriction.
Researchers in Florida compared the number of recidivists who lived within 1,000,
1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers. Sex offenders who lived closer to
schools and daycares were not more likely to reoffend, and living farther from schools
and daycares did not diminish the probability of sexual reoffending. When the
distances to schools and daycares were considered along with other risk factors (prior
arrests, age, marital status, predator status), proximity was not a significant predictor of
recidivism (Zandbergen, Levenson, & Hart, 2009).
An analysis of 224 recidivistic sex offenses in Minnesota concluded that residence
restriction laws would not have prevented repeat sex crimes (Duwe, Donnay, &
Tewksbury, 2008). Sex offenses against children were most frequently perpetrated not
by strangers lurking in schoolyards but by offenders who were well known to
their victims, such as parents, caretakers, paramours of the mother, babysitters, or
friends of the family. In less than 4% of the cases was the sex offender a neighbor of
the victim. Initial contact with victims was usually established more than one mile from
the offender’s home, and predatory assaults that occurred within a mile of the offender’
s residence typically involved adult victims. Though relationships with minor
victims were sometimes cultivated within 2,500 feet of the offender’s home, none took
place in or near a school, daycare center, or park. The authors determined that an
offender’s social relationship with a child victim is much more likely to facilitate sexual
abuse than residential proximity.
In addition to the lack of research supporting the effectiveness of these laws in
preventing abuse, there is mounting evidence that these laws diminish housing
availability and increase transience, homelessness and instability for offenders.
Studies in at least three states, including Florida, have shown that most citizens live
within 2,500 feet of a school, park, daycare, or bus stop, and therefore as distance
buffers grow, compliant housing becomes harder to find. In Broward County, data
provided by the Planning & Redevelopment Division illustrated that cities with larger
buffer zones had significantly lower numbers of compliant dwellings. This raises
concerns because if sex offenders cannot find housing, they may be forced
to register as "transient," making them more difficult to track and supervise or less
likely to register with authorities. Data from the Broward Public Defender's Office
indicates that in 2004, they handled 16 failure to register cases, 50 cases in 2005, and
70 cases in 2009. Thus, since local residence restrictions were first enacted in 2005,
the number of failure to register cases has increased more than four-fold. It
should be noted that the Public Defender's Office represents only indigent offenders. It
is also possible that the current economic crisis might contribute to housing instability.
Residence restrictions and their resulting transience create burdens for law
enforcement officials as well. The BSO representative noted that these laws require
officers to identify subjects affected by the ordinance, monitor their leases, identify
violators and complete investigative packets for prosecution. The DOC representative
reported that probation officers spend time assisting offenders with housing problems
and often check dozens of addresses for compliance for a single offender.
We found that many victim advocates remain unconvinced that residential restrictions
achieve improved protection from sexual abuse. The National Alliance to End Sexual
Violence (NAESV), the umbrella organization of rape crisis centers throughout the
United States, issued a public position opposing residence restrictions, stating that
"sex offenders who continually move or become homeless as a result of residency
restrictions are more difficult to supervise and monitor, thereby increasing the risk of
re-offense."
After reading this portion of the official report we at SOSEN would like to ask. Why did
the Commission enact the 2500 foot residency restrictions? Or perhaps a better
question would be. If the commission was going to ignore the facts and research, why
did they spend the money and time to set up this Task Force?
What is most interesting about this is that when confronted with facts and research,
inelegant people will alter their thinking to come in line with such facts and research.
Not so when it comes to sex offender issues. When the word sex offender is used,
sound judgment is thrown to the wind. This is expected from the general populace,
since most people know little of the facts regarding sex offender issues. But the
Broward County Task Force dug into the facts and heard expert testimony on the
subject and yet the Broward County Commission opted for the hard line approach and
not a decision based on the facts.
What would cause men of power to ignore what is best for the constituencies they
represent? Could it be votes? Could it be that appearing to be hard on sex offenders
is better than taking the proper lead on a difficult subject?
Every person should fear the answer to this, for if the answer is either of those
mentioned, then the system of government we now have is letting all of us down.
People need leaders who make the best decisions for all the people and not just the
most popular decisions.
The evidence provided to the Commission was clear: residency restrictions are in
effective and counterproductive to the goal of protecting children. Residence
restrictions create homelessness and impede former offenders from becoming
productive, safe citizens.
Until leaders are willing to take a stand on the side of proven facts, our country will
continue to spiral out of control in a mire of ill-conceived and counterproductive laws
that cost billions of tax dollars, coddle special interest groups, while protecting no one.
Worse yet, ordinances such as these create a false security among the public.
As the Task Force found, Sex offenses against children were most frequently
perpetrated not by strangers lurking in schoolyards but by offenders who were well
known to their victims, such as parents, caretakers, paramours of the mother,
babysitters, or friends of the family.
Residency restrictions do NOTHING to stop these kinds of crimes, but they do distract
parents away from the true danger to their children: someone already known to the
child.
Are there any answers besides residency restrictions and the registry? We at SOSEN
believe that there are several answers to sex offender issues that could help to reduce
the incidence of both new sex crimes and re-offenses; all of which are based on
studies, facts and the guidance of experts in the field. Experts who have spoken
openly about the flaws in the system and yet their educated words have fallen on the
deaf ears of elected officials who are more concerned about votes than making fact
based decisions regarding former sex offenders.
SOSEN Communications Department
SOSEN.us
877-594-2228