NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks, or other places where children gather, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The three-judge panel found that New Jersey's Megan's Law was "pervasive and comprehensive" and should be the only law governing how sex offenders are treated. The ruling upheld findings by judges who invalidated ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway townships.

Supporters of those ordinances hoped the towns would appeal. Richard D. Pompelio, a lawyer for the New Jersey Crime Victims' Law Center, filed a brief endorsing the town's laws.

He questioned how Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to register with the state, was pre-empted because it does not impose residency restrictions.

The towns banned adults convicted of sex offenses against a child from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, church or other place "where children might congregate."

Similar laws are in place in many states and dozens of New Jersey towns; those in New Jersey will be at risk if the latest ruling stands.

Appellate Judge Joseph F. Lisa, writing for the court, said the Cherry Hill and Galloway ordinances "interfere with and frustrate the purposes and operation of the statewide scheme."

Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt was considering whether to appeal the ruling and maintained that the ordinance "is valuable to our community," spokesman Dan Keashen said.

A message seeking comment from Galloway officials was not immediately returned.

The ruling was applauded by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

link

As long as they are a risk, they need to be limited in where they can live. Given that, there does need to be some kind of reasonable exclusions to this rule. In Oregon, a 19 year old who gets busted for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is considered a sex-offender (and gets a mandatory 90 month sentence). In most cases, these kind of sex offenders aren't a threat, just horny. But, OTH, we need to be extra careful in protecting our children and I'd rather see an error in being too protective, rather than erring in being not protective enough.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

I don't understand the court's reasoning. I don't agree with the court.
Without seeing the court's reasoning, I would think we could simply make this a matter of a "parole" requirement.
We already require parolees (for some crimes) to be restricted from firearms. We already have "tracking" requirements for parolees.
This (preventing living near a school) seems like an obvious extension, and I think it is treated as such in some regards.

I agree.

Some of the "sex offender" classifications are just absurd.
If "public indecency" is handled in a certain way by the legal system, an ill chosen idea for "streaking" can get you labeled as a "sex-offender" for life.
And the really "fun" part about that is that people typically hear you are a "sex offender" and they fill in the gaps for themselves. Which in some cases can be entirely accurate. In some cases, you've just been societally convicted for a crime you never thought of committing.

Rapists? Understandable. Child molesters? Expected.
A 19-year old with a 17-year old? That's over the top.

Well, on the one hand they were convicted and served their time, on the other hand you have psychologists who say most sex offenders will never be reformed. Now this 2500 restriction, where I live, for example, being that the town is only 10 square miles, but has 5 elementary schools, a high school, and a total of about 8 playgrounds (not to mention fields and parks), if an offender needs to stay half mile away from each, he would likely violate these terms just by walking out his door. Furthermore, I'm not convinced this restriction would stop them from committing a crime if that were their intent unless they have some form of monitoring.

Evidence on pedophiles doesn't support concerns | theage.com.au

In Ga, we had the same laws. Some towns specifically built parks and day cares to effectively zone out any sex offenders. It was kinda unfair really. If a man does his time, the basic human right to a place to live being infringed like that should be deemed unconstitutional.

Owning a gun is supposedly a constitutional right as well.
Voting is considered a constitutional right as well.

But if somebody is a felon, they can lose those rights.

What would be "unfair" is not protecting the children from pedophiles who have a statistically high recidivism rate.


Suppose a pedophile was looking to molest again.
He hangs outside a school looking for a new victim.

Without the law, it's perfectly legal and we have to wait until a child is traumatized.
With the restriction, if somebody notes he is there, he can be brought up on charges before a child is scarred.

While the restriction may not stop them, it does give a tool to allow prosecuting before a crime is committed.

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned monitoring. It would only be effective if that pedophile were watched by authorities. If he were spotted like any regular Joe because he looked suspicious, then it would not be a direct result of this law, but of the watchful eye of a common citizen.

I think the point is that this adds no value to Megan's law mainly because it just can't be enforced. It also further persecutes criminals who have served their time, regardless of what we may think of them.

Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Having somewhere to live, air to breathe, and water and food for sustenance are human rights. You don't need a gun, but the ability to find somewhere to live is a bit different. the right to vote or own a gun are optional and not required for what most humans consider basic survival.

It seems only certain sex offenders might have a higher tendency to re-offend though. Here a link.
There is an inherent societal assumption that the sex offender recidivism rates are a fixed rate that will not change. This supposition is just not accurate. The rate of re-offense is likely to change over time due to social factors and the effectiveness of treatment strategies for managing this population (Hanson 2004). The recidivism rates fluctuate among different types of sex offenders and are related to specific characteristics of the sex offender and the offenses. After 15 years, 73% of sex offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of another sexual offense (Hanson 2004). Hanson observed the following factors associated with differentiating increased risk from those offenders whose five-year recidivism rate was 5% and from those whose recidivism was 25%. Higher recidivism rates were associated with these factors male victims, prior sexual offenses, and young age.

Maybe those factors should be taken into consideration in sentencing in the first place instead of placing people that have done their time on a lifetime list of persecution.

Yeah, suppose. But then again, suppose a pedophile who just hasn't been arrested yet does the same thing? Kids are still unprotected. And still has the potential to be just as molested. Create more stringent loitering laws for those situations. Additionally my post dealt with a town zoning out where sex offenders could live to create a "pedophile free city". Which was rightfully declared unconstitutional.
Ga. sex offender law nixed - Crime & courts - MSNBC.com
And here's a bit of common sense about your loitering situatio above..
Twenty-two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 feet to 2,000 feet, according to researchers. But most impose the offender-free zones only around schools, and several apply only to child molesters, not all sex offenders.

With the law, first time offenders are still free to commit crimes, kids are still gonna be molested by first time offenders, who it is said can get to over 100 kids before they are caught. The only ones that are caught are the ones that aren't "careful". Maybe we should test all males for the rather large percentage or so that might have some pedophillic tendencies....
A nice review of a few studies...

Yeah I guess so. Maybe we should place speed logs on speeders cars and face recognition technology in stores to pre-select for prior shoplifter convictions, and laws of that ilk. No point in stopping with sex offenders. Let's go for a utopia and lock society down or lock em up..

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

There is a difference between "having somewhere to live" and being able to live wherever you want to.
Referring specifically to a specific comment of yours, if the government involves itself to ensure that NO area in the city is allowable to live, that is overstepping the boundaries.

Regarding specific limitations which don't amount to complete exclusion, I see them as allowable. Telling a child molester he can't live (or be) a certain distance from a school allows him other places to live.


I specified "pedophiles".
My other posts explicitly mention a distinction between a generic "sex offender" who could be just guilty of "lewd and lascivious behavior", and more severe criminals.
The article you gave showed a recidivism for pedophiles of about 1 in 8 to 1 in 4, depending upon "treatment".
That's pretty serious recidivism.


I'm not sure of the point...
Do you want me to provide some remedy for predicting people who haven't even committed a crime yet?

The things I talked about address factors we DO know, and they provide REAL protection.
Just because there are additional scenarios which aren't addressed doesn't mean that we shouldn't help what we can.

That would be like not locking the front door just because the criminal could decide to break a window.


Good on all counts.
The city was wrong for its "pedophile free city" attempt. That's too restrictivee.
Imposing the "offender free zone only around schools" for just child molesters is smart.


"free to commit crimes"?
That's a rather funny way to phrase it.

But regardless, if the solution helps reduce crime, but doesn't address all possible scenarios, it should still be instituted.
Can you imagine telling the mother of a victim "Well, we saw the guy hanging around the school earlier. Actually Jim recognized him as a known and convicted pedophile. But we didn't tell anybody because it was possible there were other pedophiles out there that we didn't recognize."


I think the URL provides one criticism of that idea which rules it out for me.

….a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

Just because a guy may think a "girl" looks cute doesn't mean he will act on it.


Raping a child? Life-long trauma.
Speeding? Typically a "victimless" crime.
Hopefully I don't need to elaborate further on that?

Extending your logic even further, should we criticize the terrorist watch list as well just because it's not all inclusive of terrorists who haven't done their suicide bomb yet? Or maybe the terrorist watch list somehow means that we're going to start throwing people in jail for jaywalking?

Which is exactly what we are discussing in this thread. Overreaching laws on this subject?

But telling him he can't live a certain distance from parks, schools, churches, day care centers and bus stops. Those are the laws I find a bit out of hand.

Not really when you look at the other rates...

or..
CSOM Publications - Recidivism of Sex Offenders

No I want common sense and some sense of fairness to apply for those that have.

At the expense of many rights, and not just the constitutional ones like the right to have a gun.

Depending on the type of lock and door frame, why even lock it in the first place? A criminal is coming in regardless. The mere locking of a door is more for YOUR piece of mind that anything else. Mere locks don't prevent crime.

Agreed.

[quote"free to commit crimes"?
That's a rather funny way to phrase it.[/quote]
It sure is. But it brings that guy in California to mind. Remember this guy who was untouchable? The police could harass him, but not charge him.
Legal System, Parents Eye Self-Described Pedophile : NPR

That's exactly how the law works for most other crimes. A rapist can still join a gym and ogle women and possibly rape one for example.



And I think it's sick to think a pre-pubescent child is cute at all in a sexual manner. Whether you act on it or not.

Yeah....For one you get a ticket, for the other you get a prison term. The punishment should fit the crime. But the punishment including possible banishment from society after the sentence has been fulfilled is not part of the plan.
So yes, elaborate. Even some killlers get better treatment after their prison term is up.

The terrorist watch list doesn't keep people from living or working. And they can't be convicted to anything unless they are actually caught breaking an actual law. In this case, walking by a school is a crime for a pedophile. Your analogy is a bit different. Maybe you ought to reread your OP and stick to the points that led to the rejection of that law.

I favor keeping guns away from violent felons who have used them in the commission of the felony, but not for a lifetime ban on them being able to vote. A think in the case of pedophiles, they should be kept away from schools and day cares, but not churches and parks. But if they are caught doing questionable activities near children again, it should be reported and if found illegal, should be reflected in their sentencing. That would be the common sense vs. "rights" approach.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)