Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court rules cities and towns can't restrict where sex offenders live
By adamg on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 11:31am
The Supreme Judicial Court today tossed a Lynn ordinance that barred serious sex offenders from roughly 95% of all residences in the city.
The state's highest court ruled that the 2011 Lynn ordinance, which barred Level 2 and 3 offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools and parks, was illegal because the legislature gave the state exclusive control over the monitoring of sex offenders after their release from prison or treatment. The ruling could also affect similar ordinances in some 40 Massachusetts communities.
Although the [sex offender] registry law and the other laws governing sex offenders do not expressly prohibit local regulation, we infer from the comprehensive nature of the statutory scheme for oversight of sex offenders and the negative effect that the ordinance may have on the monitoring and tracking of sex offenders, that the Legislature intended to preclude local regulation of sex offender residency options.
The court noted that even as it set down detailed instructions for overseeing convicted sex offenders, the legislature only restricted sex offenders from residency in rest homes.
The [Lynn] ordinance, which restricts all level two and level three sex offenders from living in ninety-five per cent of the residential areas of the city, conflicts with the relatively narrow rest home restriction created by the Legislature and is thus inconsistent with State law.
The court continued that our society has risen above discriminating against particular classes of people:
Except for the incarceration of persons under the criminal law and the civil commitment of mentally ill or dangerous persons, the days are long since past when whole communities of persons, such Native Americans and Japanese-Americans may be lawfully banished from our midst. Also, because of the tension between a sex offender's liberty interest ... and the imperatives of public safety, the Legislature has demonstrated a concern for careful crafting of laws in a field fraught with constitutional peril.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling, John Doe and others vs. City of Lynn | 93.47 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Native Americans have had it
Native Americans have had it pretty tough in this country and now the legislature is comparing them to sex offenders.
Not that being a sex offender necessarily makes you a bad person
Maybe you were caught skinnydipping, or sexting as a teenager, or just couldn't hold your urine and peed in the bushes instead of your pants. Sometimes that's all it takes.
We're not talking about skinnydipping here
People who face sex-offender status for such things, yes, there's a debate there.
But the decision issued today involves people who have done far more serious things.
Are you kidding?!?
This:
is a real understatement!
Native Americans are at the very bottom of the list in this country. They've had it far worse than anybody, including other non-whites here in the United States. Comparing Native Americans with sex offenders is inappropriate...and disgusting, imho.
Good.
Good.
In other states, sex offenders who served their time have ended up homeless, or living in state-provided trailers on prison property, because they aren't allowed to find normal housing. I'm glad that (theoretically) can't happen here any more.
ever thought about putting
ever thought about putting them in prison?
There's a reason they're not in prison
Because they were in prison and have served their time.
Question
Is there any evidence to link the reoccurrence of sex offender violations to the proximity of parks and schools?
Aren't most sex offender's victims family members and others who they have had prior contact with, not kidnapping children out of parks?
Is this true for level 2 and
Is this true for level 2 and 3 sex offenders, or just level 1?
interesting question
At first, I - brainwashed by too many episodes of SVU - assumed that there were at least as many cases of stranger-danger as there were of family/neighbor abuse. A quick google leads me to think that's not the case, however. From here:
Interesting comment
about SVU. In most episodes of SVU I remember watching, Stabler and/or Benson eventually found a connection, however remote, between the victim and the perp.
moment of silence for Stabler
To my shame, I have probably seen more episodes of SVU than any healthy or sane individual. But anyway, there are definitely plenty of episodes about family members doing terrible things to kids; and then there are plenty of other episodes about random strangers and stalkers who have either a tenuous connection or none at all to the victim.
I guess with the episodes focused more on kids, the perps are more likely to be relatives, teachers, something like that. The episodes focused on other forms of rape and abuse are about equally likely to be either someone the victim knew, or some awful psychopath who just happened to pick this particular victim.
[no, seriously, do not ask me how many hours of my life I've wasted watching such a terrible show.]
Fair point
Guess I happened to see mostly episodes that focused on kids instead of other victims.
omg
it's not terrible. I love it.. its interesting. Of course Chris Meloni always makes it better. Mmmmm
Its was.. until I canceled cable TV.. my Sunday afternoon nap show. I'd put it on and take a nap (since it was always in reruns)
We may be in a dead heat, I'm sure I've seen almost all SVU episodes at least 5x or more..
The reruns of
SVU are much better than most of the
garbageprograms on basic cable TV today. Now all we need is a law making the practice ofcramming more ads into the programs"time editing" punishable by huge fines and loss of broadcast license.yep
Compulsive Golden Girls fan (yeah I'm very gay).. Run time of the show when it originally aired on NBC is 22-24 minutes.
On Lifetime, they were edited down to 21-23 minutes.
On We & Hallmark they were edited down to 18-20 minutes.
After watching the show on my Roku via my plex server for many years, I was at my dad's watching it with his wife over Christmas. I couldn't watch it, because I know all the dialogue and since they were edited down so much, I kept saying dialogue that was edited out. It was very very annoying. It ruins the show. (and often can change the plot line since scenes are removed)
Sad I think that eventually they'll be edited down to 15-17 minutes. So we'll have almost 15 minutes of commercials per episode.
And the cable industry wonders why people are cutting the cord in droves. Who wants to watch an overly edited down show that has more commercials than actual show?
The show that I can no longer watch
on TV due to the obnoxious "time edit" nonsense is M*A*S*H, especially the Henry Blake seasons. Who in their right mind came up with the idea that cutting a 28 minute show down to 16 minutes (TV Land, I actually timed it once) was a good idea.
Guess that's just more fallout from the 1980s MBA grad syndrome (The only rule of business is this: Profits, Profits, and more Profits!). Not to mention the "Gee, I'm entitled to still make money off of a job I did forty years ago (the "royalities" scam that performers have been fleecing folks with forever) BS.
USA marathons ftw
I would say it's good, trashy fun. Good for naps, good for background noise, that kind of thing.
Indeed. And even more
Indeed. And even more importantly, many of these laws that place such heavy restrictions on sex offenders wind up adding more stress to their life; and stress tends to exacerbate any existing mental health problems, increasing their likelihood to reoffend:
In general, not just for sex offenders but for people convicted of most crimes, our "justice" system is far too concerned with punishment rather than rehabilitation. Take people who are already having a tough time with their life, put them into a miserable environment where violence is the way that interpersonal problems are dealt with, give them no extra education (or an extremely poor education, some of the stories I've heard about the quality of teaching in prison GED programs would make you laugh if they didn't make you cry), and then put them back in the world with no real preparation and a host of unrealistic parole restrictions, like not being able to associate with other felons.
We really, really need to have more evidence-based corrections systems, that are actually designed to reduce recidivism and improve people's integration with society, not just punishment for punishment's sake.
Hypocarcy
Isn't it great?
Isn't what great?
Isn't what great?
No
I once had hypocarcy for an entire summer, and let me tell you: it sucked. Even now, it still itches sometimes, and I'll never set foot in an Applebee's restroom again.
Politicians across the
Politicians across the commonwealth will complain about the ruling, but privately they're all breathing a sigh of relief, because they no longer have to risk being seen as soft on sex offender crime by questioning these restrictions.
Sad that they don't have the spine
to repeal ridiculous, life destroying, and ineffective sex offender regulations.
Sounds like a business oppertunity for a shrewed developer.
We have senior housing, affordable housing, 55 and over housing, assisted living why not perv palaces?
Perhaps
Route 1 in Saugus for starts. Oh wait, we already have that on Route 1 in Peabody - although that's not housing.
So, looking at naked people
So, looking at naked people makes you a "perv", now? Or is there some business on that stretch of Rt. 1 that I'm unaware of?
You ever see the people that frequent strip joints?
Its like a who's who of deviants, misfits and criminals. If there is a crime anywhere within 5 miles of a strip club its the first place you look for the "person of interest".
Frat boys, businessmen,
Frat boys, businessmen, bachelor parties... the lowest of the low.
Its not
1989.
I guess I haven't been to a
I guess I haven't been to a strip joint in a while. More like 1995-96 but I'll defer to your greater expertise in this area.
$3,550 to $5,150 Per Month
That is the asking rent for 1 bedrooms across from Centerfolds in the Zone. I can't even afford to live next to a strip joint.
and they offer no naked
kaylee's,
A Timely Article on Sex Offender Registries
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/28/the-collater...
Aren't we an exceptional people!
This is bullshit...
Not only should sex offenders have restrictions on where they can live, they should be forced to live in pervert colonies in remote parts of the country. If allowed back into normal society, they will commit more sex crimes.
Will they?
Why don't you read this article and do a little more research? Please post back with your findings.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238060.pdf
From the above study: "The results are consistent with previous research which has argued that sex offenders have relatively low rates of recidivism, typically significantly lower than non-sex offenders."
While you're at it, read the article linked to in the above post.
Nah...I'm all set.
I've done enough of my own research to know that recidivism is actually high. One study proves nothing, especially a study done by the government.