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.

Free tagging:

Lawsuits

SJC

Lynn

Attachment	Size
Complete ruling, John Doe and others vs. City of Lynn	93.47 KB

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Ad:

Comments

Native Americans have had it

By Matt
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:02pm

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:49pm

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

By adamg
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 4:50pm

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?!?

By mplo
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:56pm

This:

"Native Americans have had it pretty tough in this country"

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.

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:02pm

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:21pm

ever thought about putting them in prison?

There's a reason they're not in prison

By adamg
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:39pm

Because they were in prison and have served their time.

Question

By BostonDog
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:24pm

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:38pm

Is this true for level 2 and 3 sex offenders, or just level 1?

interesting question

By Malcolm Tucker
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:41pm

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:

The reason registries do not prevent reoffense is that they are predicated on outdated and inaccurate assumptions. Most sex offenses are committed by persons known to the victim (either a relative or acquaintance).[10] Yet our policies are largely driven by the idea that sex offenders go after strangers. Indeed, offending against strangers is correlated with a higher likelihood of reoffending. But offenses against strangers are the exception.

Research has identified other specific factors that are correlated with a higher risk to reoffend. Having a legitimate sexual disorder, such as pedophilia, is also correlated with a higher risk to reoffend.[11] In certain situations, having a male victim (typically a male child victim) is correlated with increased risk. So is having intimacy deficits—someone who has a hard time establishing lasting relationships.

On the other hand, certain groups of offenders pose much lower risks to reoffend than other sex offenders, regardless of the details of their offenses: people over 60, people whose offense(s) occurred when they were juveniles (under 18), females, people who have been in the community, without reoffending, for five years or more, and people convicted of possessing child pornography.

Interesting comment

By roadman
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 12:47pm

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

By Malcolm Tucker
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:13pm

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

By roadman
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:35pm

Guess I happened to see mostly episodes that focused on kids instead of other victims.

omg

By cybah
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:24pm

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

By roadman
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:41pm

SVU are much better than most of the ~~garbage~~ programs on basic cable TV today. Now all we need is a law making the practice of ~~cramming more ads into the programs~~ "time editing" punishable by huge fines and loss of broadcast license.

yep

By cybah
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:21pm

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

By roadman
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 6:16pm

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

By Malcolm Tucker
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:52pm

I would say it's good, trashy fun. Good for naps, good for background noise, that kind of thing.

Indeed. And even more

By anon
Sat, 08/29/2015 - 11:20am

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:

Persons with stable, supportive lives, with steady employment and housing, reoffend at lower rates.[7] On the other hand, those who, because of registration, are unemployed, homeless, and generally unstable, suffer psychosocial stressors that may increase their risk to reoffend. Id. These policies also put significant stress on offenders’ families, who in turn may abandon the offender; this aggravates an offender’s stress and also isolates him away from persons who might otherwise provide a watchful eye. Id.

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:10pm

Isn't it great?

Isn't what great?

By brianjdamico
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:51pm

Isn't what great?

No

By SomerVillain
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:33pm

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 1:37pm

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

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:06pm

to repeal ridiculous, life destroying, and ineffective sex offender regulations.

Sounds like a business oppertunity for a shrewed developer.

By bulgingbuick
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:13pm

We have senior housing, affordable housing, 55 and over housing, assisted living why not perv palaces?

Perhaps

By roadman
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:34pm

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

By Scratchie
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 2:39pm

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?

By bulgingbuick
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:25pm

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,

By Scratchie
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:28pm

Frat boys, businessmen, bachelor parties... the lowest of the low.

Its not

By bulgingbuick
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:41pm

1989.

I guess I haven't been to a

By Scratchie
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 4:11pm

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

By John Costello
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 4:59pm

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

By bulgingbuick
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 10:12pm

kaylee's,

A Timely Article on Sex Offender Registries

By anon
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 4:49pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2...

Aren't we an exceptional people!

This is bullshit...

By MatthewC
Sun, 08/30/2015 - 4:22pm

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?

By anon
Mon, 08/31/2015 - 9:03am

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.

By MatthewC
Wed, 09/02/2015 - 4:08pm

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.

Court rules cities and towns can't restrict where sex offenders live

Comments

Add comment

Plain text

Support Universal Hub