NEW: ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Residency Restriction for Sex Offenders
Monday, July 16, 2012
The Rhode Island ACLU today filed a lawsuit in R.I. Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of a state law that makes it a felony for any person required to register as a sex offender to reside within 300 feet of any school. Across the country, experts involved in the treatment of sex offenders, as well as victims’ rights groups, have opposed sex offender residency laws as being ineffective, counter-productive, and potentially more, rather than less, harmful to public safety. The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Katherine Godin, is on behalf of three plaintiffs who face potential homelessness if the law is enforced against them.
Two of the plaintiffs, Dennis Gesmondi and Dallas Huard, reside in Warren Manor II, a Providence facility operated by NRI Community Services, a non-profit provider of mental health and substance abuse treatment. The plaintiffs have developmental disabilities and rely on the staff there to assist them with medication, meals and various other daily activities. They have lived at the facility for three or more years. If forced to leave, the complaint alleges, they are “unlikely to find and be placed in a comparable assisted living facility.” They are designated at the lowest level offender classifications, and are not subject to community notification requirements. The third plaintiff, George Madancy, was convicted of a non-contact crime, possession of child pornography. He is a veteran with medical problems that would likely leave him homeless or hospitalized if he is forced to move out of his apartment, also in Providence.
Among the groups that have publicly raised concerns about broad sex offender residency laws, both locally and nationally, are the RI Disability Law Center, the RI Coalition for the Homeless, Day One Rhode Island, the American Correctional Association, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. A year before the Rhode Island law was adopted, the Rhode Island Sex Offender Management Task Force prepared a draft statement on residency restrictions that noted that “research shows that sex offenders with residential and family stability (which can be disrupted by such restrictions) are less likely to commit new sex offenses.” Shortly after Iowa became the first state in the country to implement a sex offender residency statute, the Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a statement opposing that statute, pointing out that “there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.” Other groups have noted that laws like these perpetuate the myth that most child sex offenses are committed by strangers, when in fact the overwhelming majority are committed by relatives and people the child knows.
Even though the plaintiffs have been in their residences for some time with the full knowledge of probation and police officials, the Providence Police Department notified them last month that if they did not move out within 30 days, they risked being arrested and charged with a felony for violating the statute.
The lawsuit argues that the law violates due process, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and amounts to improper ex post facto punishment. The lawsuit also notes the extreme confusion that has been generated over determining how to measure the distance between a school and a residence. The ACLU is seeking a court order declaring the statute unconstitutional, and preliminary relief preventing the state from enforcing the law. A hearing on that request is scheduled to be heard Friday morning.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments:
jen atack
4:30pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Who the *bleep* cares about a bunch of loser perverts that did something so despicable to an innocent soul!! They are lucky that they didn't get a bullet in the head never mind that they are going to be homeless! They belong behind bars for life, not out here making it easy for them to re-offend! The ACLU has reached a new low in the dregs of humanity! Screw the perverts and screw the ACLU !
Vicki Henry
11:41pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Folks, please educate your legislators with facts...the recidivism rate for a registered former sex offender is less than 5 %. Now to answer your question about the other 95% I will refer you to media stories which have surfaced recently like Jerry Sandusky, various law enforcement, priests, sports figures just to mention a few. So,the MAJORITY comes from within the family environment. That includes fathers, uncles, brothers, neighbors, etc., and THEY ARE NOT ALREADY ON ANY REGISTRY. So, to continue to pass laws and residency restrictions is irresponsible and misleading the people of Rhode Island.
You do realize there are over 763,000 men, women and children (as young as 8 and 10 in some states) required to register for everything from urinating in public, streaking, mooning, exposure, sexting, viewing suggestive or abusive images of anyone up to the age of 18, playing doctor, prostitution, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, ex-girlfriend or angry and immature student, Romeo & Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, endangering the welfare of a child, rape and many other "crimes." You are weaving a horrible web. Please do the math... 763,000 multiplied by 2 or 3family members...wives, children, mothers, grandmothers, girlfriends, aunts and other loved ones that are suffering the collateral damage by being harassed, ridiculed, threatened, beaten, wives lose their jobs, asked to leave their church and other organizations, have to move, have signs placed in their yards, flyers distributed throughout the neighborhood....all because they are trying to provide a support system for someone who has paid their debt to society and wants to work and support their family....that's all.
Keep adding more laws and "you" or someone you love will soon be awarded a place on the registry. Education is the key! Use these funds to teach parents, teens and children about safety to include behavior that is appropriate toward them as well as behavior that is appropriate coming from them. Very Important!
Every state needs a Child Abuse Prevention Program and it should be taken to schools, PTO Meetings, Scouts, Sports and many other places where abuse occurs. There is a difference in a registered former sexual offender and a sexual predator. The predator is the one we need to start educating folks about and not expect legislators to continue to pass laws. A law will "never" protect a child. Education will empower kids.
Vicki Henry
Women Against Registry
pearl fanch
9:14am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Someone needs to file a lawsuit against the ACLU and have them disbanned.
The level of their ridiculousness is overwhelming.
Lance Martinez
11:30am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Please consider the following clarifying information in the fight against unconstitutional and illegal sex offender laws by any persons who governs oppressively, unjustly, and arbitrarily; despotically or any persons who exercises authority in a tyrannical manner. Definitions for a tyrant are:
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
This important and valuable document I bring to your attention is posted on the web under (The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws) and I encourage you to not only to read and study this informative work but to pass it on to every state group that is organized to fight injustice. It would be foolish on your part to not only read but to consider the information provided in this document that defines and explains, with terrific information and insight, the unconstitutionality of sex offender registration.
Furthermore, passage of legislation and laws that attack our Constitution will eventually challenge your freedom. using the sex offender registration format but defining other crimes worthy of such illegal, abusive legislation.
The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in
Sex Offender Registration Laws
Catherine L. Carpenter* and Amy E. Beverlin**
More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored
by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators,
eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. This Article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this Article posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes initially were constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes—what this Article dubs super-registration schemes—are not. Their emergence demands
reexamination of the traditionally held assumptions that defined original registration laws as civil regulations.
Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much-needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to
its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this Article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has
become unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.
* Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School. The authors wish to thank Dean Bryant Garth
and Vice Dean Austen Parrish of Southwestern Law School for their support of this scholarship. We
are also grateful for the valuable feedback we received from Professor Alexandra D’Italia and for the
research assistance of Tannaz Hashemi and Michael Morse.
** J.D. Candidate, Southwestern Law School, 2012. I would also like to thank Professor
Carpenter for the opportunity to collaborate with her on this piece and for her guidance throughout
the writing process. Carpenter_24 (J. Grantz) (Do Not Delete) 4/19/2012 6:23 PM
1072 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 63:1071
Table of Contents
bill bentley
5:35pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Unfortunately, this is an issue that cannot be argued with reason. The fact is proximity laws don't work, the research is overwhelming. In fact, it increases recidivism. What we need is a coherent, well informed re-entry program for offenders coming back to their communities. A typical discharge plan includes time in a homeless shelter before a discharge planner can find a place for these people to live. Whether we like it or not, these people are coming back to our communities. We know what works and its not proximity laws. Its connections to the community, housing, employment, treatment, and monitoring. This is what we should be discussing and crafting as public policy. Because of the visceral reaction to the offender, the only voices being heard are the clamoring voices of people that are actually advocating policies that make re-offending more likely. Ironic?