« Should all letters to a sentencing judge in high-profile controversial case be made public? | Main | Seeking reflections and/or forecasts on the Roberts Court and sentencing jurisprudence »

August 9, 2011

"With nowhere to go, sex offenders file suit: New school ousts nearby safe house residents"

The title of this post is the headline of this new local article from Delaware, which begins this way:

For nearly three years, 52-year-old Richard Paredes has lived on Wilmington's East Side, sharing quarters with men recently released from prison who have nowhere else to live. Paredes, a former teacher, also works out of the home as a case manager trying to find jobs and permanent housing for the former offenders.

But by next week, Paredes and the other registered sex offenders living at the Harriet Tubmans Safe House -- one of the few places in the state that takes in homeless registered sex offenders -- must move out. That's because of a learning center and preschool that recently opened less than 500 feet from the safe house.

"I understand the law, but there also should be like a pre-existing clause like in some other states," said Paredes, who was convicted of two sexual offenses. "This program has been here first, and this program actually is respected by the community."

Under Delaware law, certain sex offenders are not permitted 500 feet from a school, even if the school opens after the registered sex offender began living there.

Harriet Tubmans Safe House, which consists of two homes less than a block away from each other, housed about 24 people at one time. But since Wilmington police informed them of the coming evictions, 11 registered sex offenders have moved out. Five others remain there hoping a federal lawsuit will allow them to stay in at least one of the houses.

August 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20153908cfb18970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "With nowhere to go, sex offenders file suit: New school ousts nearby safe house residents":

Comments

Keep pushing sex offenders out into the fringe and you'll see a rise in destabilization and homelessness associated with them, accompanied by a rise in recidivism.

Posted by: Eric Matthews | Aug 9, 2011 11:44:29 AM

actualy legally they can refuse and then defend their home. This HAS already been all the way to the U.S. SUPREME COURT! Of course that time it was legal restriciton zones betwen bars and churchs! church built a nice big new church within 2000 feet of a big famous club on the florida beach. then tried to force the bar to close becasue it was now within 2000 feet of the church. sucker went all the way to the supremes before they wre told TOUGH SHIT! the bar was there first!

that is even more imparitive here it's not like the EVIL sex offenders are not tracked their whole friggin life now. WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. So why the frig did you put a school up next to them. SORRY MOVE THE DAMN SCHOOL...or SHUT THE FRIG UP!

Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 9, 2011 1:43:56 PM

Why did it take until the school was opened for them to realize this was an issue? They should have protested the building of the school from the beginning because they have every right to remain there. After all, it is called a "safe house" for a reason.

Posted by: Hillary | Aug 10, 2011 4:11:28 PM

well hillary maybe they figured the state had a brain. That it never crossed thier minds that some hatefilled neo-nazi would walk up and demand they now move from where they had been legaly living for god knows how long becasue SOMEONE else moved in across the street!

plus like i said it's not like we don't know where they are. I would think the family of these children could bring suit againt the school for placing their CHILDREN across the street from a bunch of "evil" ex offenders! after all WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE!

last time i looked that was THE WHOLE FRIGGIN PURPOSE FOR THE REGISTRY IN THE BEGINING!

Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 10, 2011 8:08:50 PM

Hillary:

Everyone knows that sex-offender residency (RESTRICTIONS - WHICH CANNOT IN ANY MANNER BE CONSTRUED AS NON-PUNITIVE, EXCEPT BY SICK MINDS), are unconstitutional. The state Supreme Courts of Missouri, Ohio and Kentucky have reached this conclusion, but federal Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court continualy work cowardly hard to avoid the issue.

Posted by: albeed | Aug 10, 2011 10:50:39 PM

lol shame on you albeed you missed the best one!

just this year the ALASKA STATE SUPREME court...you know one of the two that CREATED THE REGISTRY and was part of the only real u.s. supreme court decision in 2002 has now ruled it has in FACT BECOME A PUNISHMENT and can NOT BE INFORCED AFTER THE FACT! that NO ONE CONVICTED prior to it's passage in alaska can be placed on it! That the u.s. supreme court had GOTTEN IT WRONG!

other than that...you hit it perfect! a perfect hit would be the 7,000 lawsuits in ohio and the 100's of others around the country where the local, state and federal attoerney's who are pushing them and get slapped down and their little laws tossed....REFUSE TO APPEAL to the U.S. SUPREME COURT!

since they know IF the law is to have any meaning or JUSTIFICAL in this country that if the U.S. SUPREME court looks at what they said was LEGAL in 2002 and WHAT WE HAVE NOW! and refuse to find it is now in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT they said was legal...then at that point everything passed since will be GONE. otherwise they know that blood will run in the streets of this country! since all bets will be off!

Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 11, 2011 3:04:56 AM

@ rodsmith

States are prohibited, under Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, from making any "ex post facto law." Alaska ruled that way because the Justices decided the law violates the states constitution, and I don't believe the U.S. constitution had an impact.

Posted by: Huh? | Aug 19, 2011 5:32:14 PM

ahh but huh! what happned is the same individual who went all the way to the us supreme court in 2002 who lost when the febs said it was not a retroactive punishmetn but just civil. kept fighing in alasks and this decsion was from his case where alaska looked and said it had in fact and in law BECOME a retroactive punishment no matter what the u.s. supreme court said!

Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 24, 2011 12:23:06 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB