« Ninth Circuit rejects challenge to Arizona's lethal injection protocol | Main | States asking feds for help in acquiring execution drugs »
February 10, 2011
Kansas considering sex offender residency restrictions and license labels
As detailed in this local article, "Kansas lawmakers are considering a bill that would bar some sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or licensed day care [and] would mark their driver's licenses with the word 'offender' — in different colors to show whether the victim was a child or adult." Here is more:
A previous, similar proposal failed over objections from rural legislators who feared it would send sex offenders to their districts. The bill under discussion now is crafted to ease their concerns....
Some, however, have questioned the effectiveness of residency restrictions in stopping sex crimes against children. Former Sen. Karin Brownlee of Olathe cited a 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission that found 93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators....
Leslie Ramirez, a leader in the Scarborough-area campaign, told the Senate committee that she was aware of these studies. But she said they often lump all sex offenders together rather than look at pedophiles. She said other studies have found that sex offenders who target children choose to live near where potential victims gather....
Donna Sibaai of Wichita told the committee that many states and cities surrounding Kansas have residency restrictions for child sex offenders. In Missouri, she said, offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school or child care facility. She said Oklahoma imposes a 2,000-foot restriction. "We need the legislation not only to help us protect our kids," she said, "we need it so we don't invite child sex offenders into our borders."
February 10, 2011 at 09:56 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20147e27af90e970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kansas considering sex offender residency restrictions and license labels:
Comments
These laws do not stop anyone who is bent on getting a victim. The parents have to take a more active role in keeping and eye on their children. Look toward the sourcre of the problem and not at what media hype would have you you react to. Fix the root problem. People want the goverment to raise the children so parents are free to do whatever they want to do. Besides most people on the sex offender list did not commit crimes against children. With the ruling that non-sex offenders can be placed on the list the list's have become an ineffective tool for society and law enforcement.
Posted by: DLC | Feb 10, 2011 10:26:06 AM
sounds like it's time to grab your guns....The little nazi wannabee's are spreading.
"would mark their driver's licenses with the word 'offender'" can anyone say "juden"
Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 10, 2011 1:36:21 PM
@ DLC
You're right, numerous studies have found that residency restriction have little impact at preventing child molesters from "getting a victim." However, most people on the sex offender list do commit crimes against children. To be placed on the registry, they must have committed crimes of a sexual nature in which was victim was below the age of consent. Yes, there are individuals on the registry for drug related offenses, sexual battery, etc., but the vast majority of people who commit sexually related crimes are on there because the victim was a child (16 or below). Are there young people on there who were caught up in unfortunate circumstances? Sure, but the majority of RSO's are older men between the age of 30-45 who have committed a sexual crime against a minor.
Posted by: ATM | Feb 10, 2011 4:12:24 PM
One of the things that stands out to me is the following:
"Leslie Ramirez, a leader in the Scarborough-area campaign, told the Senate committee that she was aware of these studies. But she said they often lump all sex offenders together rather than look at pedophiles. She said other studies have found that sex offenders who target children choose to live near where potential victims gather...."
By that statement alone, one might think they were only going to apply these changes to the worst of the worst. These particular offenders were the ones initially targeted by these laws. As we have seen though, this type of legislation is an extremely steep and slippery slope. So, as DLC very briefly touched on, what would stop Kansas lawmakers from expanding these proposals into ultra-draconian levels seen in other parts of the country already? Then anyone foolish enough to empty their bladder in a back alley or high school seniors in relationships with underclassmen would be eligible.
Best to nip this in the bud now. I would not be surprised if the sponsors of this proposal are up for re-election this year. It is my perception that these laws only get brought up by those who are up for re-election. I may be wrong, but that is my perception at this time.
Posted by: Questions_Authority | Feb 10, 2011 4:16:14 PM
It is Kansas. Due to the Tea Party sweep this year, Kansas legislature is nearly all right leaning conservatives. Way, right leaning conservatives. Their ideas make most Americans blush. Kansas used to be fairly well balanced in Democrats and Republicans, and Derek Schmidt, even though Republican was a centrist, and kept things reasonable. Now, watch for Kansas to join insane, cruel Texas.
Posted by: DLJ | Feb 10, 2011 5:06:03 PM
This whole sex offender hysteria that is sweeping this country is based on misconceptions upon misconceptions....and in spite of all the evidence people continue to want more and more laws, more and more restriction placed on offenders that are no threat to re-offended...
There are 2 Dept. of Justice reports and 2 FBI reports that clearly put the re-offending rate of sex offenders at 4% to 7%(which is one of the lowest rates for any criminal) and as this article pointed out 93% of all sex crimes are committed by people the victim new...So tell me how can any one justify more unless ineffective laws.
We hear over and over we need these laws, we need these restrictions to protect our children, protect society from the 4 to 7 percent of the offenders that will re-offended...has any one thought about the effect these laws have on the other 93% of the people on the registry and there families?
I am a sex offender, I am not proud of what I did....I committed my crime 22 years ago and have remained out of any kind of trouble except a few driving tickets.... a vast majority of sex offenders are the same yet society wants these feel good laws that do nothing to protect.
The President come on tv and says this country is a country of second chances, this country is a world leading in human right but yet I don't see that. I see a country that is hell bent on inflecting as much hurt as they can on a member of society that has been singled out in this manner...I just read a article where a senator from Virginia I believe it was want to pass a law for forced castration of sex offenders....Then I read about how Turkey has a similar bill they are fighting over because it would violate human rights...Now here we are Turkey a country that has a very shading past dealing with human rights is more concerned with human rights then the good old U.S. I ask you if the U.S. is a land of second chances where is the second chance for sex offenders....they say these laws and restrictions are not punishment a least that's how the U.S. wants them to be perceived ...yet Turkey again in the article on line clearly stated it's a punishment that would only be applied to the most heinous criminals...here its not punishment but there it is...
No matter how you look at it...if 4 to 7 percent of sex offenders re-offend that means 93% will never re-offend...how do we justify desroying the lives of these people and their families for feel good, do nothing laws....
License plates marked offender, drivers licenses marked offender....how is this different then marking the jews with a star they had to ware....
Here is a quote and I will leave you on that note....
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. Rabbi Daniel Lapin in a letter to Adolf Hitler
Posted by: greg55 | Feb 10, 2011 6:12:11 PM
ATM: "However, most people on the sex offender list do commit crimes against children. To be placed on the registry, they must have committed crimes of a sexual nature in which was victim was below the age of consent."
Are you on crack?? You are absolutely, 100% INCORRECT. There are PLENTY of people on the list for sex offenses against adults, not just minors.
At least do A LITTLE research before you weigh in. Jeez.
Posted by: disenfranchised | Feb 10, 2011 6:23:50 PM
Well I can understand the concern of parents but I will not support this bill at all this would only do more harm than good. Again we are judgeing as a whole not on the individual them self thats profiling.Some are on the list he/she was 18 and one was 17 and the parents objected. Some have viewed picture but never touched anyone or had any intent of acting out but let curiosty got the better of them. Then there sexting but its ok for these teenagers to take and post pics .
Posted by: frank | Feb 10, 2011 7:36:37 PM
@disenfranchise:
Are you on crack? Did you even read my initial post?
I state that there are people on the registry who haven't committed crimes against minors.
Next time you respond, try reading the original post.
Posted by: ATM | Feb 10, 2011 8:04:06 PM
unfortunately for you ATM he and i are both responding to THIS post of yours!
"@ DLC
You're right, numerous studies have found that residency restriction have little impact at preventing child molesters from "getting a victim." However, most people on the sex offender list do commit crimes against children. To be placed on the registry, they must have committed crimes of a sexual nature in which was victim was below the age of consent. Yes, there are individuals on the registry for drug related offenses, sexual battery, etc., but the vast majority of people who commit sexually related crimes are on there because the victim was a child (16 or below). Are there young people on there who were caught up in unfortunate circumstances? Sure, but the majority of RSO's are older men between the age of 30-45 who have committed a sexual crime against a minor."
Sorry but this one proves your either an IDIOT or one of the million crooked sex treatment or tracking providers or the cooked politican's and media traitor's who support them....
Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 10, 2011 9:19:26 PM
atm: "Did you even read my initial post?"
me: you mean the one where you said: "To be placed on the registry, they must have committed crimes of a sexual nature in which was victim was below the age of consent"?
obviously that is not true because the offense of rape could be based on age of victim where the victim would be a young child, victim's incapacity to give consent either permanently due to mental illness/intellectual disability or the victim being temporary incapacitated due to alcohol or drug use where the victim would be an adult or older teenager, or a forceable offense where again the victim would be an adult or older teenager. In many state's registries all of those offenses would show up as the same offense - rape or first degree sexual assault. Unless the victim's age or age range is given, you cannot determine from the offense name whether the offense was against an adult or child from the registry. Even if you knew that the offense was against a child or an adult, you still would not be able to tell whether the victim was known to the sex offender.
Granted, most people on the registry do not commit the crime of rape - however while those other sex offenses are primarily offenses against children, in every case the crime name is the same if committed against an incapacitated adult or by force against an adult. In fact, where I live, the only offenses which you can definitely tell by offense name were against minors are often offenses involving consensual relations with a teenager (in fact, one crime is so broad that it can cover both consensual activities with a 17 year old or crimes against young children). Yes, they are crimes against minors, but they are hardly the violent crimes by the creepy pedophiles or scary rapists that everyone thinks of when they hear sex offenses.
It also helps to keep in mind that almost all sex offenses against adults would be in the most serious categories because they require force and lack of consent are by anyone's definition violent crimes (yes, there are the nonconsensual "date rapes" or rapes where ther may not be much force used). Many of the sex crimes against children are simply crimes because people under the age of 18 or 16 (generally, depending upon the state or the activity - where I live incidentially, as far as I can tell, its legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old as long as neither party gets naked in front of the other one because you need to be 18 to do that - yes, I'm being serious).
If there is a sex offender registry, I would limit it to only violent non-consensual crimes whether against adult or child victims (obviously, any sex crime against a young child is by definition nonconsensual and violent) - and would include the following info: age range and gender of the victim and whether the victim was known to the perp. If there is any value to warning the public that someone is an icky perv or violent rapist, it actually makes more sense to provide more information. A listing that says "rapist 1 violently abducted raped and beat a 25 to 30 year old woman who was a stranger to him" or "rapist 2 raped a 25 to 30 year old woman known to him" or "rapist 3 raped a 5 to 10 year old girl who was known to the victim" or "rapist abducted and raped a 5 to 10 year old girl who was a stranger to him" provides way more info than "rape." I'd say that rapist 1 and 4 sound like really scary people whose address should include the words prison or correctional center. I definitely would not want to live near them. Rapist 2 and 3 on the other hand, are much less scary sounding - while I'd definitely be cautious and supervise my children closely around them (which as a prudent mother I would do anyway), I really would not be that worried living near them. Of course, the politicians have an interest in making rapists 2 and 3 sound every bit as scary as Rapist 1 and 4 - and realistically, they have as much interest in making someone who had consensual sex with a 15 year old or touched his 12 year old daughter's vagina just as scary as Rapists 1 and 4 (especially since Rapists 1 and 4 probably are locked up somewhere). While I think that the concept of a sex offender registry could provide useful info if done properly, as done currently they provide so much junk information that they are basically useless.
and of course, rodsmith is right about the crooked sex offender treatment programs. Anyone honest will tell you that there is absolutely no way to predict future risk of reoffense accurately - yet, just like the so called "future dangerousness" in death penalty cases, its only a matter of time before the sex offender equivilent of Dr. Grigson emerges. There is just too much money to be made in civil commitment and criminal cases and "treatment" and so much junk science involved in what is essentially just a psychologist guessing.
ginny :)
Posted by: virginia | Feb 11, 2011 9:07:44 AM
@rodsmith
The only think your post proves that you are a bitter RSO.
Posted by: ATM | Feb 11, 2011 12:55:30 PM
ATM:
Many, many registered offendors are on there for possession or receipt of child pornography. Although there is a victim in the pictures, it doesn't mean the possessor/receivor ever posed a risk of molesting a child. Registries and residency restrictions are based on hysteria not science or experience. Most law enforcement professionals aside from career prosecutors could tell you that. Not that you seem likely to listen to the logic when the fear mongers and ignorant are so loud.
- Former Prosecutor (not career)
Posted by: AFP | Feb 11, 2011 4:55:52 PM
no ATM what it proves is i belive in the U.S Constution. Every last one of these laws is a direct violation of the ONLY u.s. supreme court decsion on the actual registry! Don't take my word for it. do your own research starting here!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html
SMITH V. DOE (01-729) 538 U.S. 84 (2003)
then go down a little to this part!
"Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."
in fact it might interest you to know that Alaska one of the two states who started this illegal criminal stupidity. Well their state supreme court has in fact went back and said hey people this is NOT what the u.s. supreme court said was legal and that it has in FACT as well as LAW become a punitive punishment....therefore it cannot be applied AFTER THE FACT... so anyone convicted before it's passage in 1994 is FREE of it. No matter what the u.s. supreme court has to say abut it....and what's real interesting is that it's NOT been appealed by the state. Which makes me know the govt KNOWS they are in fact and in LAW violating the constution and that if the u.s. supreme court saw this again they also would toss it.
read it here!
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/3958199/article-Sex-offenders--How-many-live-in-your-neighborhood-
and let's not forget a few OTHER states where it's been ruled ILLEGAL after the fact...just like the U.S Constituion requires.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=36535
Supreme Court of Kentucky
http://theparson.net/so/KYreisdencydecision.pdf
Supreme Court of Missouri
http://theparson.net/so/Missouri_Decision_residency_law.pdf
i don't have a problem with hard time laws that apply to sex crimes....heck i think hard time shoudl apply to any VIOLENT crime. BUT i have MAJOR problems with punishments AFTER THE FACT. The little nazi's at the local, state, and federal lvl can say they are "civil" all they want sorry last time i read a copy of the U.S. CONSITUTION i dont' remember seeing anyting in the section about ex post laws saying they were legal for "civil laws" last time i looked it said ex post law is ILLEGAL PERIOD!
Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 11, 2011 7:18:35 PM
of course i find it very interesting that when you and the other little hatefilled neo-nazi wannabee's discover someone who disagrees with you.... rather then fight back with the facts you DON'T HAVE....your respons is "YOUR A SEX OFFENDER"
i think it's pretty pitiful myself all it shows is your ignorance.
Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 11, 2011 7:20:11 PM
Wow ATM, so anyone here who is not in agreement with a bad law must be a sex offender? No chance they could be related to one and keeping up with their family member's issues? Or an attorney? Or a police officer? Or maybe more than one? Think before you spew toxic BS at someone you have no idea who they are. This is a resource for legal cases and the people who must fight on either side of them.. not a hangout for perverts. More likely, its a legal resource. So keep the attacks at a minimum and lets keep this site clean of nonsense so we can all decode what is going on with the laws. I would be careful who I publicly label erroneously, it would be a shame if that became a law suit against you for libel.
Posted by: tbucket | Feb 11, 2011 9:53:32 PM
ATM:
Never get into a battle of wits with an unloaded weapon. Are you related to the legislator who supports this proposed law?
Our children are being turned into idiots by people like you. They are brash, self-centered, incapable of minimal reasoning, but are wonderful just because they are children. They deserve everyting.
They grow up to have your mental, reasoning, and compassion capability.
Posted by: albeed | Feb 11, 2011 10:56:49 PM
the real sad thing here ATM is i do think we need a registry....BUT like the old saying "the devil is in the details"
I think we need one for ALL Violent or Repeat Offenders.... I also think it should be Law Enforcment ONLY. The general public and the media have AMPLY PROVEN they can't responsabily handle it. Plus of couse that way it would survive legal examination since registerying ex cons by law enforcment has been done in this country even in the 1800's and before it's only when the media idiot and the crooked politicians discovered they could distract the public and BUY VOTES with whipping up the sheeple over "sex offenders" did it go completly stupid and illegal.
Every study done in the last decade numbering into the 100's if not 1,000's say the registry and residence and working restrictions are not only a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.....but THEY DON'T WORK and IN FACT MAKE THE PROBLEMS WORSE....never mind that based on the 2002 Doe v. Smith U.S Supreme Court Decison they are ILLEGAL on their FACE.
even the U.S. Department of Justice's own figures show that 80-95% of those on the registry NEVER comit another crime... So wanna tell me why we are spending 10-20 BILLION dollars a year keeping up with them.
Come On ATW let's hear some FACTS from YOUR side! assuming you really have any!
Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 12, 2011 2:18:11 AM
What about the 10 year old boy who peed in an alley, and got on the sex offender registry because the police saw his wee wee? How threatening is he?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 12, 2011 8:01:24 PM
With all due respect to Ginny, the registry is the work of the vile feminist lawyer and its male running dog. It is a witch hunt for the productive male. Because rent seeking is a synonym for armed robbery, violent self-help has good moral, intellectual, and policy justification. There was the KKK in the 20th Century, with a presumption of morality. There is feminism today. Both will be considered hate, and outrageous as time passes. Why does the vile feminist want to destroy the American family, and has already done a great job on it? Government is the remedy when massive social pathology follows the destruction of the family. And government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. Direct action groups should bring the war on the productive male to the territory of the feminist lawyer and its male running dogs. To deter.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 12, 2011 8:31:54 PM
So if people want to keep SO's from living near children because thats whom they offended, are going to make rapists not live near women?
Robbers cant live near banks?
Burglars cant live near houses?
Murders cant live near humans?
Drug dealers can live right next to schools. Where the people screaming about that?
Its an idiotic notion, and just an overreaction, which Im willing to bet is based on people pretending to be tough on crime to get votes. When all else fails, attack the sex offenders. Theyre easy targets for politicians. Yes I know their victims had it worse, but when you serve time in this country its supposed to be that you paid your debt to society.
Research has PROVEN this to be a worthless tactic. Its not wise to keep pressing people already under stress. The registry is bad enough. Making people live under bridges and in rest stops b/c they cant live anywhere else is asking for trouble. Just ask Iowa law enforcement.
Posted by: Shadowblitz70 | Jun 20, 2011 9:51:41 PM
I want to say that this law is just plain dumb...I mean come on there are plenty of people I know that have gotten on the list just because someone dared them to run across the street naked and the cops saw it so boom on the list....or dating a underage girl and they break up so she gets mad and tells her mom boom hes on the list too...with all of these people like this they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and their lives are forever ruined all over bad judgement...I'm not saying that the whole list is like this but most of it is...so my opinion is that the extreme cases be dealt with harshly and the less servre cases be taken lightly...plus people should know where their children are at all times so i think its partially the parents fault....just saying...ok let the bad mouthing begin...
Posted by: ASW | Oct 25, 2011 11:34:13 AM
