The state legislatures continue to enact these residency restrictions when research and the experience from other states who have these restrictions tell them that they do not work and can even be counterproductive for the public safety.

Given this fact, this tells me that these restrictions are passed for purely political reasons and have nothing to do with public safety. The lawmakers want to look good to their constituents and they want to be seen as if they are doing something to help the problem. They want to appease the "tough on crime" crowd.

We can protest to the lawmakers until the cows come home about these restrictions. We can tell them that they are not fair, that they hurt families, that they are costly, etc., but the politicians do not care since the laws are only passed for the sake of their re-elections.

It is the voting citizens we must educate, not the politicians.

I had two representatives here in Oklahoma tell me that they knew the residency restrictions were not effective and maybe even made the problems worse, but, given the political climate, they had no intention of changing the law.

Purely political as are many of the restrictions of the registry, and even the registry itself.

In order to make headway in our movement, we must take the decision to pass these laws out of the politicians hands and into the hands of an educated public. The public has to be educated that these laws are counterproductive and a waste of money. The voters then need to let it be known to the lawmakers that they do not feel as if these laws are effective.

Barring a landmark court decision, we can never make much progress as long as these laws are political in nature.

rewdiazepam

While I agree with you rew, it is not so much about educating the public as it is for the RSO and their families to stand up and get involved, lawmakers dislike when people show up and point out the real truth about restrictions and the fact that they do little good. Drug dealers are far more damaging to the general public and children than most RSO but that will never make headlines. It will take the millions of families to knock down the door of their lawmakers before any significant change will happen. Most RSO are in denial about what numbers can really do.

I couldn't agree more, Rewdiazepam.

However, I also believe that taking it to the public won't be met with any understanding, as to them, ANY sex offender is a child molester. Far too many will refuse to see how damaging this is to the offender and his/her family. (Because a child can totally choose their parents, just like a spouse can choose to up and leave them). And, lets not forget, parents are completely capable of cutting ties with their child. (If you can't see the sarcasm in that, I apologize.)

My partner's case was a matter of "Dole out as much punishment as possible! Its an election year!!" and it makes me sick.

Essmann said his previous proposals to geographically restrict sex offenders failed in recent years because they would have applied to all levels of offenders.
"We're focused down now to a very small group of high-risk offenders," he said.

If this was actually true and it was only a small group of predatory offenders that as we research tells us have a higher than normal recidivism rate than at least I could understand it. We know sex offenders as a group have a low recidivism rate but there are certain subclasses that have much higher rates compared to the group. There are also subclasses that have significantly lower recidivism numbers, the reason the actual recidivism rate is so low is most offenders are not predatory in nature.

The main problem with his thinking is that tier 3 gets thrown around rather loosely in some states. For example, once fallen is tier 3 for a one time offense against an opposite sex minor in an extended family situation. Very low recidivism rate, but Ohio made him tier 3 because in Alabama they have lifetime registration so the only thing in Ohio that is lifetime is tier 3. That's ridiculous.

If tier 3 was truly for the people that represent the highest rates of recidivism, which would be rapists, same-sex child molesters, people with multiple victims, and outside family molestations. Again I may ask to see a study showing how residency restrictions work for that specific population but at least I would be happy the politician is applying even a hint of logic and research to their bills.

@buildingupslow-----You are exactly correct and I know you have had some experience in this area. You know as you have been helping Mary with Texas Voices. It is much more difficult for lawmakers to pass these laws when they have a family standing before them, looking at them squarely in the eyes, asking them why little Suzy cannot have daddy come to her school play or Billy crying about the fact that his father cannot help coach his Little League baseball team.

These politicians claim they care so much "for the children." Good, let's let them prove it by showing some compassion for the children of registrants.

Here is a good discussion we had a while back about the power that mothers----the mothers of children and the wives of registrants----can have in this fight.

http://tinyurl.com/m75lru2

Several posters contributed to the thread and it provoked some interesting discussion.

@tarawr-----I agree that that public is not too sympathetic to registrants, but if we can educate the public not on the effect it has on the offender himself, but his children, we would make more progress. And we also need to educate them about the laws and how they are ineffective and that there are MANY more effective methods we can use to protect the children of our country than the registry.

Independent started an excellent discussion along this line a few days ago.

This is a very complex issue and to make progress it will take time, energy, and a lot of hard work from a lot of dedicated people.

rewdiazepam

I wrote a letter for Hillsdale college .they supposed to be defensing rights of all and constitution rights .I told them when I see they are helping us all then I will send in support to their fund . ..I'm planning to send to rsol of Tenn .they asap wrote me back when I urgently needed to talk to them and helped me understand what govt could be voting on .....maybe this Hillsdale college president of Pershing liberty for all will make a move and help us out .I hope anyways

In 2007, in Oklahoma, they enacted the tier levels.

The classification was dependent solely on the crime for which the offender had been sentenced. No consideration was taken for his age, his family support, or any other factor except the crime.

They listed so many crimes for a tier 3 designation that 78% of the registrants were classified as tier 3.

You can never make me believe that 78% of all the sex offenders in Oklahoma are predators. In fact, I know they are not.

rewdiazepam

My hubby went from a level 1 (lowest risk) to a tier 3 all because the AWA was adopted....so he's a tier 3 for misdemeanor of Indecent Assault

That shows just how crazy the system is faery, wow!

I've always advocated for a tier down approach. Where there is light at the end of the tunnel for all sex offenders regardless of where they start. If you start tier 3 and after 10 years of no sexual crime you can petition the court to go to tier 2 etc. The problem with a plan like this is obviously where do you start everyone? Politicians are just going to make everyone start tier 3 and nothing really changes anyway. Tiers are arbitrarily decided, not based on research but by armchair politicians trying to appear tough on crime.