ARS on Twitter
RSS
Sex Offenders Want Right to Live Near Children?
Posted by Raven on August 22nd, 2005
Sex offenders think they should have the right to live near their potential victims. And the civil liberties groups agree with them. As it stands, most states do not have laws that are tough enough to keep these pedophiles away from children. The states that do have some laws are going to find it more and more difficult to keep the kids safe.
MIDDLE TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) – Sex offender Steven Elwell thought he had paid his debt to society. He lost his job as a teacher and served a year in prison for having sex with a 16-year-old female student.
Now, after three years on the outside, Elwell wants to move his wife and two children into a bigger home. They must find a house, though, that’s not encompassed by sex offender-free zones being established by communities across New Jersey.
At least four towns ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks and playgrounds and others are considering similar restrictions. At least 14 states have such laws.
“We’re outgrowing our house fairly quick,” said Elwell, 34. “If we have to move, we’ll have to find a map, get a plot of land and figure out where (the pedophile-free zone) doesn’t reach.”
The poor chap…he must be getting itchy for another victim. I’m not holding back how I feel about this. These guys want children and teenagers for their pleasure. They’re ticked off that they cannot have easy and instant access to their victims. If he were so concerned about his family, he should never have put them in this position in the first place.
Elwell, who now makes his living owning a pizzeria, doesn’t expect sympathy. But he argues the ordinances are too broad, providing a false sense of security at the expense of ex-cons already kept on a tight leash by Megan’s Law, the pioneering New Jersey sex offender registry law.
A growing number of critics agree with him.
Restricting where sex offenders can live is misdirected and may be unconstitutional, say civil liberties advocates, defense attorneys and experts in the field.
“These laws have absolutely nothing to do with the protection of children and everything to do with scare tactics, cheap political points and an anti-intellectualism that is driving public policy today,” said John S. Furlong, a defense attorney who brought the first court challenge to Megan’s Law .
Megan’s Law was enacted in response to the 1994 slaying of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by a sex offender who lived across the street from her. The law prompted dozens of other states to pass similar laws, requiring released sex offenders to register with police and for residents of the neighborhood to be notified.
Unconstitutional?? Maybe…but so is harming another citizen. Last time I looked, rape was considered harm. Since so many of the sex offenders, cured and all, go on to commit worse crimes each time, it should be considered unconstitutional to allow them to live anywhere within 100 miles of schools, amusement parks, and other places where kids gather. Why aren’t the civil liberies groups looking at the rights of the victims? Are they a bunch of perverts too? Or do they condone sexual conduct against children? A little of both I suspect.
High profile cases such as the slaying of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida, allegedly by a sex offender who lived near her home, have prompted lawmakers nationwide to begin establishing “buffer zones” around places where children congregate.
Concerns about the constitutionality of the bans have not stopped the passage of the laws, in part because of political pressure.
“It’s pretty tough, if someone introduces an ordinance like this, to vote no,” said Joseph Scarpelli, mayor of Brick, which adopted its ordinance Aug. 1.
The ordinance added bus stops to the list of locations off limits to offenders and included a 2,500-foot buffer zone. With more than 2,000 school bus stops in the town, the measure effectively bars sex offenders from living anywhere in Brick.
I don’t know if these buffer zones are good enough. When an offender wants a victim, they will do anything to get one. I do think that by keeping them away, far away, the perverts won’t have the oppurtunity to stalk, plan and plot their next attack. Nothing makes me more nauseated than the thought of sex offenders living in the area and being allowed to have contact with my own and my neighbors kids. By allowing them to live near schools and day care centers and other places, we are asking for trouble. It can be compared to waving a hit of heroin in front of a cured addict: They can’t say no to the drug. Offenders can’t stay away from the children.
State Attorney General Peter Harvey has said he expects court challenges to the ordinances, although none has been filed.
For now, Elwell is working at his pizzeria, attending support group meetings for sex offenders and answering to his state-appointed community supervision officer.
Elwell said he plans to file a civil suit challenging the constitutionality of one or more of the laws targeting sex offenders, which he says unfairly lump all sex offenders together.
“I see this as adult peer pressure,” he said. “Like high school kids drinking alcohol, all these towns are seeing what other towns are doing and doing it.”
Adult peer pressure? What an ass. You go ahead and file your lawsuit…go ahead and make it easy to go after your next victim. When it comes to their children being harmed, you don’t want to cross too many Moms. Gather all your friends from your perverted support group, Mr. Elwell and come have some coffee with me. It will be the last meeting you all attend.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:47 am
“Now, after three years on the outside, Elwell wants to move his wife and two children into a bigger home. They must find a house, though, that’s not encompassed by sex offender-free zones being established by communities across New Jersey.”
His wife? What kind of woman marries/stays married to a man(not really a man) like that? She should be taking the 2 kids and getting the hell away from him, then she can live in a sex offender-free zone.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:56 am
I volunteer to let him live next to me and my shotgun.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 am
*feh*
I gotta agree with Johnny on this – what kind of woman wants a man like that? *gag* And allowing him (forgive me) such intimate, close access to the kids? Does her IQ even match her shoe size?
Now, Ogre, I’d volunteer as well – we also have LOTS of space out here (remote, verrry remote) – but I need to put my 9 y.o. first instead of gratifying my impulses. But it’s tempting…
– R’cat
CatHouse Chat
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Yeah and this guy also owns his own pizza joint…that probably hires teenage girls for help…The wife is one of those dingbat dumbasses who is blinded by his BS. The mere fact that he is even concerned about being able to live near schools would make me dump him faster than a speeding bullet. Some women are just really stupid I hate to say.
August 24th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Damn good post girl. I was actually going to write on about this on Thursday.
September 26th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Hey Raven why do we even have these stautory rape laws. I say lets just repeal the stautory rape laws because more minors are becoming parents before their even out of school for good including close to middle, junior, and high school levels and also close to the end of elementary school.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:06 am
http://www.lynnpolice.org/john_davis.htm
Not that John Davis I hope.
November 14th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
i think they shouldnt live near children. i mean dont tempt them. its for their own good
December 18th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Yeah… letting convicted offenders live near kids is like letting convicted bank robber the new general manager of the local bank. Are you freakin kidding. Over 50% of sex offenders are REPEAT offenders so if the “new neighbor” that lives in your neighborhood is a 1st time offender then you have a 50%+ chance he will do it again… That’s not a risk I wnat to take. I found some other Sex Offender news on Sex Offenders Report.
January 1st, 2006 at 3:41 am
None of you Know what this Law is really doing. You should read the file 619 this came from and understand it. No safe place to legally live.. ( you won’t know he or she is living in your area if he or she is forced to hide from the law ) The new abuse laws make it illegal to live with with your own children and wife if you are a sex offender , not because you are in bad areas but because they will arrest and imprison the mother of your children if she lives with you. Do you want to take both parents from a child? That is what it has done…open your eyes. This law is forcing the ones who are truley trying to be better people, to hide like they had been exiled from life. Do you know the NAZIs did the same to JEWs ? Who is to be the next exiled from life, gays, lesbians, anyone who has not been to church in a few years? Think about it… where does it stop??? Never..
January 10th, 2006 at 10:03 am
The recidivism rate for this particular crime is off the charts. Nope, don’t want them in my neighborhood! I have a link to a site that lists FL Sex Offenders. Categorizes them by zip code – I know the neighborhoods where they live. It’s scary!
February 27th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
For habitual sex offenders this law should stay in place, or they should have just been left in jail. but people do change and maybe this guy is trying to move on with his life and lead a good life. there are no laws restricting drug dealers from living near schools, and you can’t stop a released murdered from living near EVERYONE so they should give him a chance and if he does it again, lock him up FOR GOOD. but you’ve got to give everyone a chance to prove they’ve changed, i think.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:23 am
Where did my posts go?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Don’t molest kids and you won’t have to worry about being exiled. These women that stay with them have serious problems too. Why would anyone want to be with someone that is attracted to children? We can’t afford to give them a chance to prove they have changed. That’s taking a big chance with our children!
September 18th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
In the first place not ALL sex offenders are child molesters, and the repeat offenders are NOT 50%. You need to get your “facts” straight. To do this you can go to SoHopeful.com . Every person alive is a potentual sex offender, have you ever patted your childs bottom? Did you ever put ointment on your babys diaper rash? Ever touch a child on the leg , these are all things people have gone to prison for and are now labeled as sex offenders. Did you know that there are children as young as 6yrs. old who are sex offenders? AS for those of you who say let them live by me and my gun , its so nice to know that there are such “good” law abiding christain people in this world. Thank God there isn’t more of you!!
September 19th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Shirley, you’ve got to be kidding me.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 am
No, I’m not kidding.Take for instance this case. A husband and wife went out and later went to a secluded park after dark, not a soul around. They sit in the car and start “making out”. which leads to them having sex in the back seat of their car. The police catch them, they are arrested and charged and convicted as sex offenders. The wife has to register but is still allowed to live with and care for their children. The husband however has to register, cannot live at home because of the children, cannot live near or go near a school, a park, McDonalds, anywhere where children might be present. For the rest of his life he is a SEX OFFENDER and will be on the register as one of those low life scum of the earth offenders. And WHY, because he made love to HIS WIFE. Oh, sure it happened in a park, in the back seat of a car, but does it constitute being labeled as a sex offender, not having any contact with his children, not being allowed to live in his own home! I don’t think so. This is a true story by the way, I don’t kid around and I don’t lie. And why is it that most women when convicted of sex crimes usually don’t go to prison, but a man does. A women has sex with a 14 yr old boy,SHE gets probation,is monitored , gets to go to work, live at home with a swimming pool, and everything that goes with it, a MAN has sex with a14 yr. old girl,or 15, or 16 yr old. and he goes to prison for YEARS and YEARS. And believe me HE doesn’t have a swimming pool! I belive whats good for the “goose” is also good for the “gander”. Mostly I think men need to wake up to the fact that they basicly don’t have the same “rights” as women. And please don’t think I’m bashing women, I’m not. I just think that the laws should pertain to women as well as men, and they don’t.You show me a woman who did not recieve “time” for a sex crime and I’ll show you 100 men who who did! And yes there are children who are as young as 6 yrs old who are sex offenders. A sad but true fact. What is needed is to have different degrees of sex offences, just like murder, You have 1st degree,etc. manslaughter.involuntary. But when it comees to sex crimes, everyone is under one umbrella, child molester. You could have had sex with your wife but people are going to see you on the register and automaticly your a child molester. FAIR ? ? A man I know got 20 – 30 yrs. for attempted murder and 20 – LIFE for a non dangerous Non repetitive rape. Just goes to show that her LIFE wasn’t worth as much as her vagina. Go figure.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
A man and woman having sex in their car would not have to register has sex offenders. Give me a break! If this story is true they must have had a child in the car with them. I have worked with abused children for over 20 years getting them ready for court and I guarantee you that does not fall under the rules for registering. Unbelievable statement!
September 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Woman do spend time for sex crimes. Only the pretty ones seem to get away with not going to prison. Just like the majority of men do not go to prison. Most of them get probation. You need to look at the sex offender registry. We do know if it was an adult or a child that was assaulted. It states it clearly. It gives the age of the child. It also gives the age of the adult if they assaulted. It also gives information about the sex offender. Do your homework before you start spouting off untruths.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Excuse me,but it is true, it happened in oregon.And there wasn’t a child with them. But thats not the point I was trying to get across, the point is that not all sex offenders are child molesters, and yes I know all the info given on the sex offender registry, I also know that sex offenders regardless of whether the crime was agaist a child or not is under the same set of laws and regulations as a child molester. I don’t know what state you live in but where I live the majority does not get probation. Most women do, but not men. Here it doesn’t matter whether your crime was against a child or an adult, you are under the same set of rules. You still aren’t allowed to live near a school, or park etc. even though your crime had nothing to with a child. And you aren’t allowed to live in your own home if you have underage children. I’m sorry but I just don’t think thats right. Your comment about” women do spend time for sex crimes “Only the pretty ones sem to get away with out going to prison” Your right, but don’t you think theres a problem there, “she”s to pretty to go to prison, but hey that ones ugly so what the hell”.Give me a break. If thats the case then the majority of the people are in trouble cause there isn’t THAT many pretty ones
And I don’t “spout” thank you very much.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:21 am
No I don’t think it’s right that the pretty women are set free. They should get time like anyone else. I also think that sex offenders of adults should most certainly stay on the registry too. Do you honestly believe if an adultis sexually assaulted that their offender should not register? A sexual assault is a sexual asault. A man that rapes is capable of raping a grown woman or a child. They do not discriminate. So they are dangerous to everyone. You are very wrong about the info. you gave. The adults that you speak of that were having sex in the car with no children present does not fit the criteria for the sex offender registry. Not in Oregon or any other state. Look up your sex offender laws. No where is that stated. Nor has it ever happened.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:30 am
http://egov.oregon.gov/OSP/SOR/faqs.shtml
Here is all the info. you need. To be on the registry there has to be a victim or they would have to have child porn on their persons.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:35 am
They may have been charged with lude behavior but there was no victim so they do not have to register. We had a problem at one of our city parks this past year with a group of men that frequented it looking for sex. They solicited an undercover cop. They were indicted for lude behavior. They also do not fit the criteria for the registry. If that were the case, just about every prostitute in the country would be on it.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:09 am
I stand corrected, though the information I gave was sent to me by a reliable source,(someone wo is working with the legislature on a bill concerning sex effenders.)I do agree with you that sex offenders (all) should have to register,I don’t have a problem with that, though I disagree that if they rape an adult they would rape a child. However we will agree to disagree on that point. I’m not here to argue. I do however think that there should be a different set of rules concerning those who committ a crime against a child and those who do not. I myself was a rape victum, the man was never caught, did I want to see him punished for what he did to me, Yes I did. Would I want to see him punished for the rest of life, I can honestly say I wouldn’t.If you do the crime then you SHOULD do the time.When that time is over then the punishment should stop.I do consider it punishment to say a person who has served his/her time not be allowed to live in societies neighborhoods just because they are a sex offender,fliers are sent out ,etc. We allow murderers and burglers, and drug dealers, and anyone else who is released from prison to reside anywhere they please,and go wherever they please, and noone is notified that they have a thief, or murderer living near them.(Though I also don’t think that putting every criminal on a registry is they way to go either)I know that ome people believe that ex offenders should have no rights and that they should be locked away forever and some have even said they should be killed, I do have a problem with those statements. Once you take away anyones rights , it won’t be long before more are taken away, from even more people. And no one has the right(it IS against the law) to kill anyone regardless of who they are or what crime they committed.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Just so you know , my last statement concerns the PUBLIC taking the law into their own hands.( Though I don’t believe in the death penalty either, regardless of who carries it out.)
September 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I am for the death penalty in some cases. I really don’t like the idea of someone’s rights being taken away either- except when that person took the right of a child to live in peace for the rest of their time on this earth. I’ve seen the damage first hand. It’s horrific for these little souls! You and I are on very different ends of the spectrum when it comes to this subject. As far as a man that rapes a grown woman, it’s all about control and humiliation on their part as I’m sure you know since you did experience that. I am very sorry you had to go through such a horrid experience. But they can also be capable of raping children since it is about control. Some, not all, have no discrimination. We don’t know enough about why people molest children. If we did maybe something could be done to stop it completely. By the way I don’t want murders or drug dealers living around me either. There is no sure fire answer. We just have to keep trying to come up with answers to keep our children safe from the weirdo’s out there.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Flyers are not sent out unless they are a high risk to reoffend. I would want it on a bill board so I would know. We can’t put our head in the sand and think they won’t reoffend. We don’t know that for sure. They are attracted to children. We should never put our guard down and do whatever it takes to protect the kids. We owe sex offenders nothing. They hurt children. What could be worse?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Yes, your right about the children.Of course we have to protect them. Though we differ on other points we do agree on that.I do feel that in some areas concerning sex offenders (not child offences) that it has gotten “out of hand”.There is no easy solution, and I’m not sure there is a solution at all, it’s been here since the beginning of time and will continue till the end of time.You have to be careful what you wish for,what affects one affects all.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:48 am
We do agree on some things. Not everyone that is on the registry belongs there. The problem is how can it be changed as not to let the true offenders off the hook? Like the boyfriend/girlfriend situation. The law states anyone under 17 is off limits to anyone over 17. A sixteen year old girl dates a 17 year old boy and they sleep together. That’s considered a sexual offense. He could be prosecuted for that. Parents need to use their brains before they file charges on these boys. Being consider a child molester for the rest of your life when you’re not is a travesty to say the least. I don’t know what the answer is but it needs to be looked at and a change needs to be made. In the meantime the boys better follow the laws that we have at this moment. It’s not worth it in the longrun for a few minutes of whatever!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Exactly! These are the kind of offences I am speaking of. There has to be some kind of line drawn here, if a person abuses a child then yes he/she needs to be on the registry and laws/rules apply, boyfriend/ girlfriend is another matter entirely. There are just some people considered sex offenders that in my opinion should not be considered sex offenders and shouldn’t have to be under the same laws/rules as say child molesters.Though do you see my point about how a lot of people automaticly “think” child molester when they see “sex offender” ? Which takes me back to my orginal point , not ALL sex offendes are child molesters, there needs to be “degrees” of sex offences, just like other degrees of crime. ie. murder, theft, etc. You can kill someone and be charged with 1st degree murder or you can kill someone and be charged with manslaughter. Same outcome(someone is dead in both cases) but one carries a lesser sentence than the other. I don’t know if thats an answer to sex offences, but we do need to differentiate between child sexual abuse and cases like the boyfriend/girlfriend. To sexually abuse a child is the most sick, horrendous crime, for a boyfriend/girlfriend sexual contact comes nowhere near it, even though he will be considered a sex offender and child molester in some peoples eyes. I do agree that parents need to talk to their kids and warn them about these laws, I did with my son, once he reached “of age”, he asked girls for proof of their age, a drivers license. I know it sounds “weird” and people laughed but you can never be to careful,especially when it comes to your life .
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
But how do we change the law as not to put the boyfriend of an underage girl on the sex offender list when the law clearly states that under 17 is a minor? That’s the problem. I don’t know the answer to that one! Any ideas?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Thats a good question
The law does state that under 17 is a minor, unless that minor commits a crime, then the state (at least here) can try that minor as an adult at the age of 13. If they are “adult” at 13 in those circumstances then why are they not “adult” in other cicumstances.How can the law say that if a 13 – 17 yr old commits a crime they can be tried as an adult but if that same 13-17 yr old has sex then they are minors. I don’t have the answer either, I do know that the laws need to change, that Judges and law enforcement agencies need to take in concideration the curcumstances of some of these cases, and not lump everyone into one catergory though. It’s clear not all these “offenders” should be classified as sex offenders. I wish I knew the answer.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:22 pm
But the law protecting minors under 17 is going to be hard to change. It protects them from true child molesters. That’s a hard call.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
I guess by now everyone has heard that Mark Karr got off scott free. Ridiculous.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:43 am
“patd95 says
The recidivism rate for this particular crime is off the charts. Nope, don’t want them in my neighborhood! I have a link to a site that lists FL Sex Offenders. Categorizes them by zip code – I know the neighborhoods where they live. It’s scary!”
*************************
While I agree that the Sex Offender Registry is certainly a positive step in the prevention of sexual abuse, I have a serious problem with patd95’s post. Many people are under the mistaken impression that sex offender recidivism rates are astronomically high, when research shows that to be untrue. According to federally funded studies, sex offenders tend to have the some of the lowest recidivism rates out of all crimes. Megan’s Law and others like it were passed with VERY good intentions in mind. Unfortunately, law makers on both sides of the isle have a bad habit of ignoring research, logic and reason in favor of emotion.
If the point of all this legislation is to reduce victimization and sexual abuse, then shouldn’t we pay attention to the research and studies that have been done regarding the efficacy of these laws? People are so quick to lump all sex offenders into a single group, regardless of the severity of their crime. We allow legislation to be passed which affects that entire group as a whole, rather than using risk assessments for their originally intended purpose: to weed out the violent/predatory, high risk offenders from those who are unlikely to ever commit a crime again. By doing so, the registry can be used to focus on the people who we need to truly be watching out for. Right now, state registries are a mess and it is very difficult to tell who is who.
What has been occurring in the states that have been passing residency requirements (1000ft. laws) is that they have actually been LOSING sex offenders. These people are disappearing because they feel the laws are becoming too restrictive. Iowa is a prime example. A sex offender on the registry living next to a school is better than a sex offender off the registry.
What scares me is that we are doing nothing to actually prevent abuse BEFORE it occurs. Sex offenders who are caught and put on the registry are actually a very low risk for re-offense. We see these high profile cases in the media where some pervert goes out, rapes and then kills a child, but those cases are very rare. As long as we treat every person convicted of a sex offense as if they are the same as the men involved in the high profile cases that we name laws after, we will never be able to understand and reverse the sexual abuse cycle. Sex offending is a cycle that constantly repeats itself; this is why many sex offenders have many victims. When they are caught, they are forced to complete a treatment program where they are taught to deal with inappropriate sexual urges, build a healthy and supportive social network, how to cope with stress, increase confidence and self esteem, and many more things. Unfortunately, the sex offender legislation that states have been passing interrupts and counteracts the treatment that prevents these men from re-offending.
Force a man to move from his home of many years and you drastically increase his stress level. You risk cutting him off from his social network. Many states employ community notification which increases the risk of vandalism against sex offenders and their families. All these things serve to reduce self-esteem and confidence. These laws, which were intended to protect innocent women and children, actually have the potential to put them in danger! Call your local victim advocacy centers and ask them what their official position is regarding sex offender legislation; you may be surprised at the response. All across the country victim advocacy groups have been changing their stance regarding sex offender legislation because the research that has been done since we began passing these laws shows they either do nothing or potentially increase the risk of re-offense. This is not a black & white issue. It is extremely complex and it deserves our attention, or reason, and our patience. If we truly want to protect our children we need to react logically rather than emotionally. Passing laws that make us FEEL safer simply creates a false sense of security.
Please visit the link below for more information regarding sex offender management and legislation. This organization is funded by the justice department and is tasked with advising law enforcement and politicians regarding the effective management of sex offenders. Read the literature that they have to offer and ask yourself if these knee-jerk/feel-good laws are really helping to protect us and our children.
http://www.csom.org/
October 10th, 2006 at 8:53 am
sel said,
“Here is all the info. you need. To be on the registry there has to be a victim or they would have to have child porn on their persons.”
Wrong. HERE is all the info you need
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/181.html
When one wants to know what the law says, one reads the law. Not some State Police propaganda.
If you’ll scroll down to §181.594(4) you’ll see the heinous offenses of prostitution and public or private indecency listed as registerable offenses in the State of Oregon.
Take a little of your own advice and don’t open your mouth when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I don’t read anything on that site that says anyone is put on a sex offender registry if their is no victim. Where do you see that?
October 10th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
In 25 years working with the courts I have never seen two adults put on the sex offender list for having sex in their car unless a child was with them. They have been charged with lude behavior because it was not a private area but never does that warrant to be put on the registry.
October 10th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I found a case where a prostitute had to register as a sex offender in Oregon because she was hired to video tape a man having sex with a child. That makes her a sex offender. A child was involved.