Sex offenders face a constant battle as to where they are allowed to live. Twenty two states have distance restrictions varying from 500 to 2,000 feet limiting where offenders are allowed to live, work, or even walk. The purpose of these laws are to observe the impact of residence restrictions on sex offender integration, and to better understand the sex offender’s perceptions of these laws. These laws, however, were put it place before there was research proving that they were effective.
Laws vary in each state. In Iowa, sex offenders are not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or daycare facility. State figures in Iowa show that sex-abuse crime has remained the same, but the number of offenders failing to register has more than doubled. The law is similar in Georgia, but includes various bus stops and churches as well.
Housing restrictions for sex offenders are often so limiting that there may not be any area in the city for the offender to live. Because of these tough limitations, offenders often end up homeless, or being forced to move away from a city where they grew up, or where they have supportive friends or family.
A survey of 135 sex offenders was conducted in Florida, one of the states which passed housing restriction laws for sex offenders. Most of the offenders who took the survey responded by saying that housing restrictions increased isolation, and did not view the housing restrictions as helpful risk management. Some offenders even said that the isolation created by such restrictions may even increase rates of recidivism.
A different study, conducted in Indiana, examined the consequences, both intended and unintended, of residence restrictions on sex offenders. Data was collected from 148 male sex offenders enrolled in four different outpatient counseling centers. Results from this survey indicated that offenders felt housing stability was difficult to establish, employment opportunities were difficult to find, and social support was almost impossible. Young offenders were particularly impacted because Indiana law prevents them from living with family members, and many cannot find affordable housing in the city.
Considering that the majority of sex offenders are unlikely to re-offend, the strict housing restrictions are unnecessary and harmful to offenders and society. Such discriminating laws to housing restrictions may be doing the opposite of what it was intended for, which is increasing negative acts and reducing the chance of successful community adjustment for many sex offenders.
References
USA TODAY “Sex Offender Residency Laws Get a Second Look” February 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy “Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Unintended Consequences and Community Re-entry” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Levenson, J.S., Justice Research and Policy. “The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd?” 2007 Criminal Justice Abtracts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment