Judge: Cities can not ban registered offenders

[patric]

BARRE – It was an interesting idea, but a superior court judge has ruled she could find no legal authority for the City Council to adopt and enforce an ordinance regulating where convicted sex offenders can and cannot live.

Judge Helen Toor's recent decision to skip the expense of a trial, reject the city's request for a continuance and grant the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Christopher Hagan by the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, means Hagan can't be ordered to move out of the Kent Street apartment he rented with his young family earlier this year.

It also raises serious questions about the "Child Safety Ordinance" that Barre officials tried to use to force Hagan, who was convicted of having what he claims was consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 19, to move from an apartment located within 1,000 feet of two playgrounds.

Although Toor's ruling specifically bars the city from enforcing the ordinance against Hagan, Allen Gilbert, executive director of ACLU of Vermont, said it also provides a blueprint for others who run afoul of the local ordinance.

"The more general message to the city is: 'Vermont municipalities don't have the authority to adopt these types of ordinances," Gilbert said, suggesting Toor's latest ruling was "not surprising" given her earlier decision to grant Hagan's request for a preliminary injunction in June.

In that 25-page ruling Toor indicated she sympathized with the expressed goal of the ordinance, which prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of local schools, parks, and playgrounds, but was unable to conclude the city had the statutory authority to enact it.

Toor concluded they were not, accepting ACLU-Vt.'s argument that Vermont municipalities only enjoy the powers that are provided them by the state. Regulating where people convicted of certain crimes live is not one of those powers, she decided.

"Vermont municipalities cannot just take it upon themselves to decide who gets to move into town, or dictate where people can and can't live," he said.

"If a Vermonter is convicted of a crime, his or her punishment is determined by a court of law — not by a city council or a town select board," he said. "Vermont municipalities can't simply decide to evict individuals who have paid their dues to society and are free."

[Breadburner]

This is real simple.....If you get caught molesting a child it's mandatory life in prison and/or the death penalty.....

[Hoss]

This is real simple.....If you get caught molesting a child it's mandatory life in prison and/or the death penalty.....

As much as I agree with that statement in principle, the specific circumstance cited above happens far too often and the courts paint too broad a brush when it comes to this circumstance.

Would you agree that a 19 year old who has, what is called, 'consensual' sex with a 15 year old AND that 15 year old corroborates the story is really deserving of life in prison?  Or even of being a registered sex offender if this is the only sex crime he's ever committed?

I've read that this happens far too often.

If the above were the case, then I would be, in the court's eyes, an offender because of having sex with my 17 year old girlfriend when I was 18.  On prom night.

[waterboy]

As much as I agree with that statement in principle, the specific circumstance cited above happens far too often and the courts paint too broad a brush when it comes to this circumstance.

Would you agree that a 19 year old who has, what is called, 'consensual' sex with a 15 year old AND that 15 year old corroborates the story is really deserving of life in prison?  Or even of being a registered sex offender if this is the only sex crime he's ever committed?

I've read that this happens far too often.

If the above were the case, then I would be, in the court's eyes, an offender because of having sex with my 17 year old girlfriend when I was 18.  On prom night.

It also presumes that these offenders are not capable of rehabilitation. As you note there are many levels of offense in the broad brush used to describe a sexual offender. I remember reading about men arrested for urinating in public on exposure charges. Seems simple enough to rehabilitate a beer drinker who pisses on the courthouse lawn.

As far as the more serious offenders, they should at least be forced into high security mental facilities till it can be determined if they can be rehabilitated. Remember, most of them are the previous victims of sexual abuse themselves.

Of course if you don't believe in rehabilitation, the answer is much simpler. "Off with their heads!"

[Breadburner]

Child folks child....I'm not talking about teens having sex or someone pissing on the cain's exterior wall......

[Red Arrow]

Child folks child....I'm not talking about teens having sex or someone pissing on the cain's exterior wall......

Unfortunately, the law sometimes does.

[nathanm]

Child folks child....I'm not talking about teens having sex or someone pissing on the cain's exterior wall......

As Red Arrow stated, the law paints a broad brush when it comes to "sex offenders." Consensual sex between teens who run slightly afoul of the age restrictions is treated in the same way as a 40 year old molesting a 6 year old. As is a sicko exposing themselves to children for sexual titillation and some guy walking around naked in his front yard because he's a nudist or even some poor driver relieving themselves on the side of the road when there's no public bathrooms available.

[sgrizzle]

I have stated it on here before. i believe there needs to be levels of sex offender classification. Public urination  for example should have no restrictions. Consensual sex with a minor near your own age would probably be a 3 and restrictions would be temporary due to a low chance of re-offense. Child molesters would be a 1 and carry all of the residency restrictions, etc.

[Conan71]

Bravo, Mr. Grizzle.

[brianh]

I don't really understand why we continue to punish people who have served out their prison sentence in the first place. I would much rather have a gainfully employed felon, than one who cannot find a job easily living next to me. If we make someones life so terrible that they can't live near us or have a job, then we have given them a green light to commit more crime. And they are just going to come back into our community to do it anyway.

[cannon_fodder]

1) You can not execute someone for anything other than murder (or treason, technically).  So the death penalty is off the table.

2) "Sex Offender" means someone who violates a sex law.  It does not distinguish between a serial rapist or the 18 year old having sex with his sophomore girlfriend.  Between the sheep raper (while disguisting, not really a threat to my safety) or the drunk guy peeing outside of a bar and the guy kidnapping children to molest them.  From the high school kid having sex with his prom date in the car or the high school teacher giving "extra credit" to students for sexual favors.

I want to be able to loathe "sex offenders" as a general group and assume they are all total scum.  Not wonder if it was just some stupid decision.  The laws in this regard need to change.  Teenagers having sex in cars should be dealt with their parents, peeing in public shouldn't be a sex crime, sex between teenagers shouldn't be criminal either.

Until that is cleared up, it's hard to call for heads for all "sex offenders."

3) Brian brings up a good point.  They did their time, shouldn't they be square with the house?  I reserve my right to hate them and be leery, but as far as the government is concerned - when they are done with their full sentence (or parole), aren't they even?

I understand the sentiment to the contrary, and my gut reaction is "the hell with them."  But he raises valid points.

[Conan71]

Brian's point is interesting and really not an angle I'd thought of before.  If a person is deemed "rehabilitated" enough to be released from prison, then why the sex offender restrictions after release?  Why would we release people back into society who represent enough of a danger that they need to be identified by a scarlet letter?  If there's still enough of a worry about these people to call them out publicly, what the hell are they doing out of prison?

[custosnox]

However, in the context of actual sex offenders (i.e. child molesters, rapists, etc.), the pattern is rarely broken by a stint in jail.  It seems that incarceration in our country is more of a repayment to society for the crime you comitted against it then a chance at rehabilitation.  As such, it is held in common belief (and I hold this as well) that our children's safety is more valuble then the wishes of choice of living area of a convicted criminal.  While I hold the opinion that placing a person on this list because they took a leek on the side of a building, or because a woman got drunk and decided to flash everyone at a street party (can we say mardi gras?) is beyond idiotic, I beleive that those that run a high risk of doing harm to my children should be kept from the places that my children are likely to visit. 

[we vs us]

Brian's point is interesting and really not an angle I'd thought of before.  If a person is deemed "rehabilitated" enough to be released from prison, then why the sex offender restrictions after release?  Why would we release people back into society who represent enough of a danger that they need to be identified by a scarlet letter?  If there's still enough of a worry about these people to call them out publicly, what the hell are they doing out of prison?

It's Orwellian, really.  In the sense that they've paid their debt but continue to be punished (by state and municipal governments, and by public opinion) in anticipation of further crimes.

I read an article recently (don't remember where but I'll see if I can dig it up) that told the story of an freed sex offender who actually bought an apartment complex and rented his units to other sex offenders.  His basic motive wasn't, you know, the sex trade but was instead to provide housing for this group of citizens who now couldn't live in huge swaths of the town they were living in (because of school zones, daycares, churches, city buildings, etc), but who, under terms of their probation, had to prove a steady address to be considered for work.

Unsurprisingly, the ex sex offender/apartment owner came under a huge amount of public scrutiny and attack for what he was doing and in the end had his property liquidated and all his tenants evicted.

I know it's not popular with pretty much anyone, but the legal and societal issues surrounding these people really trouble me. They really speak directly to the ways we view our penal system and the contradictions inherent in the system (overlapping needs to punish and rehabilitate).

[cannon_fodder]

Custosnox, I'm playing Devil's advocate here to a certain extent:

1) Segregating sex offenders merely creates another illusion of safety.    They can drive to a playground or a school just like everyone else.    It seems unlikely that a sex offender would snap up a neighbor after getting caught once already anyway.  While I agree that it makes us feel better, how much safer could it really make us?

(banning them from school houses/watching kids at parks seems to have merit though)

2) The convicted felony out of prison is still a citizen of the United States and has the same rights you and your child do.  If they have truly been "punished" for their crimes and are out, then they are out.  We do not stop bank robbers from going to banks, we don't stop people who commit vehicular homicide/manslaughter from driving cars, we don't ban woman-bashers from having girlfriends, and we don't stop rapists from going to bars (all after their release from prison/parole).   Thus, it creates a logical problem for the law.



But I agree 100% about jail not doing much, if anything, to rehabilitate someone who gets a sexual turn-on from masturbating (whatever) in front of elementary kids.  Clearly a mental issue coupled with the inability to control ones urges (I don't grope college girls, though I'd like to).  Tough nut to crack really.

But it appears everyone is on board with a uniform sex offender list and criminalization of some activities is both foolish and counter productive to the effort to demonize "true" sex offenders.