New Jersey Community Seeks Real Banishment of Sex Offenders

I've argued that residency restrictions in the aggregate create de facto banishment of sex offenders.  One New Jersey community is pursuing a clear policy of banishment.  From the New York Times:

WHILE dozens of New Jersey municipalities have tried to restrict convicted sex offenders from living near their schools and parks, officials in Newton are seeking to bar high-risk sex offenders from living anywhere within the borders of their 3.5-square-mile Sussex County community.

During the past year, courts have struck down three New Jersey towns’ ordinances prohibiting convicted sex offenders from living within specified distances of schools and parks.

Despite the prospect of a legal challenge, officials in Newton said they were confident that their ordinance, which would bar sex offenders classified as being at high risk of repeating their crimes, would win approval by the Town Council on Oct. 10....

Municipal and state efforts across the nation have also focused on keeping sex offenders from living near schools. Dyersville, Iowa, may have the toughest restriction. In 2005, it barred any sex offender older than 21 from living there. The law has yet to face a legal challenge, Mayor Jim Heavens said.

The Newton proposal would prohibit sex offenders listed on the state police’s Internet registry from living within the town limits. The registry, which lists those deemed most likely to commit another offense, comprises all Tier 3 (high risk) and some Tier 2 (moderate risk) convicts.

This is just a horrible idea.  It is especially odd coming from New Jersey where the statute will almost certainly be struck down because it conflicts with the state's Megan's law.  Sentencing Law & Policy and Corrections Sentencing are also covering the story.

Comments

[Ilah]

"Cherry Hill has appealed, as has Galloway, which is being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit group founded by Pat Robertson. Its chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said a total ban could be more difficult to defend."

This has troubled me since I first read one of ACLJ's "articles" on the matter. The case is being used as a demonstration of the need for fundraising, and as a stick with which to beat the anti-ACLU drum. Not once in the "article" was it mentioned that the res-res law conflicted with state law, nor was there any reason given to oppose res-res outside of "must love pedophiles."

We rail against lawmakers using sex offenders as a means to get votes. But we give organizations like ACLJ a pass because they're... Well, I don't know why, frankly.

Agape Press has been at the forefront of pushing for these laws. Organizations like ACLJ and Advance America (not the cash advnace place) actively lobby for the laws--not only is statehouses, but through their membership lists. Yet we still speak of "the public" as if they get their ideas from thin air.