One week after a New York court struck down Rockland County's sex offender banishment law (opinion available here), State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith has proposed a new bill entitled “Major Statewide Legislation Aimed to Protect Children from Sex Offenders,” (available here) which prohibits a sex offender from living anywhere in New York within 1,000 feet of any park, daycare center or school building for at least ten years after release. From f/k/a:
Only one week after NYS Supreme Court Justice William Kelly struck down Rockland County’s sex offender residency law in the case of Peo. v. Oberlander, and in “direct response” to the decision, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith proposed S.01300, calling the bill “Major Statewide Legislation Aimed to Protect Children from Sex Offenders”. Senator Johnson’s legislation would prohibit a registered sex offender from living anywhere in New York State within 1,000 feet of a school building, park, or day care center, for at least ten years after release, and would impose criminal penalties for violations.
Because Oberlander held that State law and policy pre-empted action by local units of government with regard to sex offender residency restrictions [SORR], and about 80 local SORR laws are on the books across New York State, some statewide action is indeed warranted. What we did not need, however, was a stampede to spread residency bans that are a bad idea on a local level throughout the entire State.
It takes no courage at all for a politician to support such residency bans. It does take courage, and a deep sense of commitment to fair and effective government, to resist the temptation to “do something/anything” and make believe the problem is solved.
The text of S.01300 has been posted. It would be an amendment to Section 168-b of the correction law. Under the new Sec. 168-W (1) “No sex offender shall reside in a residence that is within one thousand feet of any” school, building where day care is provided, or park.
The residency ban will last “for the greater of ten years or the period or term of probation, parole, conditional release or post-release supervision,” and “shall apply to sex offenders convicted or released on or after” the law becomes effective [sixty days after it becomes law].
Sen. Johnson is right that the many local laws have created a “confusing patchwork” that we “need to simply.” But, he is also right that we need to get our laws right. Rather than calling for hearings to determine whether current State policy is wise and effective, and whether residency bans actually protect children, Sen. Smith and Sen. Craig Johnson have done the politically expedient thing and immediately moved to impose on the entire state a law that many law enforcement and criminal justice experts have found to be not merely ineffective, but actually counterproductive — and, which will put an expensive and time-consuming burden on law enforcement.
Senator Smith, along with Senator Johnson, has decided to mollify the excessive fears of some members of our community by taking rights away from a disfavored group, even after they have served their time and have met their parole or probation requirements, and with no regard to the actual risk presented by each individual offender.
The response provides an interesting contrast with New Jersey. In that state, several courts struck down residency restrictions on preemption grounds. However, as far as I know the state legislature didn't make a political issue out of it. In New York, it seems like the legislature has taken a different approach. The state has been free to pass residency restrictions all along - so this seems like a basic attempt to politicize a court decision. I wonder if the bill will gain traction.
Recent Comments