How best to keep our communities safe?

Posted 10/13/15

We all have a vital interest in keeping our communities – and especially our children – safe.

When the General Assembly earlier this year passed a law expanding to 1,000 feet the zone around …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

How best to keep our communities safe?

Posted

We all have a vital interest in keeping our communities – and especially our children – safe.

When the General Assembly earlier this year passed a law expanding to 1,000 feet the zone around public and private schools in which Level III sex offenders are prohibited from residing, safety was cited as the primary motivating factor.

Warwick state Rep. Joseph McNamara, the driving force behind the legislation, cited the panic he saw among parents when two sex offenders moved within 400 and 800 feet, respectively, of elementary schools in his community as having led him to take action. His proposal built on the 300-foot restriction that had been in place since 2008.

Now, the law is garnering renewed attention, as the enacting of the 1,000-foot restriction will result in the displacement of dozens of sex offenders. Level III offenders, those deemed most likely to re-offend, must relocate within weeks. Otherwise, they will face being arrested.

According to the Providence Journal, the new law makes more than 60 percent of the state’s capital city – in which most of Rhode Island’s sex offenders reside – off limits to Level III offenders. Harrington Hall in Cranston, which is already a source of concern for community members because of the number of sex offenders it hosts, will become the only homeless shelter in the state unaffected by the new rules. It would seem likely that other communities will also see a rise in their Level III offender population.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has announced plans to mount a legal challenge to the law. House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello – in whose district Harrington Hall sits – has asked Crossroads Rhode Island and the state’s administration director to develop a plan for housing homeless sex offenders, telling the Journal it is “unfair to the citizens of Cranston to house all the Level III sex offenders.”

The concerns being raised now echo those brought up during the initial push for the new restriction. Law enforcement, civil rights groups and others – even Day One, a statewide agency dedicated to supporting the victims of sexual abuse – suggest the disruptive nature of the 1,000-foot requirement will in fact degrade safety, given that offenders who are stationary and monitored by police and social service agencies will now potentially become more transient and difficult to supervise.

The process has yet to fully play out, and the precise implications of relocating so many Level III offenders remain unclear. It is evident that there is little political will to readdress the residency restriction, as Mattiello and McNamara both pointed out.

Of course, we understand the concerns of citizens that led to the new rules. The idea of a high-risk sex offender living near a school is extremely unsettling, whether or not one is a parent. Beyond that, we agree with McNamara and Mattiello that there is little sympathy to be had for those who have perpetrated sexual crimes, whether against children or adults.

Yet it does seem the new rule may, to some degree, prove counterproductive. Certainly, it is unfair to ask Cranston to bear the full weight of housing this difficult population.

As we consider the best means to keep ourselves, and our children, secure, we must ask several important questions. Are our communities better served by having sex offenders stationary and stable, known to and monitored by local authorities? Is society better served by having these high-risk offenders, after they have done their time, in a position to undergo treatment and lead law-abiding lives? Do a few hundred feet, in the final calculation, truly make a difference in terms of safety?

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here