Excellent comment MARWARR and I couldn't agree more.
What’s amazing is that they have a false feeling of safety on assumptions that don’t even exist and wouldn't provide additional safety even if they did. Why the assumption that offenders wouldn't live within 300 feet, when Rhode Island doesn't even have a statewide residency restriction of 1000 feet?
Offenders abiding by the law are going to live somewhere. The important issue is are they causing anybody any harm, not where do they live? Making them relocate, when no law mandates they should have to only makes them closer to somebody else’s children. If they were truly a danger, why would you wish that upon anybody’s children? The reality is they usually are no danger, and nothing in the article suggested this offender was. People often forget that you don't have to be an already registered offender to commit a crime. The next crime is far more likely to happen by somebody not even currently on the registry.
Ms. Carter would probably be surprised to learn there are actually 8 offenders living in zip code 02888, seven in addition to the offender in question and one of them also being a level 3 in addition to the one mentioned. Why all the concern for the one she found out about and none for the other seven she probably doesn't even know about? She found out based upon a letter of his status, not an incident where he showed inappropriate behavior. A man walking shirtless in his own home is hardly a crime.
I've never been to Rhode Island and found this info about a place I've never been to in a 30 second search on the Rhode Island registry. I'm sure a truly "concerned" Rhode Island resident could do so as well if they stopped panicking and started learning.
The fact is, offenders who are abiding by the law must live somewhere and there is no reason to assume that just because they are within 1000 feet of such and such doesn't make them dangerous. If they move they’ll only be within 1000 feet of somewhere else. Residency restrictions protect nobody even when they do exist. In fact they decrease safety because it reduces the options that a law abiding person has. Making offenders homeless doesn't eliminate them it just gives them no place to sleep.
Restrictions may enforce where people sleep at night, but they don’t have anything to do with what an offender does during the day. Restrict them 1000 feet from schools and what makes you think they won’t travel 1001 feet, if it’s their purpose in life to commit a crime again? The reality is that’s not their purpose for most, and for the few creeps that do think that way, residency restrictions don’t stop them anyway.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.