COMPREHENSIVE SEX OFFENDER FACT SHEET FROM ONCE FALLEN
This is a comprehensive summary of facts from my book. Most of the info in my other guides can also be found here, though not all. Here the guide is divided as the chapters in Once Fallen. I apologize for the small type but it was the only way to fit it all on this webpage.
Misogynist (“woman-haters“) values and attitudes (Eric S. Janus. “Failure to Protect: America’s Sexual Predator Laws & The Rise Of The Preventive State“ p. 51)
Who is the archetypical sex offender?
The archetypical sex offender is NOT a “demented, dirty trench coat wearing, candy waving, bush dwelling stranger…”
Sex offenders can be anyone: parents, teachers, politicians, reverends, police, neighbor, etc.
Teen Sex: a by-product of our contrary prudishness in sexual behavior coupled with an over saturation of sex in the media
Center for Disease Control “Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System (YBRSS) 2003
About 23,000 students in 9th to 12th Grades participated in the Bi-annual survey
Action Female (%) Male (%)
Had Sex before Age 13 4.2 10.4
Ever had sex 45.3 48
Had 4 or more sex partners 11.2 17.5
Tried alcohol 44.9 43.8
Tried Marijuana 37.6 42.7
Forced into having sex 11.9 6.9
AP Study as noted by John “Jack” Tefler, “Obsession With Sex, Violence Impacting Our Kids.” Midland Daily News, July 1st, 2007
Juvenile Sex Crimes Increased 40% between 1993 and 2004
Adult Sex Crimes Decreased 56% between 1993 and 2004
Dr. David Finkelhor- Internet Caucus Advisory Committee “Internet Predators” study
50% of teens reported being “in love” with the perpetrator
3% Involved and abduction
5% of perpetrators lied about their age
80% of perpetrators made their sexual intentions explicitly
US Department of Justice study “Sex Inmates In Prison” (1997)
Only 14% of inmates in prison on sex crimes had prior sex crimes (recidivists)
75% had no prior violent offense convictions
25% had a violent (non-sex) conviction
In short, 86% in prison were first-time offenders, or about six out of seven.
Conclusions of Chapter 10 Once Fallen
Deviant sexual behavior is a product of both nature and nurture, but nurture tends to be more of an influence.
Ultimately, individuals are clearly responsible and accountable for their own behavior.
Deviant sexual thoughts and behaviors can be controlled in nearly all individuals (exceptions limited to those with the most severe physiological/ psychological abnormalities). Control is not the same as cure.
Cultural mixed messages have blurred the boundaries of what is appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. This is a disturbing but largely ignored trend.
Inappropriate sexual messages in the media has strongly increased the risk of exposing people with repressed predispositions for deviant sexual behavior to images and suggestions that reinforce their faulty belief systems, thus increasing the risk of surfacing these repressed desires.
There is a severe lack of educational and informative programming available to teach our youth about appropriate sexual behavior. Given the high number of teenagers engaging in sexual activity and the increasing number of juveniles charged with sex crimes, sex education needs to speak about more than STDs and condom usage.
There are few, if any, programs designed to help people who are seeking help for deviant sexual thoughts or desires, but have not acted out. If anything, our draconian approach to sex offender laws are making it harder for these people to seek help.
If we are to have any real hope of seeking a solution to the “sex offender epidemic,” we have to look for proactive programs that educate and inform the public, rather than reactionary laws designed to feed of the fear of society and harass or intimidate convicted sex offenders, which are one in seven of the individuals being sent to prison for a new sex crime.
Chapter 11: Pandora’s Box (Sex Offender Myths)
Myth #1: The “Stranger-Danger” Myth:
“…the FBI (in the 1950s and 1960s) distributed a poster that epitomized this attitude. It showed a man, with his hat pulled down, lurking behind a tree with a bag of candy in his hands. He was waiting for the sweet little girl walking home from school alone.” (Kenneth V. Lanning, “Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis,” National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2001, p. 13).
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Inmates in State Correctional Institutions” 1997: Percent of cases in which the perpetrator was a stranger: Under 18-- 6.7%; Over 18-- 34.4%
“Non-family Abductions” (Incl. acquaintances and friends, and voluntary leaves if the child is under age 15): 58,200
Total # missing incl. Runaways: 797,500
“Raw emotion is also the greatest of obstacles to understanding the reality of sex offenses, because we are trained into thinking “sex offender = predator = raped and murdered child.” (Logue, “Once Fallen” 2007)
Myth #2: All Sex Offenders are “Pedophiles” or “Predators”
“Pedophilia” is a mental disorder that signifies sexual attraction to children under age 12 by DSM-IV standards.
Bureau of Justice Statistics: Inmate Study 1997
70.5% of sex crime victims are under age 18
51.6% of sex crime victims under age 18 are under age 12
2 out of every 3 people who committed a serious sex crime would not meet the base DSM-IV criteria for pedophilia.
“The sex offender registries are filled with ‘drunken mooners,’ public urinators, 18 or 19-year-olds who impregnated their 15-year-old girlfriends, and other socially unacceptable but relatively minor offenses right alongside the multiple rapist or child molester.” (Logue, “Once Fallen”)
It is important to note how often we use the words “violent,” “habitual,” “predator,” and “pedophile” in speaking of sex offenders, especially ones deemed ‘high-risk.” even in legal terms, there is some misnomers in usage. Regarding the words violent and predator in sex offender legalese, the age of the victim alone determines whether or not a sex offender is considered either or both. In the case of the word habitual, the legal usage can be applied to a one-time offender if the victim claims multiple offenses. The most misused word is pedophile. The psychiatric definition denotes strong sexual arousal and urges for pre-pubescent children; the legal usage is applied to all offenders with a minor victim, which is misleading since not all “child molesters” are “pedophiles” (“Sex Offenders: Flaws In The System and Effective Behaviors.” SOHopeful International, Aug. 12th, 2006)-(quoted in “Once Fallen” chapter 14)
Myth #3: Sex Offenders have a high recidivism rate
US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”
Three-year follow-up period
9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year period
3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”
8% of sex offenders were recommitted in the 10-year period
3% of sex offenders committed a sexually-related violation of probation/ parole
½ of recidivists re-offended within two years of release
2/3 of recidivists re-offended within 3 years of release
Michigan Parole Board, Recidivism Statistics 1990-2000
Follow-up Period: 4 years Recidivism Rates
Sex Offenders 2.46%
Forgery 6.86%
Burglary 10.56%
Drugs 6.42%
Robbery 5.17%
Larceny 12.65%
All statistics are SPECIFIC recidivism, meaning re-offending of the same type of crime; many studies include a GENERAL recidivism rate, which is a specific offender committing a new crime of ANY kind. Thus, a sex offender who later steals is a general recidivist but not a specific recidivist. Many mythologists quote the general (usu. higher) stat implying a higher sex crime re-offense rate
Dateline NBC “To Catch a Predator” Season 1 stats, courtesy of www.geocities.com/eadvocate
129 total arrests
5 men (3.8% of total) had prior sex offense arrests
Myth #4: Sex Offenders are 4 times more likely than non-sex offenders to be re-arrested for a sex crime
US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”
9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states; 517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994; 3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year period
5.3% divided by 1.3% = about 4, thus, the myth
3,228 non-RSO sex crime divided by 517 RSO re-offenders = 6.3
Percentage wise, more sex offenders than non sex offenders will commit a sex crime, but in actual numbers, non-sex offenders committed six times as many sex crimes!
Myth #5: Sex Offenders “Sex Offenders cannot be cured”/ “Treatment doesn’t work”
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”
7.1% of sex offenders who went through treatment recidivated
16.5% of sex offenders who did not undergo treatment recidivated
This study reflects a general consensus that treatment is indeed effective (Virginia Criminal Sentencing Division, “Assessing Risk Among Sex Offenders in Virginia, 2001, p.22-29).
Some unintended consequences of sex offender myths in society
Our culture now “teaches children to fear men,” while men also share a fear of being falsely accused of inappropriate touching. One man explains, “Being male, I’m guilty until proven innocent.” Hundreds of men responded to an online blog “lamenting that they’ve now become fearful of children,” and refusing activities as being a scout leader, mentor, or even helping a lost child at the mall (Jeff Zaslow, “Avoiding Kids: How Men Cope With Being Cast As Predators.” The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 6th, 2007, D1).
Leigh Linden and Jonah Rockoff, “There Goes The neighborhood? Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values From Megan’s Laws.” Berkeley Int’l Press 2007
4% ($5,500) Average decrease in property values of homes within 1/10th of a mile of a sex offender
12% Average decrease if the house was next door to sex offender
0% Decrease for home 1/10th of a mile +
Chapter 12- The new “Ministry of Propaganda”
“Everyone wants to out-tough the other legislators. ‘I’m tough on crime,’ they’ll say, ‘no I’m even more tough’. It‘s all about ego and boastfulness” (Patty Wetterling, as reported by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio, “Sex offender laws have unintended consequences, June 18, 2007, http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/06/11/sexoffender1/)
My belief hopefully coincides with that statement by Wetterling, namely, We must get smarter on crime, not tougher. We are pumping billions of dollars into GPS tracking, internet registries, civil commitments, chemical castrations, and lawsuit after lawsuit defending laws that do not work. We are a “quick-fix” culture. We buy into the “snake oil” of the next latest craze in social control just like we would a fad diet. (Logue, “Once Fallen”)
“Lisa Sample, a criminology professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha, says misinformation and a lack of information often shapes sex offender policy. She’s examined where lawmakers get their information about sex offenders. Most of the legislators in her study said their primary source of information was the news media. Sample says in most cases, lawmakers did not read studies or reports relevant to legislation they supported. She says it’s clear most sex offender legislation follows the abduction and murder of a child, and the resulting public outrage. Relatively few people are aware a child is at greater risk of sexual abuse from a family member or stranger, according to Sample. If people understood that simple fact, Sample says she believes they would support more programs to prevent sexual abuse… In Minnesota, a panel of experts recently completed a comprehensive report to serve as a guide for sex offender policy in the state. One of the report’s authors says the biggest challenge is just getting lawmakers to read it. (Dan Gunderson, “A Better Approach to Sex Offender Policy.” Minnesota Public Radio, June 18th, 2007)
2000 Youth Internet Safety Survey (Ages 10-17)
“…a reporter quoting [this study] would say something like, “One in five children online were approached by a sexual predator.” (Logue, Once Fallen)
19% Received “unwanted solicitation in past year”
24% were from adults
48% by other children
28% were unknown
3.33% (1 in 33) experienced “aggressive solicitation,” I.e., request for offline encounter
34% were from adults
48% by other children
12% were unknown
25% (1 in 4) experienced “unwanted exposure to sexual material” incl. spam
25% (1 in 4) of those were distressed by the exposure
Amanda Lenhart 2007 Internet Caucus Advisory Committee
93% of teens use the internet
45% of those teens do not have a net profile
66% of those with profiles restrict access
Of those receiving online solicitations:
65% Ignored/ deleted it
21% Followed-up for whatever reason
8% Asked to be left alone
3% Told an adult
7% of unwanted contact made teen feel “uncomfortable”
Report sought all solicitations, not just sexual
Term “stranger” was broad, including legitimate businesses or a peer seeking new friend
“The media tends to simplify a complex situation, which leads us to an overestimation of the prevalence of a problem. The simple media answer is the “one in five children were solicited online by an internet predator.” Out of 1000 children, 200 would have been sexually solicited online in the past year by a sexual predator. But the actual statistical math puts the number much lower: 1000 children - 70 children who do not use the internet - 899 children who did not experience an “aggressive online solicitation” - the 25 children of the remaining group who did not make follow-up contact for whatever reason, and you are left with 6. Six out of a thousand (or 0.6%)is a lot smaller number than 200 Factor in a few more “X“ factors, and the number is even lower-- take the six, divide it by the 45% of children who do not post a profile online, then take the three left, and divide it by the 66% who restrict access to their profile, and we find only 1 out of 1000 (0.1%) meet an aggressive adult solicitation through online social networks. If only 1 in 7 inmates in prison on sex charges are repeat offenders, then that number lowers even more, to 1 in 6000 (0.017%) will theoretically be solicited by a registered sex offender. There are a number of other factors that can lower that possibility even more; for example, how many registered sex offenders participate in online chat rooms frequented by teenagers? There are some states that do not allow sex offenders to own internet services. While there is a legitimate threat, the risk is relatively smaller than the media portrays and amplifies for the sake of ratings. And since the politicians rely on the media for their information regarding the prevalence of criminal sexual behavior in America, it is no wonder there are so many ineffective laws passed without research or thought.” (Logue, “Once Fallen”)
Chapter 13 - Banishment by Attrition: Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders
“As [Eric S.] Janus explains in his book [Failure to Protect], various sex offender laws represent a move in the opposite direction from those hard earned rights of the civil rights movement. The most distinguishing feature of sex offenders being a suspect class in American society is the residency restriction or proximity laws. In this country it is hard to imagine what it would be like for someone to tell you where you can live, where you can work, who you can date, where you can go worship your God, go shopping, or eat, where you can go to “hang out,” and having to give every bit of personal information, like your vital statistics, address, and even what kind of car you drive, to the police, who monitor your every move. While this would typically bring up images of the Nazi “Gestapo,” this is the typical life of a sex offender. ” (Logue, “Once Fallen”)
Sex offender laws represent a reversal of the direction of the courts toward individual human rights The latter half of the 20th century was the era of civil rights. The 1960s abolished racial discrimination, the 1970s with gender, and the 1990s with disabilities and homosexuality. (Eric S. Janus, “Failure to protect,” p. 94).
Impact of sex offender laws on housing availability
37 people (28%) were “No call backs”-- I.e., those never returning sent messages
6 people (4%) stated the apartments were off the market/ already rented out
7 people (5%) stated they would consider it
3 apartments (1.5% of all) were both available and met residency restriction requirements
Study conducted BEFORE Cincinnati increased residency restrictions in 2007
As of 2006, 22 states had some form of residency restriction: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. (Marcus Nieto and David Jung, California Research Bureau, “The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Practices: A Literature Overview,” 2006, p.17).
Ineffectiveness of residency restrictions
Derek Logue: “With this law, I can’t sleep 1,000 feet across from a school, but if I wanted to- and I don’t want to- I could stand across from a school all day long. How does that help anybody?” (Dan Klepal, “City debates strict limits on where sex offenders live”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 6th, 2006)
Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, “Level Three Sex Offenders- Treatment Placement Issues, 2003, p. 19- “Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact.” Case studies of sex offender recidivism failed to find any correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism
Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, “Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota, April 2007- The second study studied a larger group of sex offenders who met a criteria that included an previous offense to the offender’s residence and had a minor victim. Again they found, “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restriction law.” They found recidivism was an issue an issue or “social or relationship” proximity rather than residential proximity, not to mention 49% committed their crimes more than a mile away from their home. They saw the deterrent effect as “slim” because of the rarity of the offenses it was trying to protect and, in Minnesota, “virtually non-existent over the last 16 years.” Furthermore, they found housing restrictions detrimental because they “exacerbate sex offenders’ reintegration into society”
Report on Safety Issues Raised By Living Arrangements For And Location Of Sex Offenders In The Community (Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, Sex Offender Management Board, March 2004)- The researchers failed to find any correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism; in addition to noting the laws place severe restrictions on sex offenders especially in urban areas and the potential constitutional challenges, the board recommended, “placing restrictions on the location of correctionaly supervised sex offender residences may not deter the sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control sexual offending recidivism.” (p. 5, 37). The researchers had contacted states with residency laws, and of the four states that responded (Alabama, Illinois, Florida, and Oregon), none of the states passed their laws based on any scientific research regarding proximity and recidivism. (p. 12)
Negative Impact of sex offender residency restrictions
Jill Levenson and Leo Cotter. “The Impact of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: 1000 Feet From Danger or One Step From Absurd?” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2005, p. 173, Sex Offender Survey
I have had to move out of a home that I owned because of the 1,000-ft rule- 22%
I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented because of the 1,000-ft rule- 28%
When released from prison, I was unable to return to my home- 25%
I have been unable to live with supportive family members because of the 1,000-ft rule- 44%
I find it difficult to find affordable housing because of the 1,000-ft rule- 57%
I have suffered financially because of the 1,000-ft rule- 48%
I have suffered emotionally because of the 1,000-ft rule- 60%
Monica Davey, “Iowa’s Residency Restrictions Drive Sex Offenders Underground.” New York Times, March 15th, 2006
140 sex offenders were unaccounted for before residency laws were enforced
400 sex offenders were unaccounted for after residency laws were enforced in 2005
350% Increase in one year (2004-2005)
Todd Dorman, “Analyst: Data doesn’t support Iowa sex offender rule.” Quad City Times, Feb. 5, 2007
From 9/05 to 8/06: Only 1 stranger sex offense against a child
From 9/04 to 8/05: 433 sex crimes against children
From 9/05 to 8/06: 445 sex crimes against children (+12)
Within the year, the tide of opinion began to turn. On December 12th, 2006, the Des Moines Register reported that many members of law enforcement, the Iowa County Attorneys Association (I.e., county prosecutors), the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, and prevention organizations (such as the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault), among others, have called for a change to the residency restriction law in favor of a less restrictive anti-loitering law. (Lee Rood, “Legislature could ease sex offender housing law.” Des Moines Register, Dec. 12, 2006).
There was an interesting discovery as well: sex offenders as nomads. About 700 sex offenders moved out of the state or even the country. Unlike other states, even ones with residency restrictions, the vast majority of those Iowa sex offenders moved specifically because of the law. There was also an increase of arrests of sex offenders for giving false addresses. (Lee Rood, “Data: Sex Offenders Fleeing The State,“ Des Moines Register, April 1st, 2007). It is interesting to note in the above article that legislatures in two neighboring states, Nebraska and Kansas, actually prohibited their cities from passing ordinances as restrictive as Iowa’s.
Below is a list of the negative impact of residency restriction laws: (Logue, “Once Fallen‘)
The likelihood of finding suitable housing has decreased dramatically, increasing the likelihood that the offender will either wind up homeless, or worse, quit registering altogether.
The more sex offenders that end up homeless or go underground, the less reliable the sex offender registries are.
The laws force offenders away from social support systems (typically found in urban areas) that reduce the likelihood of recidivism and successful reintegration into the community after their sentence.
The stress of living under such laws increase the likelihood of re-offending, as instability in personal life is a major factor in sex offender recidivism.
With so few places to live, sex offenders tend to cluster in areas because so few are willing to rent to them regardless of restrictions.
There are a number of major flaws in the sex offender restrictions, but the one question I ask most frequently is this: Where do you expect the sex offender to live?
In Georgia, there is already a case where a sex offender is facing a life sentence for failure to register an address; since the man is homeless, he has no address to register. The article also notes “(a)t least 15 sex offenders have been arrested because of homelessness since the law took effect in July 2006.” while the sheriff‘s office maintains that homelessness is not an acceptable excuse, a lawsuit filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union argues the law is cruel and unusual because the law “leaves offenders with virtually nowhere to live” (Shaila Dewan, “Homelessness Could Mean Life in Prison for Offender.” New York Times, August 3rd, 2007).
Habitat for Inhumanity- The ill-legality of residency restrictions
In order to argue against the efficacy of the residency laws, we must debate the all-important question-- are residency laws punitive (I.e., a punishment, thus a criminal matter) or regulatory (I.e., a public safety or civil matter)?
Though the residency restrictions are regarded as civil sanctions, even a civil penalty is considered a punishment if the sanction cannot be fairly said to serve a remedial purpose, but instead as a deterrent or retribution, [US v. Gartner, 93 F. 3d 633, cert. denied 519 US 1047], or when it is overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages caused to the government [US v. Walker, 940 F. 2d 442].
In Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F. 3d 1020, cert. denied 125 S. Ct. 2961, 162 L. Ed. 2d 887, the mere claim that certain sanctions served purposes of deterrence and public scrutiny does not justify sanctions which do not serve a legitimate governmental purpose or worse yet, cause harm to the targets of the sanctions.
In E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F. 3d , rehearing denied 127 F.3d 298, cert. denied, 522 US 1110, it was determined that even when punishment is neither the actual or objective purpose of the law, civil sanctions may constitute punishment if the effects or “sting” are harsh enough to be considered a punishment, and must be evaluated in light of importance of any legitimate governmental interest served.
In Artway v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, 81 F. 3d 1235, rehearing denied 83 F. 3d 594, it was determined that even if some remedial purpose can fully explain a legislative measure, if a historical analysis shows that a sanction has been traditionally regarded as a punishment, and if text or history does not demonstrate that the measure is not punitive, it must be considered a punishment.
I contend that the residency restriction law is an act of banishment by attrition, comparable in American jurisprudence only by deportation of illegal aliens. [See Trop v. Dulles, 356 US 86 (1958), where an order of banishment (or “divestiture”) was executed against a native born citizen who did not voluntarily relinquish or abandon his citizenship or become involved in any way with any foreign nation. The court ruled that the “divestiture of a natural born citizen was held to be unconstitutionally forbidden as a penalty more cruel and ‘more cruel and more primitive, inasmuch as it entailed statelessness’ or ‘the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.” (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution 8th Amend. www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt 8_user.html). One of the consequences of passing such laws is the effectively exiling sex offenders as far from civilization as possible by limiting available housing to the point where finding housing is virtually impossible, what I refer to as “banishment by attrition.”
In Rutherford v. Blankenship, 468 F. supp. 1357, 1360 (W.D. Va. 1979), the Court stated, “To permit one state to dump its convict[ed] criminals into another is not in the interests of safety and welfare; therefore, the punishment by banishment to another state is prohibited by public policy.” See also Johnson v. State, 672 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Ct. App. 1984) and Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972). In other words, just because somebody calls these laws “civil” and “regulatory” does not make them so.
The reason this argument is so critical is because in civil law, there are NO constitutional safeguards against such actions as cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to peacefully reside within a state, due process, or other rights every American citizen is supposed to enjoy. In a criminal matter, constitutional safeguards apply. Lawmakers know this base concept of law, and have used this to circumvent the constitution in order to pass these laws.
The mere knowledge of a person’s past behavior does not justify a belief the person will automatically re-offend (Tot v. US, 319 US 463.)
While the state may claim a compelling interest in deterring convicted sex offenders from re-offending, there are certain fundamental rights that are being infringed upon, and thus “more than a compelling interest is needed to survive constitutional scrutiny. The statute must be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interest.” [Reno v. Flores (1993), 507 US 292, 301-302].
In State v. Burnett (2001) 93 Ohio St. 3d 219, a similar law barring convicted drug offenders from entering Cincinnati’s “Over-The-Rhine” district failed constitutional analysis because it went beyond restricting those interests associated with illegal drug activity and restricted a substantial amount of innocent conduct, like living in an apartment, or visiting human services. The essence of Burnett is that the law restricted and/or punished behavior not even linked to criminal activity (merely the act of being in the restricted area was enough to get you arrested). Also, the restriction restricted drug offenders from obtaining the assistance or support networks necessary for rehabilitation which was otherwise severely diminished by the restrictions. The principles are the same in the Burnett case and current sex offender residency restrictions, namely, to restrict activities for the purpose of alleged decreasing access to children. The decision to repeal the drug exclusion law was later upheld in Johnson et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.), cert. denied, US Supreme Court case no. 02-1452.
On the flip side, there are a number of ‘legitimate governmental interests” largely neglected by our government. The Courts have firmly established that “rehabilitation of criminals is of paramount interest.” [Abbott v. City of Beverly Hills, (Cal. Supreme Court, Feb. 26, 1960)] In the Abbott case, it was determined that registration of ex-felons is both in conflict with public policy and at variance with “moral and ethical concepts of decency and human dignity.”
.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, declares, “Everyone has the right of freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”
In United States v. Wheeler, 254 US 281 (1920), it was duly noted that from the time of the Articles of Confederation, the right to peaceably reside within a state and be immune from unlawful deportation to another state. The Court noted as follows: “That the Constitution plainly intended to preserve and enforce the limitation as to discrimination imposed upon the states by Article 4 of the Confederation, and thus necessarily assumed the continued possession by the states of the reserved power to deal with free residence, ingress and egress, cannot be denied for the following reasons… Because that view has been so conclusively settled as to leave no room for controversy.” Citing Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430 (20 L. Ed. 449), the Court states the clause “plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one state to pass into any other state of the Union… to acquire personal property; to take and hold real estate…”
In US v. Guest, 383 US 745 (1966), the Court again addresses certain rights as basic and fundamental; “The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concom