PLAY
The Delaware American Civil Liberties Union has filed court papers to stop sex offenders from being evicted from a safe house that is located near a new day care center.
The ACLU along with an attorney representing the safe house and three sex offenders has asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the city from evicting the residents.
“The state has asked the residents to leave and if they don’t leave they will be arrested,” attorney Daniel Wolcott, Jr. told Fox News Radio.
Audio clip:
Todd’s on Twitter: Click Here.
Wolcott is representing the owner of the safe house and three sex offenders.
“The safe house has been there for a number of years and has been accepting registered sex offenders who are prohibited from living within 500 feet of a school,” he said.
Wolcott said there are two safe houses in question. One house was operating before the day care center opened for business. The other one was not. However, he said police said any sex offenders living at both houses would have to leave or face arrest.
Kathleen MacRae, the executive director of the Delaware ACLU, told The News Journal that the pending eviction of the sex offenders seems “very unfair and very rushed by the city.”
She pointed out that the ACLU has questions over the actual distance between the homes and the day care center. The ACLU also questioned whether a day care center qualifies as a “school” under state law.
The day care center reportedly began operating less than 500 feet from both homes in September.
“It is already difficult for men who have been convicted of a sex offense to find a place to live,” she told the newspaper. “State law should not force these men to move, or prevent facilities like the safe house from housing them, every time a private citizen decides to open a day care center.”
A city spokesman released the following statement to Fox News Radio:
“The City appreciates the predicament faced by the residents of the Harriet Tubman Safe House but we are following the advice of the Attorney General’s Office and cannot comment further due to the pending court action.”
Delaware Attorney General Bo Biden’s office said they will not comment on the matter.
A News Journal editorial called the sex offender ban unfairly punitive. You can read the entire editorial by clicking here.
Harriet Tubman Safe House?! For a woman who was born into slavery and beaten as a child during that time, I wonder what she would think of a safe house for sex offenders in her name…some, if not many, of these crimes being against children?!
What does the name of the place have to do with anything ?
As long as the people living there aren't re-offending or bothering anyone – they shouldn't be forced to accommodate someone else's stupid decision to open a daycare.
My argument against these housing laws is not that they are hard on and unfair to sex offenders. They may actually be bad for society and increase rather than decrease the number of victims. Is the goal to continue to punish sex offenders after they have served their time or to reduce the number of victims?
As awful as these crimes are, there are many that do get help and never re-offend. These houses are set up to help offenders with their sex addiction and employment and give them a place to stay off the streets.
On the other hand, how helpful is it to society to separate offenders from their family and friends by these housing requirements? Studies show that close connections to family and friends is one factor in greatly lessening the chance of re-offense. Another is employment but, we make this also difficult to almost impossible. The result is that many of these guys end up unemployed and on street because, they can’t find work or a place to stay. That is the worst place for society for them to be because; they most likely will re-offend there.
Sex offenders who have not re-offended in years, who have jobs and a place to stay may need another job or a new place to live, often face the same problems and may end up on the street because no one will rent to them in places where it is allowed
Close connections to friends and family are also one factor in greatly INCREASING the chance of re-offense. In fact, it might be a primary factor. They will not most likely re-offend when excluded from society, because they are, in fact, excluded. In other words, non-offenders will take great pains to ensure their children stay away from offenders.
When laws, then, place the original temptations right back under the noses of the offenders, it's like we're ASKING them to re-offend. I agree that there are those who are very sorry for their crimes, and do not wish to commit them again. However, when one is tempted to to something he/she has wrestled with and lost to on more than one occasion, placing them in front of a buffet table of temptation is NOT going to make it easier for them to live right. When you get right down to it, it's not fair to the offender!
The goal, sir, is not to continually actively punish someone after they've served their sentence. Consequences are not necessarily the same thing as punishments. If you harm a child sexually, then a natural consequence of your actions is that no one will trust you to be around children. Stinks for you, but if it keeps the kids safe, so be it. If an offender is truly understanding of his/her actions, the excruciating pain caused at their hands, the lifelong scars on the victims, the emotional/physical problems that will require years, if not a lifetime of therapy just to endure them, but never quite heal…that offender would be willing to do everything necessary to reassure society that he/she is no longer a threat. If this includes inconveniencing oneself, not being able to live in their first-choice locale, not having the job they want to have, not going to the places for recreation that they wish to go, etc., then this is what they will do. I can respect the will of an offender that will go to any lengths necessary to keep themselves from harming someone again. Those that cannot understand why society doesn't want them around their kids – I cannot respect such selfishness.
Close connections to friends and family are also one factor in greatly INCREASING the chance of re-offense. In fact, it might be a primary factor. They will not most likely re-offend when excluded from society, because they are, in fact, excluded. In other words, non-offenders will take great pains to ensure their children stay away from offenders.
When laws, then, place the original temptations right back under the noses of the offenders, it's like we're ASKING them to re-offend. I agree that there are those who are very sorry for their crimes, and do not wish to commit them again. However, when one is tempted to to something he/she has wrestled with and lost to on more than one occasion, placing them in front of a buffet table of temptation is NOT going to make it easier for them to live right. When you get right down to it, it's not fair to the offender!
The goal, sir, is not to continually actively punish someone after they've served their sentence. Consequences are not necessarily the same thing as punishments. If you harm a child, then a natural consequence of your actions is that no one will trust you to be around children. Stinks for you, but if it keeps the kids safe, so be it. If an offender is truly understanding of his/her actions, the excruciating pain caused at their hands, the lifelong scars on the victims, the emotional/physical problems that will require years, if not a lifetime of therapy just to endure them, but never quite heal…that offender would be willing to do everything necessary to reassure society that he/she is no longer a threat. If this includes inconveniencing oneself, not being able to live in their first-choice locale, not having the job they want to have, not going to the places for recreation that they wish to go, etc., then this is what they will do. I can respect the will of an offender that will go to any lengths necessary to keep themselves from harming someone again. Those that cannot understand why society doesn't want them around their kids – I cannot respect such selfishness.
My argument against these housing laws is not that they are hard on and unfair to sex offenders. They may actually be bad for society and increase rather than decrease the number of victims. Is the goal to continue to punish sex offenders after they have served their time or to reduce the number of victims?
As awful as these crimes are, there are many that do get help and never re-offend. These houses are set up to help offenders with their sex addiction and employment and give them a place to stay off the streets.
I am as conservative as they come; but the state is wrong, and the ACLU is right for once – God help me for saying so. It is true that these sex offenders committed a crime (any crime against children should be a capital offense in my mind), but they paid their dues and are now trying to make the best of a bad situation. To punish them again and again and again because of where their place of residence is located is wrong. The one safehouse that was there before the daycare (which is not a school), should be allowed to continue to house residents who are sex offenders, but the other should not because it cannot be grandfathered in. C'mon people, just zone it so that there's a buffer around the safehouse, then don't allow schools to built too close. It's not that hard of a thing to do. Stop demonizing sex offenders for once and realize that just because they committed a crime, they haven't lost their humanity.
The safe house was there first. Period.
What genius decided to put the daycare center near the safe house ?
Regardless whether you believe that SO's are the scum of the earth or not – who has the right to tell them they've got to leave the only place they have to go – other than the streets? Is making them homeless suppose to make children safe? I guess no one ever gave a thought to the fact that THERE ARE CHILDREN ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY !!!! Yeah – that's right…….
But according to all of you gung-ho morons and political hacks out there anyone "accused" is a pedophile. Maybe some of you would change your tune a little if your 13 year old was put on the list for 15 years to life because of having sex with their 13 year old boyfriend.
I generally don't agree with anything the ACLU does , but if these laws apply to "sex offenders" – then these same laws need to apply to anyone who has served out their sentence and are among the general population. Let's start a Murderers Registry , Drug Dealer Registry , Armed Robbery Registry , etc….
Just wondering, in the eyes of the Most High God, who is it that is a sex offender ? "HINT", see gospel of John 5: 27-28, Jesus teaching about God's Law and ordiances, part of the Sermon on the Mount known as "The Beatitudes"!
Who isn't a "Sex Offender?" See Numbers 25 about what two consenting adults got for their sexual sin. If this standard was used today, I dare say, we'd ALL be dead.
Close connections to friends and family are also one factor in greatly INCREASING the chance of re-offense. In fact, it might be a primary factor. They will not most likely re-offend when excluded from society, because they are, in fact, excluded. In other words, non-offenders will take great pains to ensure their children stay away from offenders.
Where are you getting your so-called "factual" information from ?
Friends and family "INCREASE the chance of re-offense"?
So you would necessarily believe that the parents of children who end up on the registry , should turn them out onto the streets to be "excluded" from society ? What purpose exactly , from your "facts" , would that serve ?
I have to agree with the ACLU on this one. If you read the whole article, it says that "…a high percentage of sex offenders… will recommit their crimes." This "view" is expressed every time there is an news article on sex offenders. Yet it is false. What do these "journalists" base this on? Certainly not on the actual statistics, which shows that recidivism, especially among those who get treatment, is relatively low. The media simply will not tell the truth on this. It's as though if you are labeled a sex offender, then you are a sex offender.
You're absolutely right. As a matter of fact, the stats and studies show that SO's have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any group
that returns to the general population.
Yes , there are some real sicko's out there , and yes, they need to either be put away or very closely monitored , but the registry as it is right now is nothing short of "cruel and unusual punishment".
Jut so you'll know,
Anyone, that's ANYONE, who engages in any kind of sexual conduct outside of the "Boundary" that God has ordained (within the confines of Marriage between a "Man & Women"), IS a sex offender in the eyes of the Most High God….end of story!
including Promiscuous sexual activity before a couple marries, adultery, masturbation, oral sex, perverted sexual conduct, even looking upon another in a sexual way, and or contemplating sex with another, and any other or kind of sexual thought outside of one's marraige.
Don't take my word for it, go to God's Word The Bible and see for yourself
______________________________________
Bruce // servant to King Jesus…..coming back soon !
True. So that pretty much means everyone on the earth should be on the registry – including those who make the laws.
BTW – that should be a "Man & Woman".
He must be a Mormon.
OK, if we all accept that ANY sexuality outside of marriage makes you a sex offender, then does Urinating in public (which happened all the time in Jesus' day, no flush toilets back then!) mean you are a sex offender also? Does holding a 17 year old girls arm while you correct her on proper street etiquette because you almost hit her with your car, because she was being irresponsible make you a sex offender? Well, guess what? In a number of states these NON-sexual acts get you on the SEX offender registry for up to life!
"Lest he cast the first stone." But you are right.
If you really want to know the truth and the real cost of The Adam Walsh Act and SORNA check out cfcamerica.org
The reason for all the fuss about sex offenders is because of their supposedly re-offense rate this is the basis for the laws across this country will now it's time for a dose of reality
there a number of studies out there looking at the re-offense rate but the most important one is yet to be looked at and that is how many people on the registry are reconvicted of a new sex crime per year And as far as the recidivism rate for sex offenders are concerned there are around 800,000 people on the registry at the present time. According to the Department of Justice: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994(DOJ-2002) reconvictions average of 7.5 per state or 377repeat sex offenses for the entire United States 800,000/377= 00.00047% or another way to put it is the percentage of people on the registry who DO NOTreoffend is 99.9995%
Where is the high recidivism rate that everyone talks about, there is no empirical data to justify the registration and notification laws. With this information I think that we have made our point!!
We got to wondering what the sexual offense rate for police officers is? We were able to find this documentation: http://www.ucimc.org/content/national-police-misconduct-...
Working with those numbers, according to the referenced link and (DOJ-2002) and(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
Here's the breakdown thus far, in the Percentage of NEW SEX CRIMES
Close acquaintances (59%)
Family members (34%)
Police officers 3.0%
Teachers 00.7%
Clergy 00.3%
strangers 02.8% or those who have not been convicted of a sex crime (note: this could include somebody that was met at a party or a street dance and does not necessarily mean an adult)
People on the registry/previously convicted 00.17%.
Teachers, Clergy and people on the registry commit fewer New sex offenses than the protectors of society, our diligent law enforcement officers. From this information it would seem that one of the most single trusted segments of our society, police officers: are over 14 times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime than people on the registry and teachers are over 3 times likely followed by clergy which are twice as likely.
Why does it take so darn long for things to get posted here ?