H.B. No. 54861 is scheduled for a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 22, 2010. The stated purpose of the bill is "[t]o protect children from convicted sexual offenders by requiring that convicted sexual offenders reside at least two thousand feet away from a school or child care center." If passed into law, H.B. No. 5486 would restrict where sex offenders could live in Connecticut (whether the crime was committed in Connecticut or elsewhere). Based on the experiences that other states have had in implementing similar legislation, I contend that this bill does not represent sound policy for Connecticut.

It is a common belief that all sex offenders are dangerous, repeat offenders. This may be due in part to media reports of children suffering chronic abuse at the hands of an offender. The reality of the situation is that the recidivism rates of sex offenders are among the lowest of all criminals. Child molesters rank even lower than general sex offenders in terms of likelihood to re-offend:

"But a 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics study followed 9,691 released sex offenders, 4,295 of them child molesters, in 15 states from 1994 to 1997. In that span, only 5.3 percent of the total group repeated sex crimes, and 3.3 percent of the child molesters were arrested for another sex crime against a child."2

While the recidivism rates of sex offenders are low, that of course does not imply that they are satisfactory. Restrictions on residency have been suggested as a way to lower recidivism rates by preventing offenders from coming into contact with children. Approximately 25 states (and an unknown number of municipalities) have enacted legislation to that end, and the results do not look promising. Residency restrictions may make many persons feel more comfortable in their communities or more empowered to protect their children. However, there is no compelling evidence that they are effective in promoting public safety. A researcher with Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability told their legislature's House Public Safety & Domestic Security Committee that "studies from Florida, Minnesota and Colorado showed almost no link between a sex offender's residency and the crime he committed" and that "research shows that to prevent a sex offender from living with their families or [to make them live] farther away from work or treatment because of residency restrictions, you may actually in fact diminish public safety."4 The Hartford Courant has previously written about the findings of the Minnesota study:

"But a study released in April by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, tracing 224 repeat sex offenders, concluded that not one would have been deterred by a residency restriction law. Social proximity was the key factor, it found, with half of the offenders establishing contact with victims through friends or acquaintances. Only 35 percent of the offenders made direct contact with victims, and none of the juvenile cases involved contact near a school, park or other prohibited area."5

On the other hand, there is very strong evidence that residency restrictions are incredibly onerous for the offenders subject to them. The National Institute of Justice provides an overview of how profoundly their lives may be changed:

"Residency restriction laws have led to some unanticipated and unintended consequences. In many locations — most noticeably in urban areas — the restrictions have created overlapping exclusion zones that severely limit where offenders can live. In some cities the only acceptable sites are in high-crime neighborhoods or commercial zones. Even when residential areas are available, sex offenders just released from prison may not be able to find affordable housing in those areas."6

The NIJ's analysis of Newark, NJ provides a clearer picture of the problem that these offenders face:

"Newark showed 196 registered sex offenders and 118 schools. With a 1,000-foot exclusion zone, 127 offenders would have to relocate. With a 2,500-foot zone, this figure jumps to 193, and the main parts of the city become completely off limits. Only about 7 percent of city land would be compliant." 7

Newark is not an extreme case. The treatment of sex offenders in some cities could be fairly described as in a state of humanitarian crisis:

"In Florida, the state authorized five offenders to live under a bridge in Miami after they were unable to find suitable housing that they could afford. In Iowa, a victims’ group found that offenders tried to comply with the registry law by offering addresses like “rest area mile marker 149” or “RV in old Kmart parking lot.”"8

"Sex offenders, who are required to register with police and often barred by law from living near places where children gather, list addresses such as a tent, “near a bike path,” “behind a cemetery” or “woods behind Wal-Mart.”9

Many people cannot bring themselves to condemn the status quo because they do not feel that sex offenders deserve sympathy. However, even those who would not seek a remedy to the situation for humanitarian reasons should remember that our children can only inherit whatever system of justice that we choose to leave them. A failure to speak out against cruel and unusual punishment, even if it's of someone you want to see punished, can only serve to legitimize further violations of our nation's strong legal protections.

Thankfully, this is not a case where Connecticut's legislators need to decide between morally right and practically right as avoiding residency restrictions the likes of those outlined in H.B. No. 5486 would allow for our state to reap the benefits of both. Carlene Sawyer, President of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU of Florida, describes how her state's policies towards sex offenders actively harm public safety:

"This misguided policy has led to over 70 registered offenders being forced to live in a shantytown under a bridge. Any government policy that forces offenders into homelessness and encourages others to abscond makes our communities less safe. This policy also impedes the ability of Corrections officials to ensure that released offenders are regulated, rehabilitated and safely re-integrated into society."11

The National Institute of Justice agrees that there can be many unintended consequences as a result of pushing sex offenders even further from community resources:

"If unable to find legal housing, offenders may report false addresses, become homeless or go underground. Others may be forced to live in rural areas with less access to employment or mental health services. Even in rural areas where schools and day care centers are more geographically dispersed, most unrestricted land is forest or farmland."12

The practical failings of residency restrictions are evident in their failure to enhance and capability to harm public safety. Residency restrictions also carry a further burden of public expense. An interview conducted by the New York Times illustrates why this stricter form of monitoring is even costlier than the sex offender registry that the state of Connecticut already operates:

"Sgt. Ray Hardin of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in Augusta ... said enforcement of the law required a dedicated investigator, a global positioning system and, each time an offender moves, hours of paperwork."13

Having been one not too long ago, I am certainly not opposed to protecting Connecticut's children. None of the failings that I have attempted to highlight will change the fact that there are a certain number of sex offenders, even though it is a low number, who will attempt to re-offend. Therefore I am not opposed to using residency restrictions, as long as they are only aimed at that truly dangerous sub-population. While familiarizing myself with the relevant statutes, I noticed a provision within state law for doing exactly that. Unfortunately, this language occurs in the context of a report requiring further legislative action:

Sec. 54-259a. Risk Assessment Board. Development and use of risk assessment scale. (a) There is established a Risk Assessment Board consisting of the Commissioner of Correction, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Chief State's Attorney, the Chief Public Defender, the chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the executive director of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department and the chairpersons and ranking members of the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary and public safety, or their designees, a victim advocate with experience working with sexual assault victims and sexual offenders appointed by the Governor, a forensic psychiatrist with experience in the treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor and a person trained in the identification, assessment and treatment of sexual offenders appointed by the Governor.

(b) The board shall develop a risk assessment scale that assigns weights to various risk factors including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the offense, the offender's prior offense history, the offender's characteristics, the availability of community supports, whether the offender has indicated or credible evidence in the record indicates that the offender will reoffend if released into the community and whether the offender demonstrates a physical condition that minimizes the risk of reoffending, and specifies the risk level to which offenders with various risk assessment scores shall be assigned.

(c) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to assess the risk of reoffending of each person subject to registration under this chapter, including incarcerated offenders who are within one year of their estimated release date, and assign each such person a risk level of high, medium or low.

(d) The board shall use the risk assessment scale to determine which offenders should be prohibited from residing within one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a facility providing child day care services, as defined in section 19a-77.

(e) Not later than October 1, 2007, the board shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on the judiciary in accordance with section 11-4a setting forth its findings and recommendations concerning: (1) Whether information about sexual offenders assigned a risk level of high, medium or low should be made available to the public through the Internet; (2) the types of information about sexual offenders that should be made available to the public through the Internet which may include, but not be limited to, (A) the name, residential address, physical description and photograph of the registrant, (B) the offense or offenses of which the registrant was convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect that required registration under this chapter, (C) a brief description of the facts and circumstances of such offense or offenses, (D) the criminal record of the registrant with respect to any prior convictions or findings of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for the commission of an offense requiring registration under this chapter, and (E) the name of the registrant's supervising correctional, probation or parole officer, and contact information for such officer; (3) whether any of the persons assigned a high risk level by the board pursuant to subsection (c) of this section meets the criteria for civil commitment pursuant to section 17a-498; (4) whether additional restrictions should be placed on persons subject to registration under this chapter such as curfews and intensive monitoring on certain holidays; (5) whether persons convicted of a sexual offense who pose a high risk of reoffending should be required to register under this chapter regardless of when they were convicted or released into the community; and (6) whether persons determined to be guilty with adjudication withheld in any other state or jurisdiction of any crime the essential elements of which are substantially the same as any of the crimes specified in subdivisions (2), (5) and (11) of section 54-250 should be required to register under this chapter. 14

If such a report was provided, I cannot imagine that the board's findings and recommendations could have been taken into account when drafting H.B No. 5486 as the current bill is exceedingly simplistic. It makes no mention of dangerousness or likelihood to re-offend, even though these are exceedingly variable and wholly individual characteristics. It makes no provisions for the severity of the crime, even though the sex offender registry itself does. It doesn't address community supports or therapy, even though these are known to be capable of discouraging re-offending. In short, it is not a satisfactory piece of legislation. It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee comes to a similar conclusion.

James Meickle15
Policy Researcher
Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State University

1. 1. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bi...
2. 2. http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/10/state-wide-struggle-over-ways-to-d...
3. 3. Town boundary KML file from http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/connecticut_data.html
4. 4. http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/11/04/1314881/analyst-floridas-sex-offen...
5. 5. http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/10/state-wide-struggle-over-ways-to-d...
6. 6. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/sex-offen...
7. 7. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/sex-offen...
8. 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/us/03homeless.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
9. 9. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-18-homeless-offenders_N.htm
10. 10. http://futurity.org/society-culture/using-math-to-formulate-sex-offender...
11. 11. http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immi...
12. 12. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/sex-offen...
13. 13. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/us/03homeless.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
14. 14. http://cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap969.htm#Sec54-259a.htm
15. 15. Many of the citations used in this article were located thanks to blog posts originally published on a public defender, where blogger Gideon has covered this topic for the past several years.