home

KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations

The town of Covington, Kentucky is bucking the national trend and has rejected a bill that would limit sex offenders from living there.

It may seem that every time a legislators proposes to restrict sex offenders, the measures passes, but it doesn't always turn out that way. A proposal to ban registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of Covington, Ky., schools and day care centers is dead after local residents overwhelmingly spoke against it last night, reports the Cincinnati Enquirer. More than 300 people packed an elementary school gym for a hearing; all but a few of the 33 speakers opposed the distance restrictions.

Critics said the proposed 2,000-foot restriction would essentially drive registered sex offenders from the city's urban core into a handful of neighborhoods, including one that boasts affordable housing and is populated by young families with children. Several cited studies from other states showing that similar restrictions have led to more sex offenders failing to register. Attorney Steven Johnson-Grove said 80 to 90 percent of sex offenses are committed against children by trusted adults, not strangers.

Banishment laws are counterproductive and short-sighted. They are not the solution. TChris has an excellent take on them here.

< Quattrone Convictions Reversed | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    The more a community accepts this inevitable responsibility, the more likely and probable it will be that these offenders will meet THEIR responsibilities upon release. Treatment and counseling, meeting with their P.O., and basically being PART of the community instead of having to hide, flee, disappear, whatever. That certainly doesn't help society.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#2)
    by HK on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    This is one of those topics of debate many people won't touch with a bargepole unless it effects them - and then watch them go! I agree with the sentiments expressed so far. There would be no benefit to having colonies of sex offenders on the outskirts of towns. I believe that sex offenders are in need of treatment, not simply punishment for punishment's sake. People often call such offenders 'sick' but then do not accept the rightful implications of their assertion. It also always bothers me that families of offenders are seldom given any consideration. No one should be get away with crime because they have a family, but we need to accept that those who offend are not all loners, apart from society from the outset. How we treat offenders has a knock-on effect on their families. Society cannot and should not wash its hands of the issues surrounding sex offenders.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    I remember a few months back, one commenter was talking about the DP. He claimed that killing people via the DP ensured less innocents killed than not executing people, even innocents. Wonder if locking up everyones uncle and/or priest is a better route to reduce child sex crimes than convict registration?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    "... those who offend are not all loners, apart from society from the outset. How we treat offenders has a knock-on effect on their families." BRAVO, HK ! Here is a point too often forgotten, or it is assumed the families are not entitled to consideration. Guilt by kinship?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#6)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    Great! Let's ship all our sex offenders to them. I don't want them in my neighborhood.
    Speaking of your relatives? Because your kids are faaaaaaaar more likely to be raped by your father than some stranger. If you truly believe in prevention through isolation, kick all the trusted males out of the city. Sex crimes willd rop 90%, and that is what people want, isn't it?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    No Narius, I am saying the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people who have never committed one before. Usually a family member or friend of the family. Why do you insist on harboring potential sexual criminals in your own home?

    I'm pretty sure this thread is about convicted sex offenders, Johnny.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    Narius, the high risk offenders, like it or not, are people like you or your father, not those already convicted. Get over it. Sorry. You lose that war. Sarc, was it you that was pulling that pragmatist BS on a DP thread? I don't remember. If it was, than you would agree that the way to ensure the least amount of innocents being victimized is to elimnate the entire demographic associated with sexual crimes (white, christian, males... Ooops, the entire power structure of this country;))...

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    What kind of liberal will be on the side of sex offenders?
    Typical idiot-winger response... Nowhere did I even MENTION I was on the side of the offenders... That is YOUR narrow minded republican idiot thinking coming up there. In point of fact, I was proposing a way to protect more children than your pedophile shielding schemes... Once again, your reactionary idiot-winger killer politics miss the obvious (that your kids are more likely to be raped by you or your father than someone already convicted), and grasp the slimmest straw (throw those convicted of a crime on an isla