home

Georgia Banishment Law Criticized

The Washington Post has an article today criticizng Georgia's new sex offender banishment law.

The roughly 10,000 sex offenders living in Georgia have been forbidden to live within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop. Taken together, the prohibitions place nearly all the homes in some counties off-limits -- amounting, in a practical sense, to banishment.

Here are some of those affected by the law: A man with alzheimers and another who is 100 years old. A third is living in a nursing home where he is dying of heart disease.

The stupid law makes no distinction between those who are dangerous and those who are not. Even those who are not may be forced to move or expelled from their hospices.

The residency law applies not only to sexual predators but to all people registered for sexual crimes, including men and women convicted of having underage consensual sex while in high school.

Banishment laws, as TChris and I have written numerous times, are ineffective. They just drive offenders underground. More from WaPo:

Advocates for the sex offenders say the law is unfair to people who have served their sentences and been deemed rehabilitated. Many police officers, prosecutors and children's advocates also question whether such measures are effective. Most predators are mobile, after all, and by upending their lives, the law may make them more likely to commit other offenses, critics say.

"We should be concerned when we pass laws for political purposes that are irrational," said Sarah Geraghty, a staff lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the Atlanta-based group that filed court actions against the law's provisions. "This law will essentially render thousands of ex-offenders homeless, and that's just going to make them harder to monitor."

What humane society can countenance forcibly removing a terminally ill patient who happens to have a remote conviction for a sex offense from his hospice?

None. As Geraghty says, it shocks the conscience.

Who else does the law effect?

Among those swept up under its definition of sex offender are a 26-year-old woman who was caught engaging in oral sex when she was in high school, and a mother of five who was convicted of being a party to a crime of statutory rape because, her indictment alleged, she did not do enough to stop her 15-year-old daughter's sexual activity.

Stupid is as stupid does. This is just shameful.

< Your Papers Please? | Racial Profiling at U.S. Airways >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    GA Banishment Law (3.00 / 1) (#7)
    by blamin on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    I agree, this law is ridiculous for the old and decrepit, also there needs to be distinguishing factors, such as the high school consensual sex example.  Another example would be a drunk taking a wizz in the bushes, being charged with indecent exposure, and being put on the sex offender list.

    BUT, for all those convicted of serious sexual crimes I say banishment smanishment, who cares, you're lucky you're not still behind bars, or worse.  The fact of the matter is that most leaders on the left believe there should be no sexual offender list period.  And those on the right apparently aren't taking the time to spell out exceptions.

    So why can't there be a common sense measure that addresses the issue?


    damn..................... (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:00:33 AM EST
    you stole my line!

    that this was legislated in georgia is no great surprise. what does surprise me is that the rest of the former confederate states didn't pass similar laws.

    at the rate they're going, in a few more years, there will be more criminals in the south than non-criminals.

    why do i feel this is no coincidence?

    Banished in Georgia (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rich on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:25:21 AM EST
    Obvious, only somewhat snarky comment: What about the sexual predators who are clergy?

    Lack of common sense (none / 0) (#3)
    by plumberboy on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:46:06 AM EST
    Just like the Judge that was crying out to legislators to ease drug laws and regain common sense.I personally think these sex offender laws are just ridcilous.I live in Michigan and have a friend who's son was placed on the list for having a 14 year old girlfriend when he was 17.They have made some revisions to the law here to help a little with this I think it's 10 years on a list instead of 25 for girl friend in high school. The change in the law doesn't effect his 25 year stretch because it happened before the law changed. Well I'll get to my point that here in Michigan sex offenders are not allowed to live, work,or be anywhere near a school,daycare,and somewhere else I don't remember.The law is 1500 ft so this kid above will never legally attend his kids ball games ,concerts,paretnt teacher conferences or any event at his childrens school and for those who say that wouldn't happen there has already been registered sex offenders in Michigsan arrested and throwed in jail for attending events at there childrens school.These laws usually happen in right wing red america you know where all the compassionate conservatives live these forgiving and compassionate bunch of people seem to pass a lot of mean hateful legislation.

    This is plain idiocy... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:12:15 AM EST
    ...and simple minded fearmongering By Jerry Keen to buy political support from simple minded suckers at the expense of who knows how many otherwise perfectly normal people who will be swept into the web and labelled sex offenders by stretching the definitions beyond all reason. 15 or 16 year old boys with 14 year old girls friends will have to register. A man who has sex with his wife in a parked car will have to register. Keen's  law will drive real offenders into rural areas where there are less resources, law enforcement and otherwise, to deal with them.

    Just like creating more terrorists to justify a wot, this is criminalizing  as many as possible to justify Keen's law. Better keep voting him back in or the 'preverts' will take over.

    Perfect rethug tactics. And it wouldn't surprise me to one of these days hear that Keen has been projecting all along in the same way that Ted Haggard was.

    It appears Jerry Keen doesn't care who he screws. He'll do anybody. In fact he'll do everybody given the chance.

    I don't get it. Why do people fall for this sh*t?

    well edger......... (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    since you ask:
     
    I don't get it. Why do people fall for this sh*t?

    because (and i know jeralyn isn't going to like this, but sometimes the truth is painful), most people just aren't very bright. that, and these laws are put very simplistically on a ballot. or, they're rammed through the state legislature, so the delegates can go home and tell everyone how they're keeping them and their's safe at night.

    that's pretty much it.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    ...but I hope not. Some aren't very bright, sure. But I'd like to think that not most, you know? Maybe most are just so busy with daily 'stuff' in their lives that they don't have or take the time to look under the pretty wrappers?

    Parent
    Common sense... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    ...doesn't appear to be so common any more. I guess they just don't make it like they used to.

    Something in the water in Georgia, and elsewhere, these days?

    Jawja Law (none / 0) (#9)
    by sedipple on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    Boy, yall sure are tough on the South.

    I voted Dem this last time and no Im not a Yankee transplant in the South. So how about yall relax, Southeners arent as stupid as some would like to believe.  

    No one said they were. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    But Keen's law did pass, no?

    Why?

    Parent

    Not stupidity (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jen M on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    Malice

    Parent
    We have that law in Iowa (none / 0) (#12)
    by JSN on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    They passed the residence limitation law for sex offenders several years ago. It resulted in losing track of about half of the sex offenders. If you draw circles around schools and daycare providers the only places they can live are subdivisions where the average house is valued at more than $250,000.

    A lot of them moved into rural areas where deputies are spread very thin and causing an excessive work load for the sheriifs office records staff. We had to move a jail deputy to the records division to keep up with the extra work.

    A lot sex offenders now live in rural trailer parks or motels and the families that live nearby are very upset. The technical term for this is rustication (forced to live in the country) not banishment.

    I think the desire to control every... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    ...aspect of everyone's life through a totalitarian society is an aspect of this.

    The more people you can label, marginalize, disenfranchise, and dominate through laws such as this the more "control" the rightwing has. The passage of ever more draconian laws facilitates this, and anyone who fails to recognize that the entire intent of the last 12 years of rethuglican rule has been to rewrite the constitution and deny rights to large segments of society just haven't been paying attention.

    Every constitutional amendment against flag-burning and gay marriage have been basic attempts to write into the constitution a lawful BASIS for discrimination, and that has been the express desire of the rightwing nutjobs for years.

    This is simply an extension of those desires to discriminate  brought down to state level.

    Desire to control? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    Make a list of all possible things to be afraid of, and make anybody who makes them nervous a felon?

    Parent
    Well golly... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    ...that sure sounds like a most excellent plan to me!

    "Mommy, that man scares me!"

    "It's okay, honey. We'll have him arrested, convicted, and sentenced within the hour. Hello? Police"

    Parent

    But, but, but... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    ...what if they are afraid they've overlooked something when making the list?

    I've got it. Let's lock up the list makers. For their own good.

    Parent

    LOL!... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    ... 'Mornin, Edger, yer in fine form today, laddie!

    Parent
    Heh... Remember Charlidontsurf? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    He used to say "It's nothing. The wacks do all the work. They are the wind beneath my wings."

    Hope he has a great thanksgiving wherever he surfs now. ;-)

    Parent