Judge: Sex offender limitations illegal
Ruling could affect local ordinancesBy David Hurst, dhurst@altoonamirror.com
A federal judge says an Allegheny County ordinance aimed at keeping sex offenders away from many public places is illegal.
It could signal the same fate for similar ordinances adopted in this area.
U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster wrote in a ruling this week that Allegheny's law undermines state law, barring offenders from living in most of the county.
It conflicts with state guidelines that are based on Megan's Law assessment recommendations and aimed at keeping track of offenders while pushing reintegration and rehabilitation.
It was unknown Tuesday if the ruling will be appealed, with the outcome potentially having ramifications outside Allegheny's borders.
Portage Borough and Jackson Township in Cambria County, along with Newry and Duncansville boroughs in Blair, all have enacted ordinances aimed at regulating where sex offenders reside. Most of them, like Allegheny's, require convicted offenders to live at least 2,500 feet - nearly a half mile - from day cares, schools, parks and other spots.
"The whole idea is for the safety of the children and ours has worked," said Portage Borough Manager Bob Koban, adding that the town will be keeping a close eye on what happens next with the Allegheny case.
Portage adopted its ordinance more than a year ago. Duncansville and Newry also adopted similar laws after residents aired concerns about offenders moving in.
All three municipalities are represented by Blair County attorney Michael Emerick, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Jackson Township adopted its ordinance this month. Township Manager Dave Hirko says it applies only to offenders the Megan's Law board deems "sexually violent."
"Residents really pushed for this, so we certainly hope [a federal] ruling wouldn't apply here," he said.
In Newry, one-tenth of a square mile in size, offenders are prohibited from moving within 1,000 feet of local churches and St. Patrick's School - leaving few spots in town, if anywhere, where they could reside.
The strict guidelines may be politically popular but do nothing to prohibit where offenders work or socialize, Lancaster indicated.
The residency rule, in Allegheny's case, simply pushes offenders to other towns and sets them up to offend again, he added.
"If you don't have a home or a job, you're going to be more likely to commit a crime," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which filed the suit on behalf of six sex offenders.
He maintains that Allegheny's law - and likely others - undermine public safety.
"These folks have to live somewhere," he said. "And when offenders succeed, it's usually because they have family to help them, access to mass transit and jobs. It's because they reintegrate."
Mirror Staff Writer David Hurst is at 946-7457.
|
85counts
|
|
|---|---|
|
03-25-09 5:15 PM
|
if you look at the obits in the local paper, you'll notice that many deceased elderly married in Winchester, Va. or Cumberland,Md. That was because of the lower age required to get a license . Back in the early and mid 1900's girls got wed at 15 and 16 years old. They were law-abiding citizens and raised fine families. The men that they married were often late teenagers and were the "great generation. There are many of them still alive today. They were great parents then and are super grandparents today. If today, the man would be in jail and the girl ostracised.
|
|
ann1973
|
|
|
03-25-09 3:41 PM
|
Too many citizens don't know who a sex offender is. He's not just the monster who rapes a child or a woman. He's also the teen or young adult who consensually touches his just a little too young girlfriend. While we may not approve of teens being sexual, the fact is most of them are. Sex offender laws must be reformed so that law enforcement can focus on the child molester and rapist. Presently our courts are clogged and the registries are all but useless because probably less than 10% of those listed are dangerous to anyone. Some states are adding more than 100 names a week to the registry. Why ruin a young person's life for doing no more than most citizens did in their own youth, including our legislators.
|
|
Raccoon
|
|
|
03-25-09 12:36 PM
|
42Employlaw1981: Definitely a good point. Very unfair, in my opinion. I'm not talking about "he said, she said" cases---I'm for very very strict laws and punishments for child rapists/murderers/abusers like the "step"father or boyfriend who rapes or beats the toddler. There are some gray areas when the "child" is 14, 15, 16, I agree.
|
|
mocus1
|
|
|
03-25-09 11:35 AM
|
hear that folks? If you're homeless or jobless you're more likely to be a criminal according to the ACLU. If Republicans or conservatives say that, they're called "insensitive and intolerant" by liberals like the American Communist Leftist Ulcers. But if such a statement can be used to curry sympathy for child molesters and criminals, then hey, it's OK. Bet those judges wouldn't let those molesters live next to THEIR grandkids. But they're allowed to live next to yours.
|
|
42Employlaw1981
|
|
|
03-25-09 11:28 AM
|
DID YOU KNOW: An 18-year old Male has consentual sex with his 17-year old Female girlfriend and gets prosecuted in some states must register as a Sexual Offender for life. Fair or Unfair?? I think the law needs some revisions, especially regarding statutory rape where it its consentual. Any opinions?
|
|
Raccoon
|
|
|
03-25-09 10:48 AM
|
Why do commenters like to attack the police and other agencies---these people are trying to help! Their hands are severely tied by a multitude of laws that work FOR the offenders. Talk to a policeman or a social worker---they are as disgusted and stressed as anyone else, and it takes a toll dealing with human scum for most of your career. I, for one, could never do it, and I give them all the credit in the world. That aside, if pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc. were put away for life, "recidivism" would not be a word we would ever need. How many criminals you read about DON'T have a criminal record. I thought so.
|
|
TheGluv
|
|
|
03-25-09 10:19 AM
|
I never understood the mentality of these creeps. You have got to be the scum of the earth, lowely, nerdy pile of garbage if you cannot go out to a bar, and find a woman of age to get your rocks off with. Why go after suceptable girls. If you are so biog of a loser that you cannot find a drunk girl once in awhile that is over 18 and need to control a young girl in this way your pathtic.
|
|
mrk241
|
|
|
03-25-09 9:43 AM
|
OFFENDING? NOT OFFENDING?********off the neighborhood? What is he talking about? Lock 'em up! Everyone knows that there is a VERY high percent of recidivism among sex offenders (and I am not talking about these 18 year old boys who's lives are ruined by the hysterical parents of promiscuous 15 year old girls who can’t admit that their “Princess” is a trollop!)so why would they EVER need to be released back on the street knowinghtat they will offend again?
|
|
mrk241
|
|
|
03-25-09 9:38 AM
|
"When offenders succeed"...AT WHAT?
|
|
LetsGoPens
|
|
|
03-25-09 8:26 AM
|
Works for me, There was a comedian that talked about something like that.
|
|
gandulf
|
|
|
03-25-09 8:17 AM
|
For the truly violent offencders, especially those of children, why not place them on an island, along with the murderers; the gang bangers; and, the cop killers? They will have to forge a life for themselves in every sense of the word. Let them construct a society of their own. My guess is that they will eventually kill each other and ultimately become extinct. When this group is gone, populate the island with another batch of the same degenerates.
|