'Buffer zone' law for sex offenders criticized / LJWorld.com

Kansas Legislature

November 6, 2005

A proposed law banning Kansas sex offenders from living near schools and parks could actually make them more likely to reoffend and harder to supervise, state corrections officials warn.

They say forcing sex offenders from their homes could make them increasingly frustrated, isolated and unemployed - and therefore more dangerous.

"The danger with restrictions being applied on a broad basis is you could apply a feel-good restriction that actually could conceivably increase risk," said Rick Kendall, who supervises treatment of sex offenders at the Lansing state prison. "If you are isolated and experience negative feelings - unwanted, unloved - it can lead to triggers : that we often find associated with a sexually deviant cycle."

At least 14 states have laws limiting where sex offenders can live, and Kansas House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, a candidate for governor, says Kansas should be next. He plans to introduce a law creating a 2,000-foot "buffer zone" around schools, parks and day cares, which would make cities such as Lawrence off-limits.

Sexual Predators in Kansas

Past coverage

RSS of stories in this section

Mays could not be reached for comment. But Kendall and other Kansas Department of Corrections officials said there had been no studies showing buffer zones for sex offenders improve public safety.

Among the findings cited by KDOC:

¢ A 2003 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found sex offenders' proximity to schools or parks did not make them more likely to offend. On the contrary, offenders were more likely to travel to another neighborhood in which they could seek victims without being recognized.

¢ Minnesota also found that overlapping buffer zones in cities could force offenders to rural areas, leaving them with few treatment or employment options.

¢ In a 2005 survey of 135 sex offenders in Florida, nearly half said the laws had kept them from living with supportive family members. One offender in the survey reported being forced to move from a trailer park because it was near a church - and ending up in a motel room with three children next door.

¢ A 2004 Colorado study found sex offenders who relapsed were spread evenly throughout the area and not concentrated near schools or parks.

Frances Breyne, a KDOC spokeswoman, said the department had not received any national research that supported zoning as a risk-reduction strategy for sex offenders. She said the research supported stability, availability and inclusiveness in housing in the continuing effort to monitor sex offenders closely.

Lawrence resident Charlotte Hastings, who has advocated for a buffer-zone law, said she was not swayed by the findings cited by KDOC because she hadn't seen the studies.

"I still think it's a good idea to keep them out of places where kids gather," she said. "Every precaution we could possibly take has to be better than doing nothing."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 November 2005
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

punkrockmom (Anonymous) says…

¢ A 2003 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found sex offenders' proximity to schools or parks did not make them more likely to offend. On the contrary, offenders were more likely to travel to another neighborhood in which they could seek victims without being recognized.

¢ Minnesota also found that overlapping buffer zones in cities could force offenders to rural areas, leaving them with few treatment or employment options.
–––––––––––

I love how you can make a study say what you want. If they can go to another neighborhood to harm children, then they can drive to their “treatment and employment” options. It's frustrating how their are registered offenders so near schools at this time. I agree with the first comment. Why are we giving them rights?

As for living with their family, where were they living when they committed the crime that got them caught? At the homes of their family members? Likely. Some even hurt their own family members. I have no compassion for these people.
6 November 2005
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

momof3 (Anonymous) says…

The State should read Megan's Law, which prohibits sex offenders from living too close to schools, which is probably the law the 14 states have. Kansas allows registered sex offenders to live accross the street from elementary schools. The schools aren't allowed to notify the parents of these individuals, to protect the offenders' rights, but the PTA's are allowed to notify the parents to check the KBI website. I would like the Kansas government to look out for the rights of children first. 2000 feet isn't that far, 1/3 of a mile, but it is better than it is now
6 November 2005
at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The salvation army houses these individuals from time to time. Have any violations occured as far as we know?
6 November 2005
at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Hastings, buffer advocate, doesn't comment on contrary positions “because she hadn't seen the studies.” And no doubt will redouble her efforts not to.

'I still think it's a good idea to keep them out of places where kids gather,' she said. 'I still think' = 'don't confuse me with facts.' It must be a scary world where the 'liberal elites' have spread from the lawyers, doctors, scientists, journalists, etc. to cover even corrections officials! Pretty soon, the only yokels will by yokels.

'Every precaution we could possibly take has to be better than doing nothing.' Okay, on one hand we have “every precaution,” and on the other we have “doing nothing.” THESE are the choices? What a strawman. Mays wishes to appear to be doing something to further his political career and hopes that no one will question whether his 'something' does any good.

Hastings seems to have missed the point of the KDOC comments. Not only is Mays' proposal not a good precaution, it actually makes harm more, not less, likely. Some of what Mays' said has merits - particularly greater tracking by the State of these individuals. Start getting the basics right, then build upon it where prudent.
6 November 2005
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

compmd (Anonymous) says…

what nobody seems to understand here is that “sex offender” does not imply “pedophile” or “child molester.” don't stand on a soapbox if you don't know what you are saying. and please, RTFA before you go off, and understand what it says. there are more serious fundamental rights issues here than you realize because your reason is being drowned out by your screams of “protect the children!”
6 November 2005
at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

punkrockmom (Anonymous) says…

compmd, we know not all sex offenders are child molesters. I'm willing to give you that there are people out there that are dangerous to adults, or those that are wrongly accused, or whatever. But, hell yeah I'm yelling protect the children. It's at least a start. I find it interesting that you don't want to protect children.
6 November 2005
at 9:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

i wonder what the ACLU says about this proposal? since they are the defenders of nambla (North American Man Boy Love Association), i'd be interested in their views - would the local ACLU go against the grain and protect innocent children from potentially becoming victims? hmmmmm or, will they defend a sex offender's supposed right to live across the street from a school?