Archive for Friday, April 28, 2006

Supreme Court denies sex predators’ placement

April 28, 2006


— The Kansas Supreme Court today ruled in favor of preventing sex predator Leroy Hendricks from living in a home in Leavenworth County

In its unanimous decision, the court also said the Legislature must address the issue of where sex predators can live once they have left the state's civil confinement treatment program.

The case centered on the placement of Hendricks, the first offender in the special sex predator treatment program to have reached a point where officials say he should be released into a monitored residence.

But attempts last year to settle Hendricks in Lawrence and then rural Leavenworth County were rebuffed. Hendricks currently is living at Osawatomie State Hospital.

Hendricks, who has a long history of sex offenses involving children, is 71 years-old and has several physical impairments resulting from a stroke and diabetes.

Richard Whitson, director of Community Provisional Living, sought to place Hendricks in a home in rural southwest Leavenworth County.

Whitson has a provisional license from the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to operate a group home for up to three sex offenders, according to court records.

But a resolution by Leavenworth County commissioners said Whitson's license violated the county's zoning regulations. Group homes for people with mental illnesses and disabilities are allowed, but only if the person is not a danger to others, the commissioners argued.

Hendricks, the commissioners claimed, remained a danger.

Writing for the court, Justice Carol Beier agreed, saying "there was uncontroverted evidence that he was likely to reoffend if at large."

Beier said the court realized that the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services faced a tough problem; finding a Kansas community willing to permit the location of transitional housing for sexually violent offenders.

"We trust that SRS will call the dilemma to the attention to the only branch of state government empowered to address it: the Legislature," she wrote.

Justices Eric Rosen and Donald Allegrucci agreed with the majority decision, but said it was because Whitson had failed to get a special use permit for the group home to house Hendricks.

Given Hendricks' age and physical ailments, the two justices said it was unlikely Hendricks could have re-offended if housed at the home, which would have had numerous monitoring safeguards.


KungFuLogic 11 years, 8 months ago

"predator" ergo the zoo, or the humane society to be euthanized seems to be an appropriate domicile in light of the title society has attached to them.

dthroat 11 years, 8 months ago

Finally the Supreme Court makes a logical ruling (albeit maybe closer than it should have been).

I still wonder why they need so many special monitors and alarms at the place if he is not a danger as Whitson claims. And how many more would follow w/out the community being told. And how dangerous would they be.

I think the house on the Oswatamie grounds is a perfect place (and much cheaper for the taxpayers.

Good job Supremes

rhd99 11 years, 8 months ago

Sounds like sex predators belong in a ZOO because they are sick ANIMALS! Oh wait, how could I offend NORMAL zoo animals, sex predators are NOTHING!

LawrenceKSisgreat 11 years, 8 months ago

You, I and every other human is technically a animal.

The five-kingdom system recognises Animalia, Plantae, Monera, Fungi, and Protista (the last being basically all eukaryotic micro-organisms or algae, protozoans, and slime molds).

Arguably, some humans should fall under Protista (slime molds), but that is not how you (humans) are classified.

Welcome to the Zoo (or jungle) human.

Makes me feel good to be a alien from outer space.

xenophonschild 11 years, 8 months ago

Don't have much use for the Chinese, but they seem to have a much more efficacious way of dealing with the problem.

Immediately aftern conviction, the guilty party is taken behind the courthouse, made to kneel, and shot in the back of the neck.

Before you jump to conclusions (I am a liberal Democrat, not an evil drooling Republican), note that I wrote an award-winning five part series - "Sex Offenses, Sex Offenders" as a prison newspaper reporter in Minnesota in 1989, and the glaring conclusion of my work was that there is no guaranteed treatment for sex offenders, particularly pedophiles.

Susan Mangan 11 years, 8 months ago

I maintain my criteria to determine the "safety" and "likelihood to reoffend" for sexual predators. I believe any violent felon being paroled should go through the same procedure, as a matter of fact. Have a house within one city block of the members of the parole board, in which they place the paroled (or "cured predators") for their first 2 years after release. In the case of sexual predators, since there is no parole board, use the homes of the SRS or "Community Provisional Living" members. I bet the members would make damn sure they really believed they were safe before putting them in their own neighborhood. If they're willing to take that risk, then I suppose I should accept them in my neighborhood after that time.

In the meantime, despite my belief in low taxes, I am more than willing to spend a little of my tax money building a nice little apartment complex on the grounds of Osawatomie. I do believe taxes are good for some things...defense of the public from predators is one.

okiekid 11 years, 7 months ago

My idea for the sexual preditors is to put all of them in a place off by themselves where they cannot get out and forget about them.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.