Is it constitutinally legal to restrict living conditions for a registered sex offender/predator?

Question

I am practicing law right now and doing a research paper on how certain laws contradict the constitution. I have chosen sex offender/predator living restrictions as my major example. I will compile all data – from Internet, mail and personal questionnaires into one statistical graph. PLEASE answer honestly.

A sex offender/predator is the ONLY crime label that restricts where somebody can live AFTER all debt has been paid to society. Some cities have effectively banned Sex offenders/predators from living within the city limit – i.e. Can’t live within 2000 feet of places that children congregate – bus stops, schools, parks, etc… which anybody who knows how demographics work knows that all cities and small communities have those kind of places AT LEAST every 1500 feet.

If somebody gets arrested for drunk driving and kills 20 children, they still can live anywhere they want AFTER all debt has been paid. They can live near bars, schools, etc… when they are clearly just as big of a threat to children [statistically] as Sex offender/predator.

My question is this (getting rid of all emotions): Should a Sex offender/predator have conditional sanctions on the location of their residence?

Now, I know some people will say that their living conditions are part of their punishment. That would be true if they were on lifetime probation; however, after probation – they are effectively free from government sanctions except for voting rights and gun carrying rights (which both can be appealed and given back) as per the constitution.

If you think these restrictions should be in place, where should they live?
PLEASE if one of these answers is what you are thinking, don’t bother to answer!
1)Prison for the rest of their lives
2)An iceberg flow
3)In a government mandated no-children community
4)In the country never to set foot in a city again
5)Death

First of all – none of those are ever going to happen unless the constitution is rewritten.
Second of all – as sick and twisted as their crimes were, they have paid their debt to society whether you like it or not. Any other punishment would be considered double jeopardy.

Please remember when answering this question - Is it CONSTITUTIONAL to have these sanctions in place? Yes, we can rewrite the constitution, but until that is done we NEED to abide by the words written!!! No matter how disgusted you are with what crime is commited - THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE FOLLOWED!!!

Answer 1

The huge question here is ex post facto. The Supremes (in Megan's Law) have already ruled that you cannot impose additional penalties on sex-offenders other than those in statutory effect at the time of the crime.

For new law convictions, imposing post-release restrictions on where the offender may live fully pass constitutional muster: this is part of the penalty, imposed by due process of law.

Depending on how other laws are written, it may be constitutional to enlarge the area forbidden to such people, i.e., the actual forbidden zone may have been left to the discretion of police or other officer of the state -- which, with certain restrictions, is probably the best way to handle these things.

A very serious issue is that sometimes these regulations make it impossible for offenders to live ANYWHERE near any possible employment, which brings into play some additional issues: can the state efffectively prohibit such offenders from employment at all, and if so, are they obligated to give them welfare?

I fully support a national registry, but not necessarily a fully public one. But ex post facto gets in here too. Only new law offenders are securely within constitutional bounds here.

Answer 2

The state vs federal government argument is a good one. Rape isn't a federal crime, so states have supreme jurisdiction over the punishment and conditions, unless something said is a direct violation of the accused's constitutional rights. However, it has been scientifically proven that there is no real cure for pedophiles short of castration, and this isn't an option at our point in time. So, I think in order to preserve the rights of children to be free from having to congregate near a convicted child molester or any other sexual predator, the law is valid and doesn't infringe on the rights of the accused. It goes with the territory, so to speak.

Curious--what year of law school are you? I'm just in my first term so I'm wondering when I can expect a question like this for a paper.

Answer 3

The Constitution does not specifically address the rights of individuals convicted of a State Felony. Therefore, if the punishment issued by the State is one that restricts where they can live, then it is Constitutionally legal.

If, however, the Federal Government is involved with the issuance of a Federally mandated sex offender registry, then it becomes a Federal matter. While the individual states may confer and chose to restrict people convicted in other states, the Federal government cannot take part in that without a Federal Law that meets Constitutional standard.

What this means is that it is not illegal to restrict the felon, it may be illegal for the Federal Government to maintain a list of those particular felons.

Answer 4

I do not see anything UNconstitutional about a restricted living enviroment.....given the nature of the crime.

I do not hate sex offenders, I believe they are sick, and need a ton of psychological help. I think they probably were abused at some point in time themselves.....hence they abuse.

It is NOT TRUE they are the only ones with living conditions are restricted, look at people charged with domestic abuse, they have to live away from a particular place, just like sex offenders are made to do.

Lastly...what should be done? It is no secret that sex offenders keep offending, it is a disease almost like alcoholism. If someone with a drinking problem had alcohol placed in front of them they will drink it, to prevent that alcoholics use Antabuse.

Sex offenders/predators should be given something to reduce sexual urges, and be given a ton psyche counseling....and made to stay away from children. ALL CHILDREN for LIFE!!!! to not do so....would be morally wrong!!!!!!!

My question to you then is this (and I hope you answer. ) If your client were released today, and you had a son or daughter aged 2-6 , knowing what you know.....would YOU allow that sex offender to live next door to you and your child?

Answer 5

When it comes to certain forms of crime, "debt to society" can never be paid. How does one gives back the life of a father to a child who lost hers to a murderer, how does one give back dignity to a woman who was raped, and in this chase, how does one give back innocence to a child who lost hers to a pervert?

Our constitution defines debts to societies and defines the limits when the debts are considered paid off. But whhat is to stop the criminal from starting a new "debt"?

I'm not trying to be sadistic, cruel or evil when I say the only other option to living space restriction for sex offenders is castration. He has done it once, what's to stop him from doing it again. And when it comes to sex, a fetish is something very difficult, almost impossible to get rid of. No jail tern, no matter how long will. The longer the period, the greater is the drive and need for the fetish.

Answer 6

I don't know the constitution well enough to provide an educated answer. However, since you are asking the question and from you addendum to the question, my guess is no, the constitution does not allow us to restrict the rights of others who commit a crime such as a sexual offender. My thought however is, when we do this, what is the outcome for the offender and how safe is our community?

Answer 7

Both Perverted Justice and America's Most Wanted list them. You can go online and find out where all of those monsters are. I'm going to hope your neighbor has to register with the police department when he gets out. If he doesnt,ask why not. I dont blame you at all for being upset. We held a protest in our area about a known sex offender moving into our neighborhood. They relocated him. Good luck with this.

Answer 8

I've been watching a story in Louisville, Kentucky recently. The old law was a sex offender couldn't live within 500 feet of a school. Recently that was changed to 1,000 feet. So anybody already living between 500 and 1,000 feet was told to move or go to jail.

Answer 9

There are other restrictions on where people can live - like injunctions for stalkers that restrict where they can go, and then, I presume, where they can live
There are other restrictions on "rights" for a convicted person - like the inability to vote if you are a felon - so I am not sure this "paid debt to society" argument holds water
(I personally think they should stay in prison BTW)

Answer 10

You are absolutely right. It's a modern day scarlet letter. On top of that, the term sex offender is very broad. If a girl has sex with a guy she just met and later regrets it, she can press charges for rape. This guy may be labeled as a sex offender and have to deal with unfair sanctions for the rest of his life. How fair is that?