Sex offender restrictions inconsistent

Boston Globe
Sex offender restrictions inconsistent

By James O'Brien
Globe Correspondent / August 3, 2008
Advocates of tougher restrictions on convicted sex offenders in several northwest communities are pushing for ordinances to ban released convicts from schools, libraries, and playgrounds, and to place posters of offenders' names and faces around town.
American Civil Liberties Union officials warn that restriction zones and posters could violate the civil rights of not only sex offenders who have served prison sentences but also innocent people who live in these communities.
The issue has come to the fore in Methuen, where the City Council last month approved, in the first of two votes, a $300 fine for Level 3 sex offenders traveling within 1,000 feet of schools, libraries, daycare centers, and playgrounds. It also approved the use of townwide posters.
The second and final vote is scheduled for tomorrow in Methuen on the restriction, the $300 fine, and the posters.
City Councilor at Large Kenneth R. Willette Jr., who initiated the proposal, said he wants Methuen to have more say about sex offenders. "Give police the power of arrest and add criminal penalties to arrests. The state has to give cities and towns greater powers to enforce restrictions."
Michael J. Hayden, School Committee member at Greater Lowell Technical High School, said pictures of area Level 3 sex offenders would now appear on central school bulletin boards. Like Willette, Hayden wants broader measures.
"I would like to see City Council posting them on city bulletin boards," Hayden said. "You go into a park, and here are all the people you should be wary of."
But to Christopher Ott, communications director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, the new ordinances are problematic. "A 12-year-old is going to accurately remember what a photocopied image looked like while walking along the street?" Ott said. "There are so many possibilities for things to go wrong."
Beyond mistaken identification and the possibility of residents harassing the actual pictured offenders, Ott said, papering the town with mug shots compromises the concept of serving a finite prison sentence. "These measures are essentially trying to punish people for life," Ott said.
Hayden said the posters are not supposed to fuel confrontation. "That's not my intention," Hayden said. "If I have to sacrifice one sex offender for one student, . . . when you reach the level of a Level 3 sex offender, that's a lifelong tag that you elected to put on yourself."
The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board defines Level 3 sex offenders as people who are dangerous to the public and pose the highest risk of repeating their crimes. The board actively disseminates information about such offenders, most of whom have been convicted of sexually violent offenses against adults or children, or sex-related crimes against minors.
In Derry, N.H., Town Councilor at Large Kevin Coyle wanted to ban Level 3 offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of schools and day-care centers. The council dropped the proposal in April.
Objectors thought ordinances would drive offenders underground, Coyle said. "I didn't buy that, especially in New Hampshire. You might be able to drive someone underground in Boston or New York, but not New Hampshire."
The Nashua Board of Aldermen did pass such a residency ban, creating a 1,000-foot zone around schools and playgrounds, but Mayor Bernard Streeter vetoed the ordinance during his final days in office last January.
Alderman Steven A. Bolton, who proposed the residency restriction, was on vacation and unavailable for comment.
Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said Streeter's veto left aldermen with the option of restarting the process. But, she said, residency restrictions are increasingly unpopular.
"They're ebbing throughout the country, not just New Hampshire," Keshen said. "People who are in positions of power are becoming more educated to the real impact of these ordinances. They're not promoting them, they're not advancing them."
Evidence, according to Keshen, continues to appear. A state appeals court in New Jersey, for example, struck down sex-offender residency restrictions in dozens of Garden State towns last month.
In north-central Massachusetts, proposals for restriction zones reveal a shortcoming of the state, said Laurie Myers of Chelmsford, president of sex-offender legislation group Community Voices. Each new proposal, she said, represents a community struggling not to become "the next sex-offender town" as ordinances are passed, driving out neighboring offenders.
"The only reason why selectmen come up with residency restrictions is out of frustration that legislators aren't doing anything," Myers said. "The laws that are supposed to protect us are not working. Residency restrictions are the only thing a town can do."
Myers said she was encouraged by Governor Deval Patrick's recent signing of House Bill 4811, setting minimum mandatory sentences of 10 to 20 years for certain sex offenses. "I think people will now see sex offenders getting time for crimes," she said.
In Derry, Coyle said the Town Council is awaiting a trial stemming from Dover's 2,500-foot restriction zone. The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union challenged the zone as unconstitutional in May. If either party appeals the pending Superior Court ruling, the state Supreme Court will decide the matter. If the high court upholds the zone, Coyle said, he plans to revive his proposal for specific limits in Derry.
Willette in Methuen said Coyle's caution in New Hampshire informs his strategy. "That's the best we can do at this stage. I don't want to open a can of worms with a residency restriction that would be challenged in court on the basis of constitutionality."
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.