home

KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations

The town of Covington, Kentucky is bucking the national trend and has rejected a bill that would limit sex offenders from living there.

It may seem that every time a legislators proposes to restrict sex offenders, the measures passes, but it doesn't always turn out that way. A proposal to ban registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of Covington, Ky., schools and day care centers is dead after local residents overwhelmingly spoke against it last night, reports the Cincinnati Enquirer. More than 300 people packed an elementary school gym for a hearing; all but a few of the 33 speakers opposed the distance restrictions.

Critics said the proposed 2,000-foot restriction would essentially drive registered sex offenders from the city's urban core into a handful of neighborhoods, including one that boasts affordable housing and is populated by young families with children. Several cited studies from other states showing that similar restrictions have led to more sex offenders failing to register. Attorney Steven Johnson-Grove said 80 to 90 percent of sex offenses are committed against children by trusted adults, not strangers.

Banishment laws are counterproductive and short-sighted. They are not the solution. TChris has an excellent take on them here.

< Quattrone Convictions Reversed | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    The more a community accepts this inevitable responsibility, the more likely and probable it will be that these offenders will meet THEIR responsibilities upon release. Treatment and counseling, meeting with their P.O., and basically being PART of the community instead of having to hide, flee, disappear, whatever. That certainly doesn't help society.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#2)
    by HK on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    This is one of those topics of debate many people won't touch with a bargepole unless it effects them - and then watch them go! I agree with the sentiments expressed so far. There would be no benefit to having colonies of sex offenders on the outskirts of towns. I believe that sex offenders are in need of treatment, not simply punishment for punishment's sake. People often call such offenders 'sick' but then do not accept the rightful implications of their assertion. It also always bothers me that families of offenders are seldom given any consideration. No one should be get away with crime because they have a family, but we need to accept that those who offend are not all loners, apart from society from the outset. How we treat offenders has a knock-on effect on their families. Society cannot and should not wash its hands of the issues surrounding sex offenders.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    I remember a few months back, one commenter was talking about the DP. He claimed that killing people via the DP ensured less innocents killed than not executing people, even innocents. Wonder if locking up everyones uncle and/or priest is a better route to reduce child sex crimes than convict registration?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    "... those who offend are not all loners, apart from society from the outset. How we treat offenders has a knock-on effect on their families." BRAVO, HK ! Here is a point too often forgotten, or it is assumed the families are not entitled to consideration. Guilt by kinship?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#6)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    Great! Let's ship all our sex offenders to them. I don't want them in my neighborhood.
    Speaking of your relatives? Because your kids are faaaaaaaar more likely to be raped by your father than some stranger. If you truly believe in prevention through isolation, kick all the trusted males out of the city. Sex crimes willd rop 90%, and that is what people want, isn't it?

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    No Narius, I am saying the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people who have never committed one before. Usually a family member or friend of the family. Why do you insist on harboring potential sexual criminals in your own home?

    I'm pretty sure this thread is about convicted sex offenders, Johnny.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    Narius, the high risk offenders, like it or not, are people like you or your father, not those already convicted. Get over it. Sorry. You lose that war. Sarc, was it you that was pulling that pragmatist BS on a DP thread? I don't remember. If it was, than you would agree that the way to ensure the least amount of innocents being victimized is to elimnate the entire demographic associated with sexual crimes (white, christian, males... Ooops, the entire power structure of this country;))...

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    What kind of liberal will be on the side of sex offenders?
    Typical idiot-winger response... Nowhere did I even MENTION I was on the side of the offenders... That is YOUR narrow minded republican idiot thinking coming up there. In point of fact, I was proposing a way to protect more children than your pedophile shielding schemes... Once again, your reactionary idiot-winger killer politics miss the obvious (that your kids are more likely to be raped by you or your father than someone already convicted), and grasp the slimmest straw (throw those convicted of a crime on an island populated by cannibals)... Hyperbole aside, you have to address something other than what a person has been convicted of to address the situation at hand.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#13)
    by HK on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:58:05 AM EST
    Narius, one of the many flaws of your thinking is that in ostrasizing sex offenders, the rest of society is given a false sense of security. It creates a false 'them and us' mentality. As Johnny has pointed out, most victims of sex attacks are related to the attacker. Whether you like it or not (and let's face it, who does like it?) sex offenders ARE part of our society. In accepting that sex offenders are are members of our community we have more power to protect ourselves, not less. Aside from the moral and practical aspects of forcing such people to go elsewhere - although these are entirely valid issues - we cannot all breathe a sigh of relief if we do this. Sex offenders are still among us.

    Because your kids are faaaaaaaar more likely to be raped by your father than some stranger.
    Speaking of BS...

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#16)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    Whatcha mean Sarc? Or are you just fishing?

    Ok Johnny, your comment was OT (as I pointed out yesterday) but you seem to be so hot and bothered over whatever it is that you just have to say that I'll give you your 15 minutes in the spotlight. Prove that one is faaaaaaaaar more likely to be raped by their grandfather than a stranger.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#18)
    by HK on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    A convicted violent sex offender is a 100% risk. There are less than 1% (much much less than that) sex offenders in the population. Rudimentary probability says that taking a NORMAL person, the chance of a crime is around 1%. Are you saying 1%=100%?
    Narius, what are you on about? Have you ever studied probability? I have been pregnant before. Does that mean I have 100% risk of being pregnant again? Are women who have never been pregnant universally highly unlikely to ever be? No! Because choices are involved, the same as in this instance. A whole variety of people, from the person in question to those involved in other ways, can have an impact on what happens. You don't acknowledge this at all. Some things can't be worked out with Maths and Maths alone.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#19)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    that I'll give you your 15 minutes in the spotlight.
    Gee Sarc, glad it's yours to give LMFAO. So are you fishing or what? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm Here's a good look at some of those statistics I mentioned. Surprising, some of them. http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html There some more, citing sources even.

    As I suspected, absolutely no support of your allegation that one is faaaaaaar more likely to be raped by one's grandfather than a stranger. Why did I even bother.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    None of you have any idea of what you're talking about. The first commenter suggested that "This is one of those topics of debate many people won't touch with a bargepole unless it effects them - and then watch them go!" That's because you don't really realize the absurdity of today's sex offender laws until they touch you in some way. The bottom line is that people screw up. Perfectly law abiding, good, honest, intelligent people make a bad decision (whether it be the 18yo that has consensual sex with a minor or the 45yo father who accidently downloads kiddy porn thinking it's something else), but the society we live in today likes telling them that they are absolute scum and simply don't deserve to live. There is so much wrong with sex offender legislation, but all of you should sit back and consider ALL of the consequences before departing on your crusades.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    Ok,time for some actuall info here.It is true that 43% of sexoffenders reoffend but that is compaired to 68% of other crimes.So why shouldnt we know if a neighbor is more likely to rob our homes if bills get tight.Mabey we should know who is more likely to drive drunk and run one of our children down while they are out bikeing.Or mabey people can begin to come to terms that some sex offences are agnist children. Some are agnist same sexes ect.Circumstances as well as enviroment sometimes plays a part also. Repete offenders have no reason to be anywhere but prison.Problem solved,everyone knows where they are.But the single offenders who have done everything asked by the law includeing counciling,registration,and completeing there sentence. Can not beheld and further punished simply because of a rush of new criminal shows that are creating a sort of war of the worlds type of panic.Though laws are needed to protect our children. There is also a need for govt. to protect all citizens from ther rights being violated.Quick laws being made to ouiet the panic are not the answer.If it were actually thought out it would be seen as it is life punishment for any level of offence. Murder isnt even treated that harsh. As well as god help you if you have a family that would mean life banishment for any family of anyone whom made a bad choice not just those who are convicted of the most extreme sex offences or repete offenders. I always belived that identifying and then removeing anyone that is thought undesireable or not socially acceptable for crimes they may commit, would be a violation of every law or principal that our nation is.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 11:15:12 AM EST
    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one March 22, 2006 12:48 PM As I suspected, absolutely no support of your allegation that one is faaaaaaar more likely to be raped by one's grandfather than a stranger. Why did I even bother.
    'Cause you're a boy named suo. Grandfather is an example, sport. Relative or close acquaintance is the point. All you had to do was Google it up. The following is from Wikipedia. Offenders Most offenders are situational offenders (pseudopedophiles and pseudo-ephebophiles) rather than pedophiles or ephebophiles.[citation needed] They are rarely strangers, but relatives or acquaintances. Most offenders are male, the number of female perpetrators is usually reported to be between 10% and 20%, however in some studies it was found to be as high as 70%.

    Re: KY. Town Rejects Sex Offender Limitations (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    LEVITRA pill [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/LEVITRA.html]LEVITRA[/URL] buy http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/LEVITRA.html LEVITRA buy [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/VIAGRA-2.html]VIAGRA[/URL] online http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/VIAGRA-2.html VIAGRA online VIAGRA online http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/CIALIS.html CIALIS order [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/CIALIS.html]CIALIS[/URL] cheap CIALIS buy [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/TRAMADOL-2.html]TRAMADOL[/URL] pill http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/TRAMADOL-2.html TRAMADOL order TRAMADOL pill http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/XANAX-2.html XANAX pill [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/XANAX-2.html]XANAX[/URL] cheap XANAX buy CIALIS online http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/CIALIS.html CIALIS cheap [URL=http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/CIALIS.html]CIALIS[/URL] online [URL=http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/VIAGRA.html]VIAGRA[/URL] pill http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/VIAGRA.html VIAGRA cheap VIAGRA online [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/PHENTERMINE-2.html]PHENTERMINE[/URL] buy http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/PHENTERMINE-2.html PHENTERMINE online PHENTERMINE pill CASINO ONLINE pill [URL=http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/CASINO-ONLINE.html]CASINO ONLINE[/URL] buy http://kliktop.free20.com/kliktop/CASINO-ONLINE.html CASINO ONLINE buy [URL=http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/PHENTERMINE.html]PHENTERMINE[/URL] cheap PHENTERMINE pill http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/PHENTERMINE.html PHENTERMINE online XANAX online http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/XANAX.html XANAX pill [URL=http://hometown.aol.com/kliktop/XANAX.html]XANAX[/URL] buy