Advocacy Works! An example of how one Maine city considered the truth.
It used to be that all you had to do was insert the keyword “sex offender” into whatever law you wanted passed and nobody would have the political will to vote against it. That’s changing.
As people are beginning to recognize that statistics previously relied upon were wrong, and the unintended consequences of “well meaning” but tragically flawed laws, the sentiment is beginning to change.
The following article illustrates how Lewiston, Maine almost passed a residency restriction ordinance, but chose to listen to reason and take empirical evidence into consideration. The law was tabled as a result of a split decision on whether to pass the ordinance or not, but that is still a very significant win, since years ago it was rare to find even one legislator who would vote against such a law!
When you read the article, also note how significant it is that the City Council took into consideration the position of those who came to speak out against the ordinance and a letter from the ACLU.
Advocacy works! We need to show up and speak out (whether in person or through letters to our legislators). Eventually the weight of the evidence in our favor will tip the scales!
___________________________
Lewiston sex offender restricted zones prove controversial
LEWISTON — An ordinance aimed at restricting where convicted sex offenders are allowed to live split the City Council on Tuesday, and was ultimately tabled.
The council sought more time to make the decision after hearing arguments from local law enforcement, which drafted the ordinance, as well as testimony from residents and local organizations who believe the restrictions aren’t necessary and could create unintended consequences.
The proposed restrictions, which already exist in other Maine communities, including Auburn, are meant to prohibit known offenders from residing in areas of the city with “significant concentrations” of children – mainly near public schools and parks.
The residency restrictions are based on state guidelines, and would prohibit sex offenders convicted of offenses against persons under 14 at the time of the offense from living in designated areas. However, those already living in the zones would be grandfathered until they move.
According to the guidelines, offenders must live at least 750 feet from a designated area.
The issue became a back-and-forth Tuesday between the law enforcement stance and local advocates who said the restrictions have been known to isolate offenders and make them more difficult to track. They also said removing offenders from downtown areas can cut their access to needed rehabilitation programs.
The discussion rolled on for more than an hour.
Arguments also arose over the rates of recidivism among offenders. Those opposed to the restrictions say the rate is very low, but Councilor Tim Lajoie, who has worked in law enforcement for a number of years, called the figures presented “a crock.”
Lajoie, however, swayed on the issue. He first said he would not support it because it “could make the problem worse,” but then said he would vote in favor as a vote of confidence in Police Chief Brian O’Malley, who had initiated the ordinance.
According to police records, there are 180 registered sex offenders in Lewiston, a number that has grown by about 25 percent in a year. Police said the uptick may have been caused by other communities, like neighboring Auburn, passing similar ordinances, but Lewiston Detective William Brochu said only one or two known offenders have moved across the river since Auburn’s ordinance was passed in February.
However, O’Malley said, 112 of the offenders registered are not originally from Lewiston.
Councilor Jim Lysen said the ordinance was a “solution looking for a problem,” and that the council has not had enough time to make a decision.
He also cited a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine that was sent to city officials Tuesday that said “research shows no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.”
Residents Melissa Dunn and Michael Peterson spoke at length Tuesday with similar evidence. Peterson told councilors that the ordinance would add to Lewiston’s homelessness problem while also giving a “false sense of security to neighbors.”
They said the ordinance language plays into the “stranger danger” mentality, when statistics show that most sex crimes against children are committed by family members or people known to the victim.
Peterson also cited a decade-old report from Iowa that said after that state’s residency law took effect, “more sex offenders are eluding tracking by authorities.”
Others, including Councilor Shane Bouchard, said passing the ordinance comes down to an image issue. He asked if Lewiston wants to send the message that they’re not being tough on sex offenders and protecting children.
O’Malley pointed out that members of the press were present, and that their vote could impact how the city is portrayed.
Councilor Joline Beam later said, “I feel like my arm is being twisted,” in regard to the vote.
When the Auburn City Council passed the ordinance earlier this year, Police Chief Phillip Crowell said there were 52 sex offenders in the city, 25 of whom qualified for the residency restrictions.
According to the Lewiston council memo, “The purpose of the ordinance is to provide such further protective measures, while balancing the interests and residential needs of sex offenders.”
The City Council voted 5-2 to table the issue. A first reading on the ordinance will be held Oct. 17.
Did anyone point out to councilor Lajoie that some of those crock numbers come from the Federal Government
Can someone tell me where we’re at on Post Facto lawsuit , I keep waiting for an update, I donated $750.00 towards it,I’m hoping it’s going forward as planned. I really don’t want to move to Michigan, to be taken off the sex offender registry,I was sentenced in 1989……
Ricardo, I published an update on the Ex Post Facto lawsuit a couple months ago (https://floridaactioncommittee.org/legal-update-whats-going-ex-post-facto-suit/). We are waiting to see whether the Supreme Court picks up Snyder, because if they decide that case, many of our issues will already be decided for us by a court that has superior authority regardless. Within 2 months something will be in place regardless, as it’s moving forward – we just need to see which issues won’t be duplicitous.
what about the new internet identifier anything about that as months ago we were told to wait and FCAT could not say anything as to not let the state know whats going on. i would think if something was actually going to happen with it it would already have
John Doe, Please read our site regularly for updates and be sure you are signed up to receive our weekly updates. Just this week we wrote:
Also, affecting us directly; pending before the Federal Court in the Northern District of Florida are the parties Motions for Summary Judgment in the Internet Identifier case. A Motion for Summary Judgment is essentially a pleading to the Court stating that the other side doesn’t have a case and should lose. The filing of these motions is generally a matter of course and the Judge may grant one party’s Motion or deny both and wait until after trial to make their decision. You can read a copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fl-Internet-Identifier-P-Summary-Jgmt.pdf (along with the expert’s declarations) and the Defendant’s (filed yesterday) here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fl-Internet-Identifier-D-Summary-Jgmt.pdf.
If you check in to our (we are FAC, not FCAT) website every day or so and read the emails we send out weekly, you should be updated.
Thanks for the Reply, I’ve been watching and waiting to see when this will be over,tired of the 11:00 pm Home checks by the police, and all the Stupid rules,the legislation can come up with….
Welcome to reality, bureaucrats of good intentions but little knowledge. Maybe the light is starting to come on.
I wrote this letter to every Councilor in Lewiston, Maine:
I want to encourage you to do what’s right for Lewiston in regards to Sex Offender Residency Restrictions. Restricting where sex offenders can live is dangerous for these reasons.
1. We want them in our sight and in view of law enforcement and the community. Ever hear the phrase “keep your friends close and your enemies closer?”
2. We don’t want to prevent them from being able to live with family members or with those who will serve as support. Those people in their lives are our best protection against released felons.
3. We want to avoid forcing them into homelessness at all cost. A homeless sex offender is what makes our community dangerous. Designating where he sleeps at night does nothing. These people have cars correct? So unless where setting up 24/7 barricades, mandating where a sex offender can sleep at night as a means to protect the community is completely senseless.
4. We are assuming that these sex offender who are being let back into the community are not predatory, serial child rapists, correct? If that’s the kind of people we’re talking about, then we’re having the absolute wrong conversation in regards to where he sleeps at night.
5. Common sense says we need these folks busy, working, contributing to society and to never commit such a crime again – if we’re not careful we are going to make this an absolute impossibity for them and that is what is dangerous.
We trust you to make smart decisions which are best for our citizens especially regarding these hot button issues. That is the only image that matters!
Thank you for your good work!
One thing that will eventually happen (although it is incredibly sad that it has to) is that more and more people across the country (World?) will be added to the registry which means more and more families will be affected. When that happens people will learn the truth and hopefully the system will begin to crumble.
Registered citizens and their families should attend public hearings such as these, and talk to their elected officials when they can. If nothing else, that reminds them that sex offenders are human beings. I think it would be harder for them to pass some of these laws if they know they will adversely affect this person rather than just “those people.”