Take a few moments today to read Dr. Jill Levenson's 11/14/2009 op-ed over at the Miami Herald here.
(Many thanks to Eye on Miami (11/15/2009) for posting the following comments by a self-described child advocate who has yet to conduct one research-based study proving his claims).
(...)
"Book repeatedly waves his hand in dismissal of any empirical research suggesting that residential restrictions don't work. He misrepresents the research and their authors." And:
"Ron Book is an admirable and tireless advocate for children. But it is time to stop holding onto illusions about what we hope to be true. Continuing to steer resources toward policies that don't work promotes a false sense of security and is fiscally irresponsible. Book should work with other experts and use facts and research to advocate for sexual-abuse prevention policies that will achieve their goals. Don't children deserve that?"
Dr. Levenson, associate professor and sex crimes researcher at Lynn University and chairperson of Broward County's Sexual Offender Residence Task Force, also indicated:
(...)Book goes on to say that the studies ``conflict with data from Miami-Dade County showing absconding and crimes against children have gone down while compliance with sex-offender registration requirements has gone up.'' According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, child sexual-abuse rates nationwide have dropped 49 percent over the past 15 years.
That is good news, but it can't be attributed to residence restrictions. Sex-offender absconding has decreased in Florida, and that too is good news, but is a comparison of apples and oranges. Book has never cited a published study demonstrating the effectiveness of residence restrictions because none exists.
Ron Book is an admirable and tireless advocate for children. But it is time to stop holding onto illusions about what we hope to be true. Continuing to steer resources toward policies that don't work promotes a false sense of security and is fiscally irresponsible. Book should work with other experts and use facts and research to advocate for sexual-abuse prevention policies that will achieve their goals. Don't children deserve that?
(...)
Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability concluded that residential-restriction laws for sex offenders are ineffective in preventing repeat abuse.They suggested instead that child-safety zones, which prohibit registered sex offenders from loitering in places where children congregate, would be more successful in achieving the goal of keeping known sex offenders away from children. The legislative policy analyst who testified based the conclusions on published research demonstrating that residence restrictions do not prevent abuse and that an offender's proximity to schools and daycares is not linked to recidivism.
Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism (Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 4, 484-504 (2008).
3 comments:
Check out this item on my blog.
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/10/offender-watch-spreading-lies-about.html
So far, I have noticed there are 30 states using this, and 426 counties across the country, and so far, about 100 are using the incorrect statistic. I am still checking, and will have a spread sheet online once I've checked everything.
We need to contact Watch Systems, who make Offender Watch, and get a link to the study where they found to "50% of sex offenders re-offend!"
http://www.watchsystems.com/contact.php
What do you and others think?
so these people won't be able to go into a park they pay taxes to build and upkeep? Do they get a refund then?
"They suggested instead that child-safety zones, which prohibit registered sex offenders from loitering in places where children congregate, would be more successful in achieving the goal of keeping known sex offenders away from children....."
My problem with the above statement is WHO will decide what the definition of LOITERING will be.
I damn sure don't trust POLITICIAN'S to do it and the local police SHOULD NOT have the opportunity to do so either.
Even when trying to apply this version of punishment, it CAN AND SHOULD BE CHALLENGED.
There are many of us with wives and children that will still be harmed by this "Child-Safety" crap. This still does NOT solve the problem!
The ONLY way to solve this problem is integration back into society. This has been a proven method of reduced recidivism. NOT more banishment. It's punishment pure and simple!!!!
Post a Comment