In recent Legislative Sessions, we’ve added intention exposure to HIV, and first- and second-degree human trafficking to our list of sex crimes. HIV infectors and human traffickers have to register as sex offenders, just like diddlers and other creeps. But interestingly, we haven’t added those crimes to the list of offenses a sex offender can commit to be deemed a recidivist sex offender. That’s important, because recidivist sex offenders are forbidden from applying for exemptions to our restrictions on where sex offenders can live and loiter.
Due to that oversight, a person convicted twice for child porn can’t apply for an exemption to the sex offender no-fly zones, but a person convicted twice for human trafficking can. I don’t think every sensible judge would use her statutory discretion to say, “No way!” but we shouldn’t let the law leave loopholes like that.
One of Jason Ravnsborg’s staffers evidently noticed this loophole and handed him this Senate Bill 47 to recommend to the Legislature. SB 47 (if you can read it on your screen) revises the “commnunity safety zone” exemption list so that instead of defining recidivist sex offenders as folks who are convicted or adjudicated of more than one sex crime listed in subdivisions 1–19 of the sex crimes statute, the definition points to the entire list. Now when legislators add new sex crimes to the list (as SB 47 does, making #23 “felony use or dissemination of visual recording or photographic device without consent and with intent to self-gratify, harass or embarrass as set forth in § 22-21-4“), they don’t have to remember to update the recidivist definition. That’s a nice logical change based on careful reading of statute… which is why I’m pretty sure it came from a Ravnsborg staffer, not the guy twiddling his thumbs in the big office.
Looks lik Jason’s mom was late for work when she dressed him for school.
I have often wondered if there are any objective studies that show the risk of offending is greater within
This is the statutory definition of a “Community safety zone” set out at SDCL
22-24B-22(1).
Or is this possibly just another tool to feed the ever active amygdala of those that see imaginary dangerous shadows everywhere. While perhaps it is understandable to lack sympathy or empathy for anyone convicted of any crime, including sex crimes, this restriction on where they can live after paying whatever debt they owe to society also affects their loved ones, including spouse and children, who are innocent of any wrong doing. And how many people who want to reoffend will refrain from doing do unless they can find a victim within 500 feet of a particular location?
Obviously it is a great priority to protect our children. Yet, absent some meaningful factual basis for such laws, which I have yet to see or discover, this seems in reality to be just another law that seems unrelated to that objective. Am I wrong?
It’s what the British call the Prime Minister David Lloyd George look.
BCB’s question is valid. ” is this possibly just another tool to feed the ever active amygdala of those that see imaginary dangerous shadows everywhere.” This law can also be used by police to manipulate a jury. In this morning’s San Francisco Chronicle an article notes how the CA Supreme Court overturned a conviction of a man who was illegally in possession of a gun within the school zone. He got a highly increased sentence because it. Turns out the jury and judge weren’t informed that the school was a yoga studio.
Could school bus drivers and taxis be labeled human traffickers? Isn’t that what they do?
BCB, I think it has as much to do with limiting the offender’s visual or auditory exposure to children. Either could serve as a trigger or temptation. It’s similar to telling an alcoholic they ought to stay out of a bar and keep the booze out of their house.
Debbo, if factual studies of an offender’s triggers bears such a theory out, then the policy would make more sense. Have you seen any non-speculative factual reports that support the theory?
Lloyd geo loved my fa ah a ther, my father loved Lloyd geo, Lloyd geo loved my blaz blah blah :)
in todays sdpb interview lorie walsh ah ah ah didn’t ask wm barr, I mean Jason, about the $115,000 attys fees, Cory’s victory, and constitutionally written legislation Kristi commanded,
but he did encourage all comers to submit other proposed legislation to his illustrious staff of 100 or so lawyers to assure all is legal and constitutional!
BCB, I’ve heard that from psychological types for years. I have friends who are psychologists, social workers, counselors, etc. I don’t have a link to a particular study however.
William Barr, who can tie a Windsor, … Lev Parnas, likely trying to avoid jail, tells Rachel Maddow Trump was in on Ukraine extorsion attempt he is presently being tried for impeachment, with our Republican Atty General. THIS, Cory, is why you must be very careful of cuff links and tie clips that Jim Leach certainly does NOT wear. A great mentor for you, this SD “activist” lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFNfFLxYWX0
Jason doesn’t have to do more than twiddle, along with Kristi our camo capped gun enthusiast in chief. Along with AG Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell and John Thune, his protégé, are fully intending on taking away not only our state initiative/referral right, but also our right to vote in 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/politics/election-security-mitch-mcconnell.html
Meanwhile, public tweeter in chief Republican Pres Trump wants instead a private, closed impeachment trial. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/trump-impeachment-senate.html
For an interesting analysis of abusers, their motivations and their victims, here is some research findings:
https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch3_typology.html
I did not read the entire piece, but from what I did read and skim, I saw nothing that would confirm the idea that a 500 foot buffer from the listed locations would make any difference in the motivation of any of the criminals classified as “sex offenders” listed in the current 22 statutory categories linked by Cory, nor the two subjects of this proposed amendment, HIV infectors and human traffickers. With all due respect to Debbo’s friends who are psychological types, it still appears that this type of legislation accomplishes little other than giving some well meaning legislators and members of the public a false sense of security.
While a even a false feeling of security might feel warm and fuzzy, is a false sense of security worth the cost of the harm it does to the families of former perpetrators?
BCB, Porter, fair point. If the law makes sense, we shouldn’t have loopholes in it for particularly vile and dangerous characters like human traffickers (or would it be better to call them sex slave dealers, to avoid verbal mischief like Mike’s? :-) ). But does the law make sense? Does it reduce risk?
Debbo makes a fair point that staying away from places with lots of children could limit offenders’ exposure to triggers and temptation. But do we have laws prohibiting alcoholics from living near bars or breweries? Do we prohibit meth makers from living near drug stores? Do we prohibit bank robbers from living near banks?
Bear, the American Bar Association offers this research:
That research appears to support Bear’s point that sex offender residence restrictions don’t stop crime. But sex offender laws exist in a black hole that typical political perhaps can never solve. Show me the candidate who will run on repealing residency restrictions and registries for pedophiles. If a candidate states that position, all his opponent will do for the rest of the campaign is run ads superimposing the candidate’s face (perhaps a goofy snap of the candidate smiling and giving a thumbs up with some children) on the image of some creepy dude lurking about a playground. 20-point loss for the repeal advocate right there.
Is there any way to package a repeal of residency restrictions so that lawmakers would vote for it? Would we have to couple such a repeal with some new replacement restriction that shows evidence of working?
Cory, thanks for the ABA research findings. These findings are certainly worth considering if we want to avoid passing or retaining ineffective laws that only waste tax dollars, harm innocent people such as actual rehabilitated offenders, their children and spouses, but protect no one.
Unfortunately, however, your political analysis seems accurate, especially in both South Dakota politics and the Trump era when voters’ emotions can be so readily manipulated by false stories designed to cause fear and hostility. Inducing these natural emotional responses, in place of empathy and rational thought, has become a popular and effective strategy for winning elections. And in the minds of many, working to win elections is a much higher priority than working to make a positive difference in the lives of the public.
Well BCB and Cory, I guess you’re right and I’m wrong. Good researching.
I’ve been thinking about this and I’m unsatisfied with it. Why then, do the practitioners urge those people to try to avoid being around children? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Anyone who has a problem behavior is advised to avoid situations that are a part of it, where possible. If a woman is quitting smoking, she doesn’t want to hang around people who are smoking. If a married man struggles with fidelity, he’s told he needs to stay off dating sites.
I can’t think of one problem behavior where that isn’t the case, except OCD or behaviors that involve one’s self, like eating disorders, hair pulling and a few similar. Why would this be the only one that is different? Could it be that sex crimes against children are so intractable that it makes no difference?
I’m going to ask around to satisfy my own curiosity.