Residence restrictions should apply for sex offenders because this particular crime has a high rate of recidivism. Offenders should not be able to live in neighborhoods that have high percentages of people that they are likely to offend such as children. Furthermore offenders should have to be registered so that people in the neighborhood are aware of their crimes.
I think restricting sex offenders to specific areas is a good thing. People should know what areas the offenders live in so they can be aware and on their guard. Also, it is good to place these individuals outside of environments that might make them want to commit another crime.
For the most part residence restrictions for sex offenders are a good thing, especially since people guilty of this sort of crime are well known to be repeat offenders. However, the same sort of restrictions and permanent data base entry does not apply to other crimes, so a case can be made against such practices.
DUI registry? No
Domestic Violence registry? No
Murder registry? No
Bad Parenting registry? No
Crooked Politician registry? No
Crooked Police registry? No
By all means ANY crime deserves justice however why is there a need to punish people twice for the same crime? Ok America lets even the planfield, put my ancestors slave masters family on the registry so I can find them. This is PURE slavery to me!
I support sex offender registries for the most part (and I think we should have murder registries as well), but the residency restrictions are too much. Study after study shows the residency restrictions do no good. When you ban offenders from so many areas, many will become homeless. Once offenders are homeless, how can law enforcement keep track of them? And, if sex offenders are homeless, might this make the thought of prison less scary for them (since prison is no worse than homelessness) and thus encourage them to reoffend. Also, if residency restrictions are established offenders have to move all the time (as schools, parks, etc might be built near where they live), and each time an offender moves that's an extra chance for an offender to forget to update their registration info. From what I understand, residency restrictions sometimes even cause an offender to try to create a new identity(literally with a new name, driver's license etc) for themselves in order to avoid the restrictions. If an offender is constantly having to move or the offender is creating a fake new identity to avoid the law, I'm sure that would make them more likely to reoffend. If an offender does want to reoffend, then a residency restriction won't stop them- they just have to drive the extra 1,000 feet to the school. Studies show that residency restrictions increase recividism if anything.
Something this important shouldn't be done by "gut feel." So let's look at what the actual results of residency restrictions have been. It ain't good. Residency restrictions force offenders into "clusters." These clusters are usually in rural areas far from jobs, treatment, and other services.
This causes offenders to become destabilized, untreated, and increases recidivism. In addition, many offenders go underground rather than face this banishment. Leaving them unable to re-integrate into society and worse not monitored.
Lastly, the rural societies often have the least amount of resources to deal with these "clusters."
It is not a matter of where a sex offender is limited to going but a matter of the offender following the restrictions placed on him/her. Even if a person is declared unable to travel to other neighborhoods, they can't always be stopped and so how effective is such a restriction? Another method must be determined.