Voices of the EXPERTS:

 The following excerpts are a compilation of quotes from experts in Constitutional Law, Law Enforcement, and Psychology, regarding the effectiveness of proximity (residency restrictions) and registration laws.

“Therapy works for these people. Let them be punished for their crimes, let them out and let them get on with their lives. Let them work. Let them have stable homes and families and let them live in peace. Harassing them, making them move and continually punishing them does far more harm than good. A sex offender in therapy with a job and a place to live is less of a threat than one that is constantly harassed.”
-- Robert Shilling-Detective/ Seattle, WA Crimes Against Children Division

“If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.”
-- Sgt. Bryce Smith, Sex Offender Registry Officer, Scott County, Iowa

“What you’re doing is pushing people more underground, pushing them away from treatment and pushing them away from monitoring, you’re really not improving the safety, but you are giving people a false sense of safety.”
-- John Gruber, Executive Director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

“We went from knowing where about 90 percent of them were. We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now...the law created an atmosphere that these individuals can’t find a place to live.”
-- Sheriff Don Zeller, Linn County, Iowa

“When I talk with friends, colleagues and neighbors regarding this law, the first reaction is that we must do everything we can to protect our children. Absolutely. But I am afraid this statute gives parents and communities a false sense of protection against crimes that most often occur not at school bus stops, but where children are in the greatest danger: their own homes.”
-- J. Tom Morgan, Former DeKalb County DA

“It may be time to do away with sex offender registration laws altogether. At the very least, the federal government should commission research to study the laws’ effectiveness. In the meantime, several changes should be made. States should differentiate between serious and non-serious offenders and only require registration of the most serious offenders. Next, public access to online sites should be dismantled, and registries should be kept at the local police stations. This would provide at least a minimal screening process to those seeking inquiries… Lastly, we should experiment with restorative justice models such as what has happened in Canada where sex offenders moving into a community meet with members of the community in a public forum facilitated by a trained mediator. This type of forum gives the community an opportunity to meet the offender face to face and express their concerns and for the offender to show the community that he is earnestly seeking to change his life.”
-- Rachel King, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law, Washington, D.C.

“Though laudable in their intent, there is little evidence that recently enacted housing policies achieve their stated goals of reducing recidivistic sexual violence. In fact, there is little research at all evaluating the effectiveness of these policies. Furthermore, these policies are not evidence-based in their development or implementation, as they tend to capture the widely heterogeneous group of sex offenders rather than utilize risk assessment technology to identify those who pose a high danger to public safety.”
-- Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Services, Lynn University

“The recent wave of sex offender legislation is based upon emotion and myths about sex offenders which are not supported by valid research or evidence. Legislation in this area should be based upon facts and valid evidence. The NACDL encourages criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and legislators to oppose legislation based upon myth and public emotion. In doing so we can ensure both public safety and due process.”
-- Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

“I would rather have someone who has committed a sex offense be going to work every day, come home tired, have a sense of well-being that comes from having a regular paycheck and a safe home, as opposed to having a sex offender who has a lot of free time on his hands.”
-- Richard Hamill, President of the New York State Alliance of Sex Offender Service Providers

“The current law applies to too many offenders and I spend ‘way, way too much of my time’ trying to enforce it, I believe less than 10% of the state's 8,000 convicted sex offenders to be high-risk and is lobbying lawmakers to focus on them”
-- Sgt. Gary Stansill, Tulsa Police Department, Sex-crimes Unit

“What we're doing with sexual predator laws is creating or enlarging an exception to those constraints. We're saying the government can take away people's liberty ... based on a prediction that somebody might be dangerous in the future.”
-- Eric Janus, Vice Dean, William Mitchell College of Law

“The more cities choose to install these ordinances, the more ex-offenders will become an exile class, sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they're allowed to reintegrate into society, to get a job, to establish stable roots, a support network, a home, by forcing these people to be refugees, politicians are essentially making their own citizens less safe.”
-- William Buckman, defense attorney and national sex offender policy expert

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don't see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend.”
-- Corwin R. Ritchie, Iowa County Attorneys Association

“We're not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.”
-- Carolyn Atwell-Davis, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children