Agenda Packets - 2022/07/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Minnesota Chapter www.mnatsa.org Page 1 of 10 Residency Restrictions for Sexual Offenders in Minnesota: False Perceptions for Community Safety By Richard Weinberger, M.S.E., L.P. Sexuality includes our sexual orientation, our preferences, our gender, and our identity. It affects the way we express ourselves and how and with whom we interact. It is because of these realities that sex crimes strike powerfully at our core and elicit such revulsion. This emotional reaction motivates political leaders to create and pass laws that have the intent to protect individuals, especially women and children, from such potentially devastating crimes. Sex offender residency restriction ordinances are one such type of law. They impose artificial distances that individuals convicted of sex crimes or who are on a predatory offender registry must live from a designated location. Nationwide, designated locations include parks, daycares, playgrounds, schools, recreation centers, bus stops or school bus stops, and anyplace where minors congregate; distances range from 500 to 2500 feet. Sometimes, these laws are limited to those individuals deemed most likely to reoffend. Sometimes, they are broad sweeping and affect anyone convicted of a sex crime. The rationale for residency restriction laws is to prevent or lessen the chance of a previously convicted offender from reoffending by increasing distance between the offender and a possible victim. Unfortunately, sometimes what first appears to be a rational safeguard is not only ineffective, but might actually serve to defeat the objective it is intended to achieve. Summary Residency or zone restrictions for individuals with sexual offences have become increasingly popular in recent years, but such restrictions tend to be rooted in fear and anger, rather than informed public policy. “There is no research to support residence restrictions as effective in reducing sexual recidivism.”1 The Minnesota Department of Corrections concluded in one study that, “during the past 16 years, not one sex offender released from a MCF (Minnesota Correctional Facility) has been re - incarcerated for a sex offense in which he made contact with a juvenile victim near a school, park, or daycare center close to his home.”2 Because people typically choose to live close to family, friends, or employment, and establishing social stability for offenders reduces recidivism, residency restrictions may be counterproductive.1 “Research on residency restrictions demonstrate no deterrence effect.”3