Agenda Packets - 2022/07/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 of 10 releases represent 1.6% of the 491 people released in 2014. These results contradict the need and efficacy of the Taylors Falls’ ordinance as well as the ordinances in the other communities who followed suit. In April 2007, the Minnesota Department of Corrections released a study entitled: Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism.8 The study examined “the potential deterrent effect of residency restrictions by analyzing the sexual reoffense patterns of the 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were re-incarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006” (p. 1). The 244 recidivists represented 7% of the 3,166 offenders who were actually released during this period. This means that 93% did not commit any new sexual crimes. The study concluded: “Of the few offenders who directly contacted a juvenile victim within close proximity of their residence, none did so near a school, park, playground or other location where children are normally present. Thus, not one of the 224 offenses would likely have been affected by residency restrictions” (p. 24). Moreover, of the 7% who reoffended, 79% victimized someone they knew. Consequently, the study also stated, “The results clearly indicated that what matters with respect to sexual recidivism is not residential proximity, but rather social or relationship proximity…more than half (N = 113) of the 224 cases were “collateral contact” offenses in that they involved offenders who gained access to their victims through another person, typically an adult. For example, one of the most common victim-offender relationships found in this study was that of a male offender developing a romantic relationship with a woman who has children.” Similarly, Zandbergen, Levenson, and Hart (2010)9 examined a sample of 330 sex offenders in Florida. They compared recidivists and non-recidivists who lived close to schools or daycare centers. They found that those who lived within 1,000, 1,500, or 2,500 feet of schools or daycare centers did not reoffend more frequently than those who lived farther away. On June 21, 2013, The Kansas Department of Corrections published a report entitled: Sex Offender Housing Restrictions.10 The report lists 20 findings of research from reviewing implementation of housing restrictions for sex offenders in multiple states. Briefly, findings include: 1) research demonstrates that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and sex offenses against children; 2) residency restrictions have a damaging effect on the offender registry; 3) the lack of protective efficacy does not justify the cost of enforcement, and 4) the number of offenders unaccounted for doubled after the law went into effect. Current research indicates that communities in Minnesota and throughout the country are spending money and diverting human resources to create and enforce laws that are not only ineffective, but may result in serious unintended negative consequences. To enhance the safety of our children and all community members, evidenced-based and effective laws need to be promulgated. For this to occur, “a research-based understanding of individuals who commit sex crimes must be accepted. In part, this