Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    Inside Rotterdam  ›   Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 8 Guests

  This thread currently has 140,258 views. |
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
Admin
June 16, 2007, 6:37pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Laws limiting housing get OK Sex offenders in banned areas may face Oct. 1 eviction

BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

   The Schenectady County Legislature Tuesday night approved the most restrictive residency restriction laws against sex offenders in the Capital Region, including a provision that will force them to leave their homes or apartments by Oct. 1 or face eviction.
   The New York Civil Liberties Union called the eviction provision “clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional,” said Director Melanie Trimble.
   “My organization is considering all of its options in response to the county’s passing this draconian legislation, including legal action,” she said.
   The county laws make it a misdemeanor for any convicted sex offender, regardless of the severity of their crime, to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The legislation, according to town supervisors, would force sex offenders to move to their municipalities.
   The laws also empower the county to remove registered sex offenders who have not moved out of the exclusion zones by Oct 1.
   Trimble said the county “cannot force people out of their houses when they have served their time and they have not reoffended. Without grandfathering these people in, it will not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
   County Legislator Edward Kosiur, D-Schenectady, proposed the laws, saying convicted sex offenders remain a threat to society even after they’ve served their time. Kosiur is using the residency restriction laws as a platform for his pending run for the 105th Assembly District seat, which Assemblyman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, is expected to vacate June 18.
   Kosiur said if elected to the Assembly he would push for a statewide law to provide uniform residency restrictions for sex offenders.
   “Everything is about the offender, offender, offender. What about the victims? The majority of them are under 13, and they will have to live with this all their lives,” Kosiur said. “I’m embarrassed anyone would think this legislation is being done for political gain. This is for the children.”
   The county Legislature approved both laws by 11-3 votes, with Democrats Karen Johnson of Schenectady and Michael Eidens of Niskayuna breaking ranks with their caucus to join Republican Carolina Lazzari of Rotterdam in voting no.
   Eidens, a former Schenectady County Court judge, said the laws “were short-sighted and bad policy” that “would do nothing in my judgment to protect our children and will create a even greater risk.”
   He said the laws would force sex offenders to go underground to find housing in communities that ban them, a violation of the state’s Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law requires anyone on parole or probation or imprisoned for a sex offense on or after Jan. 21, 1996, to register with the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.
   Minority Leader Robert Farley, R-Glenville, said the proposed laws do not go far enough. He advocated the creation of buffer zones extending beyond 2,000 feet to prevent sex offenders from moving into rural areas that contain few child-related facilities.
   “I don’t want these people in our county,” Farley said.
   More than 24 people spoke during public hearings on the laws, with opinions divided almost evenly for and against.
   “I believe this legislation was crafted for political gain and not to keep anyone safe, and when it is crafted for political gain that is immoral,” said Anita Paul.
   Glenville Town Supervisor Frank Quinn said the county’s five town supervisors opposed the proposed laws. He said county legislators never consulted with the supervisors and said the laws raised too many issues requiring clarification. He urged the Legislature to delay passage until after conducting additional research on the laws’ effects.
   County Attorney Chris Gardner said the county is not trying to punish sex offenders. “I’m looking at the crime and the fact there should be longer prison sentences for these crimes. We should not be foisting these individuals back into the mainstream of society where they can have other victims,” he said. “We have some real issues with protecting our citizens. The state has to act comprehensively on the issue and with how we criminally prosecute sex offenders.”
   Schenectady County’s laws will affect people who have been convicted of hate crimes and terrorism; of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse, both misdemeanors; of unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping when it involves minors; of incest; of patronizing a prostitute age 14 or younger; of promoting prostitution of a person younger than age 16; of disseminating indecent material to minors; of forcible touching and sexual abuse of minors, both misdemeanors; of unlawful surveillance; and of rape, sodomy and other violent sex crimes.  
  
Logged
Private Message
Admin
June 16, 2007, 7:41pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Uproar in Scotia over sex offender is justified
L.J. CULLEN Scotia

  I am writing to express my outrage over the whole sex offender in Scotia nonsense. Plain and simple, this boy did more than “make a mistake,” as some seem to think. He has changed the lives of three innocent children forever.
   They were not offered a second chance. The appalling part is, he received almost no punishment. He is out living among our children! He has to register as a Level 3 sex offender. By definition, that means he is more likely to repeat his offense. Why is he permitted to walk, work, shop and live with our children nearby?
   Some who write in are not parents themselves and maybe don’t have the maturity level to understand the effect of what Richard Matthews has done. So, yes — I strongly believe that sex offenders should not be anywhere near places that children are. And while I don’t live on Washington Avenue, I do live in the village and my children have friends that live there. And no, my kids are not permitted to play at those friends’ houses because of Richard Matthews. I am not willing to have my children at risk so he may live without repercussions to his actions.
   How is he to know what he did was wrong unless he is faced with a penalty? What does he think? Doesn’t he see the uproar he is causing? The yellow tape on the trees? Don’t you see that children no longer play outside as much? I really don’t care that he was a soccer player, a Boy Scout, a friend. He has ruined the lives of three children and is at risk to do it again.
  
  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 1 -
Admin
June 16, 2007, 9:35pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
County lawmakers fear-mongering with sex offender law

   The proposal before the Schenectady County Legislature that will not allow convicted sex offenders to reside within 2,000 feet of parks, schools and daycare centers is scheduled for a vote tonight. Most sex offenders cannot enter or loiter near parks or schools already, or they face violation of their parole or probation. So what is the point? Is anyone safer?
   The crazy thing about this proposal is that when bedtime rolls around, the parks, schools and day-care centers are closed. For about 16 hours of the day, most of these offenders can drive or walk near these same places. But when they are closed and no children are likely to be near them, the county wants to insist that sex offenders live at least 2,000 feet away. It makes little sense unless you are peddling fear and prejudice or running for office without a record of achievement. And because I know the legislators have a record of economic revival and have voted to increase staffing in the social services area to handle the case of reported child abuse, I have to fall back to the fearmongering rationale.
   Getting votes at election time is not a crime, but it is a shame when legislators forget the Constitution that they take an oath to protect and rush to pass laws that make a difficult situation worse. Sex offenders who are in a stable program of recovery, which includes employment, counseling and conditions of regaining some position in society, are less of a threat to public safety. Forcing them to move interrupts these conditions and does not accomplish the stated goals of the law.
   Advocates claim to be for the laws because they “want the children to be safe.” If this were true, one would think that convicted drug dealers, prostitutes and others would be kept away as well. The idea for a new law is bad, likely unconstitutional, and may cost the taxpayers a great deal in penalties if the courts should rule it invalid.
   WILL SEYSE
   Scotia  


  
  
  

Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 -
Admin
June 16, 2007, 9:37pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
Sex crime
hysteria still
what it is

   Further to my report the other day about the recidivism rates of people who have committed sex offenses, I am grateful to the reader who forwarded to me a document from the Center for Sex Offender Management, which is a joint project of the State Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections.
   The document cites a number of studies that found recidivism rates well above those found by the U.S. Department of Justice, the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the state Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, which were the sources that I used.
   The rates covered a great range — from as low as 6 percent to as high as 53 percent, depending on whether the studiers counted new offenses of any kind or only new sex offenses (I referred in my summary only to new sex offenses), how long a period of time the former offenders were tracked, and other factors that I could not determine but presumably including how many people were studied.
   Even allowing for different methodologies, different sample sizes, different time periods of the studies, I still don’t know how to reconcile the differences. They seem to me too large to be attributable to random variation.
   The Justice Department, for example, found that only 3 percent of those who had molested children were rearrested for new sex crimes against children within three years of their release from prison, which is obviously a very low rate. A meta-analysis cited in this other document found a 13 percent rate for new sex offenses of any kind, not just against children, after a four-to-five-year period, which is not inconsistent with the first finding, but still seems a bit of a reach.
   Yet another study found that over a 25-year period people who once molested children have a very high rate of 52 percent of being arrested for new sex offenses (though not necessarily against children).
   None of these studies, unfortunately, measure exactly the same things.
   And none of them, to my mind, justify the kind of hysteria that seems to be sweeping the country and that is leading to such absurdities as limiting where people who once committed sex offenses may live — as if the location of a person’s residence is a crucial element in the commission of crimes. If that were so, we would be wise not to let someone who once robbed a bank live within 1,000 feet of a bank, or someone who once stole a car live within 1,000 feet of a parking lot.
   That is the kind of reasoning, or un-reasoning, that motivates local political bodies to enact legislation that bars people who once committed sex offenses from living within so many feet of schools or playgrounds.
   Specifically, it’s the kind of unreasoning that motivates the Schenectady County Legislature to bar former sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a “public or private elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, public park, public playground, public swimming pool, public or private youth center,” which means anywhere in any populated part of the county, and which the Schenectady County Legislature is poised to do tonight.
   You can viciously beat someone half to death, ladies and gentlemen, get sentenced to five or 10 years in prison, do your time, get out and live wherever you want. You don’t get listed on a state registry of explosively violent individuals who have to be guarded against. Nobody can look you up on the Internet, see your photo, your criminal record, and a red arrow on a map showing exactly where you live.
   Nobody cares what the recidivism rate is for explosively violent individuals, and nobody passes legislation limiting where they can live.
TERMINOLOGY
   Please note my crafty use of the term “people who have committed sex offenses,” as opposed to “sex offenders,” which is something I just thought of.
   You know how it has become politically correct to say “persons with disabilities” rather than “the disabled” and so forth? The idea being that the personhood comes first and the limiting condition second. The disability should not be seen as the central fact of a person’s existence, which is supposedly implied when we talk about “the disabled,” “the blind,” or “the schizophrenic.”
   I don’t necessarily endorse that view, but let’s at least be consistent.
   How readily we talk about “sex offenders,” as if that were a permanent and central fact of a person’s being, no matter how long ago the offense might have occurred, no matter what kind of counseling or therapy the former offender might have gone through to overcome his unacceptable urges, no matter what effort he has made to live straight or for how long.
   In the speech of almost everyone, including especially politicians, those people are “sex offenders” first, foremost and forever. Which we don’t do with pickpockets, drunk drivers, or even murderers.
   Only with people who have committed sex crimes do we insist on labeling them for life, as if they are unchangeable, even though recidivisim rates, whether you accept the lowest or the highest, show otherwise.
   I will be done with this subject when we are done with the hysteria and with the ridiculous laws the hysteria produces, which I don’t expect will be anytime soon.
ONE FOR DEANGELIS
   Score one for Patricia DeAngelis, in her final year as district attorney of Rensselaer County. A sex-crime conviction in which she had an indirect hand has been restored by an appeals court after having been overturned by the original trial court.
   The overturning, in January of last year, was one of a string of defeats she suffered, which surely contributed to her not being a candidate for re-election this year. The case involved an unemployed 33-year-old man in the city of Rensselaer by the name of Burton J. Hunter who allegedly had forcible sex in his apartment with a 17-year-old girl of his acquaintance. He claimed the sex was consensual.
   The crucial matter was that after accusing Hunter and just a few weeks before Hunter’s trial was to begin, the girl accused another man in Schenectady County of a similar assault, which might possibly have cast doubt on her credibility had a jury known about it. But the Rensselaer County district attorney’s office, though aware of the second charge, didn’t tell the defense about it.
   This seemed to me like a minor matter, since the second accused man ultimately pleaded guilty, and I said so at the time. The trial judge, Patrick McGrath, thought differently. He thought the second accusation might have led the jury to doubt the girl’s entire testimony, so when the matter was brought to his attention, he reversed the conviction.
   Last week the Appellate Divison of state Supreme Court overruled him.
   DeAngelis did not prosecute the case. An associate of hers did, at a time when she was an assistant district attorney, back in November 2002, but she did present the case to a grand jury.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 -
Admin
June 16, 2007, 9:39pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Laws limiting housing get OK Sex offenders in banned areas may face Oct. 1 eviction

BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

   The Schenectady County Legislature Tuesday night approved the most restrictive residency restriction laws against sex offenders in the Capital Region, including a provision that will force them to leave their homes or apartments by Oct. 1 or face eviction.
   The New York Civil Liberties Union called the eviction provision “clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional,” said Director Melanie Trimble.
   “My organization is considering all of its options in response to the county’s passing this draconian legislation, including legal action,” she said.
   The county laws make it a misdemeanor for any convicted sex offender, regardless of the severity of their crime, to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The legislation, according to town supervisors, would force sex offenders to move to their municipalities.
   The laws also empower the county to remove registered sex offenders who have not moved out of the exclusion zones by Oct 1.
   Trimble said the county “cannot force people out of their houses when they have served their time and they have not reoffended. Without grandfathering these people in, it will not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
   County Legislator Edward Kosiur, D-Schenectady, proposed the laws, saying convicted sex offenders remain a threat to society even after they’ve served their time. Kosiur is using the residency restriction laws as a platform for his pending run for the 105th Assembly District seat, which Assemblyman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, is expected to vacate June 18.
   Kosiur said if elected to the Assembly he would push for a statewide law to provide uniform residency restrictions for sex offenders.
   “Everything is about the offender, offender, offender. What about the victims? The majority of them are under 13, and they will have to live with this all their lives,” Kosiur said. “I’m embarrassed anyone would think this legislation is being done for political gain. This is for the children.”
   The county Legislature approved both laws by 11-3 votes, with Democrats Karen Johnson of Schenectady and Michael Eidens of Niskayuna breaking ranks with their caucus to join Republican Carolina Lazzari of Rotterdam in voting no.
   Eidens, a former Schenectady County Court judge, said the laws “were short-sighted and bad policy” that “would do nothing in my judgment to protect our children and will create a even greater risk.”
   He said the laws would force sex offenders to go underground to find housing in communities that ban them, a violation of the state’s Megan’s Law. Megan’s Law requires anyone on parole or probation or imprisoned for a sex offense on or after Jan. 21, 1996, to register with the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.
   Minority Leader Robert Farley, R-Glenville, said the proposed laws do not go far enough. He advocated the creation of buffer zones extending beyond 2,000 feet to prevent sex offenders from moving into rural areas that contain few child-related facilities.
   “I don’t want these people in our county,” Farley said.
   More than 24 people spoke during public hearings on the laws, with opinions divided almost evenly for and against.
   “I believe this legislation was crafted for political gain and not to keep anyone safe, and when it is crafted for political gain that is immoral,” said Anita Paul.
   Glenville Town Supervisor Frank Quinn said the county’s five town supervisors opposed the proposed laws. He said county legislators never consulted with the supervisors and said the laws raised too many issues requiring clarification. He urged the Legislature to delay passage until after conducting additional research on the laws’ effects.
   County Attorney Chris Gardner said the county is not trying to punish sex offenders. “I’m looking at the crime and the fact there should be longer prison sentences for these crimes. We should not be foisting these individuals back into the mainstream of society where they can have other victims,” he said. “We have some real issues with protecting our citizens. The state has to act comprehensively on the issue and with how we criminally prosecute sex offenders.”
   Schenectady County’s laws will affect people who have been convicted of hate crimes and terrorism; of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse, both misdemeanors; of unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping when it involves minors; of incest; of patronizing a prostitute age 14 or younger; of promoting prostitution of a person younger than age 16; of disseminating indecent material to minors; of forcible touching and sexual abuse of minors, both misdemeanors; of unlawful surveillance; and of rape, sodomy and other violent sex crimes.  


  
  
  

Logged
Private Message Reply: 4 -
Admin
June 16, 2007, 9:51pm Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
EDITORIALS
Lousy laws on sex offenders


   Tuesday was a sad day for Schenectady as the county Legislature adopted mindless legislation that not only plays to public hysteria about sex offenders, but promotes it. Pandering is the only word for that, and some of these lawmakers — including the legislation’s main sponsor, Ed Kosiur, who is running for state Assembly, and Bob Farley, who wanted to make this already-Draconian measure even tougher — have shown themselves to be very good at it.
   The two laws — one making it a misdemeanor for sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, daycare centers and other places kids congregate; the other calling for eviction, starting Oct. 1, of any who do — are mindless because they don’t take into consideration the threat posed by different types of offenders, or the fact that their recidivism rates are significantly lower than the average rate for other criminals. They don’t even protect children, because although sex offenders may not be able to live in a particular area, there’s nothing preventing them from going there. They also act as if the biggest threat is some stranger snatching and molesting a child, when in fact the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by a friend, relative or acquaintance of the victim.
   In fact, the legislation may make the problem worse by denying sex offenders the jobs, therapy and other social support they need to avoid repeating, and by driving them underground where authorities cannot keep a close eye on them.
   Some of these issues would have been brought out if the lawmakers had consulted professionals in the field, law enforcement officials, town supervisors (all five in the county were opposed), etc., but as the Rev. Jim Murphy, a critic of the legislation, made clear Tuesday night, they did not. They did this entirely on their own. And it’s nothing to be proud of.  



  
  
  

Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 -
Admin
June 17, 2007, 5:15am Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Why single out sex offenders for registration?

   It seems that there are strong views on both sides of the “registered sex offender” debate and both have valid arguments to support their opinions. People want sex offenders either removed some distance from any area where children play, learn or may congregate (which is anywhere) or to be allowed to live where they choose, arguing that they have served their time and have paid their debt to society the same as any other felon released from prison.
   I can certainly see the validity of both sides of this issue, but I always seem to come back to the same frame of mind whenever I think about this from the perspective of one, like myself, who does not have children. There are much worse felons who could be living in our neighborhoods than sex offenders, and ones who are a threat to more than our children. And we would never know it if they did.
   According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, “of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5 percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years, 46.9 percent were reconvicted, and 25.4 percent resentenced to prison for a new crime.” Those “released” include not only sex offenders, but also rapists, arsonists, burglars, armed robbers, murderers and the whole gamut of felony convicts. Also, according to the Bureau, “sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison — 5.3 percent of sex offenders vs. 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.” So, it seems that sex offenders have a relatively large recidivism rate (though still only about five out of 100) of a similar crime. But, more importantly, it says that “sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense — 43 percent of sex offenders vs. 68 percent of non-sex offenders.”
   To me, this says, first, although there is a high likelihood that after release, sex offenders may commit the same crime again, records show that the incidence of their committing any crime at all after release is less than other types of criminals. Secondly, there is an even higher likelihood that persons released after incarceration for crimes other than sex offenses will commit another crime, this time entirely different from the one they originally perpetrated. While sex offenders may offend again, armed robbers may rape. Thieves may thieve again or resort to assault, or murder. Arsonists may steal. Something in their brains is motivating them to commit a crime again, even a different one.
   We are all potential targets of these felons — not just our children. It does not seem fair to me that only sex offenders need to register rather than all felons. I would like to know when convicted felons live near me. But that would be against their privacy. What happened to the privacy of sex offenders? We should either register every felon or none.
   DAVE HART
   Cohoes  



  
  
  

Logged
Private Message Reply: 6 -
senders
June 17, 2007, 11:26am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
29,331
Reputation
70.97%
Reputation Score
+22 / -9
Time Online
155 days 8 hours 34 minutes
I hope Rotterdam has enough parks and schools.....OH, and let me know when the witch hunt is supposed to start.....I'll get my number tatooed on my forearm so I have the "proper mark"........


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 7 -
Admin
June 18, 2007, 4:01am Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Kosiur ‘homework’ was to count the votes

   In regard to Mr. [County Legislator Edward] Kosiur’s interview on the 11 p.m. news on June 12, I have much to say, and I’m going to say it in as few words as possible.
   First of all, I am not a Democrat and never have been. I am a mugwump — a person who was formerly a Republican and no longer is. I have been that way since the Reagan administration, and I might say that I never will be a Republican again.
   Mr. Kosiur said in the interview that he had done his homework, and I’m sure he has. He has decided to take all the sex offenders out of the part of his district that has the most votes and send them out to us country bumpkins. He is supposed to represent the entire district — not just the portion of the district that has the most votes in it. Mr. Kosiur is not capable of representing any district as an assemblyman or as any other elected official.
   Shame on the Democrats for backing him.
   WILLIAM MASSOTH
   Pattersonville
Logged
Private Message Reply: 8 -
bumblethru
June 18, 2007, 11:08am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,800
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
138 days 23 hours 32 minutes
I think that Mr. Kosiur should be shamed of himself. He placed his political personal political/party gain on the backs of children!!!

The dems are using fear campaigning at a domestic level...eg:sex offender, health care etc...

The reps are using frear campaigning at the national/world level...eg:terrorism, oil, social security etc...

Shame on them both!


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 9 -
Admin
June 19, 2007, 6:03am Report to Moderator
Board Moderator
Posts
18,476
Reputation
64.00%
Reputation Score
+16 / -9
Time Online
208 days 20 minutes
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
With new ban, sex offender
can’t move!
  

Here is a little wrinkle in Schenectady County’s new residency restrictions on former sex offenders.
   One of the intended consequences of the recently passed law was to force a 21-year-old former offender by the name of Richard Matthews to move off Washington Road in Scotia, where he is the guest of Will Seyse, former mayor of the village.
   Some of the neighbors on that street have expressed dismay — panic, I might almost say — at living in proximity to someone officially classified as Level 3, which is the most serious ranking on the state Sex Offender Registry, and have wrapped their shrubs in yellow caution tape as a visible sign of their displeasure.
   Well, as a result of this new law, which bars registered offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, day care centers and so forth, Richard Matthews now can’t move! That’s right, he’s stuck where he is, on Washington Road.
   Why?
   Because the new law allows registered offenders to stay where they are until Oct.1 but, effective immediately, bars them from moving into restricted zones. Those zones have not been mapped but probably make up all of Schenectady County except for the more remote hills and dales of Duanesburg and Princetown.
   Matthews tells me he was ready to move out of the Seyses’ residence because of the stress of living with all the hostility and was actually looking for an apartment on Jay Street, in the heart of downtown Schenectady, where he works, but was told by his probation officer that such a move would be verboten. Of course. Jay Street must be within 2,000 feet of more than one forbidden facility.
   He can stay where he is, but he can’t move anyplace else, at least no place realistic.
   As for what happens on Oct. 1, it’s entirely likely that the law will be challenged in court and a stay will be put on its enforcement until the challenge is resolved. So it may be a long time before Richard Matthews is able to move, as much as he would like to.
   Therefore, I hereby bestow on the Schenectady County Legislature the 2007 View From Here Award for Unintended Consequences.
   And while I’m at it, I also bestow the 2007 View From Here Humanitarian Award on Will and Lois Seyse for their courage and decency in sheltering someone who is as despised today as lepers were in days of old.
RECIDIVISM REDUX
   Lies, damn lies, and statistics, they say, and I guess there’s something to it. Take the letter to the editor the other day regarding the recidivism rate of sex offenders. It quoted the same study I had quoted, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but chose this line: “Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison — 5.3 percent for sex offenders vs. 1.3 percent for non-sex offenders,” to which the letter writer added, “So, it seems that sex offenders have a relatively large recidivism rate ...”
   Which, alas, is the wrong conclusion to draw from what was a meaningless comparison to begin with. The meaningless comparison was between the number of sex crimes committed by people who have previously been convicted of such crimes vs. the number of sex crimes committed by people who have previously been convicted of other crimes, like bank robbing.
   Who cares about that? The point is, the rate of re-arrests for sex offenses was very low: 5.3 percent, compared with an overall re-arrest rate of 68 percent for those who committed non-sex crimes. That’s the relevant comparison
Logged
Private Message Reply: 10 -
senders
June 19, 2007, 7:39pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
29,331
Reputation
70.97%
Reputation Score
+22 / -9
Time Online
155 days 8 hours 34 minutes
Quoted Text
“I don’t want these people in our county,” Farley said.


He must be referring to ?politicians? and shortsightedness, fear mongering and bandstanding????


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 11 -
senders
June 19, 2007, 7:42pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
29,331
Reputation
70.97%
Reputation Score
+22 / -9
Time Online
155 days 8 hours 34 minutes
Quoted Text
Because the new law allows registered offenders to stay where they are until Oct.1 but, effective immediately, bars them from moving into restricted zones. Those zones have not been mapped but probably make up all of Schenectady County except for the more remote hills and dales of Duanesburg and Princetown.


Now THAT'S what ya call 'Deliverance'.....ignorance,,,so would that also be classified under Guantanimo Bay rules?????


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 12 -
bumblethru
June 19, 2007, 8:03pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,800
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
138 days 23 hours 32 minutes
Princetown and Duanesburg better get some sex offender laws on the books quick.  Although there isn't much in the line of multi-family homes in those areas.


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 13 -
bumblethru
June 19, 2007, 8:03pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,800
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
138 days 23 hours 32 minutes
Princetown and Duanesburg better get some sex offender laws on the books quick.  Although there isn't much in the line of multi-family homes in those areas.


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 14 -
1 Pages 1 Recommend Thread
|


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread