It was a relief to read Susan Savage’s article in the Sunday Opinion section of your newspaper on 8 July and learn, at long last, minus all the hyperbole, what actually transpired at the county Legislature meeting re sex offenders. Until now all we’d heard was a lot of nonsense about “pandering to the worst in us” and “political theater” and, of course, the New York Criminal Liberties Union had to weigh in with a lot of claptrap about “draconian regulations.” Carl Strock was particularly outspoken and miffed that a (gasp) Quaker was ignored. Why a Quaker should be any more knowledgeable about the subject of sex offenders than, say, a Baptist or Methodist is best known to Mr. Strock. As for the present housing solution, Ms. Savage is right: it’s not perfect, but it’s a start. As for “counseling” and “treatment” so that these sex offenders can “return to society,” “society” doesn’t want them. The only treatment they merit is that which they’ll receive in places like Dannemora. ELI BRADISH Gallupville
It's a proven fact that most sex offenders can't be cured by counseling and treatment. It's a sickness in their heads that can't be successfully treated. The real problem is what to do with the sex offenders because nobody wants them in their neighborhood.
It's a sickness in their heads.....amplified by hormones, drugs, alcohol, printed materials etc.....of which we as a society 'push' along as capitalism.....however, they are responsible for their own doings.....I say put them in the town center for a good old fashioned stoning....THAT would be a message difficult to ignore....AND put their 'mark' on their forearms for all to see...for the rest of their lives......moving them around is just giving them a "time out" to 'think on their bad behavior'......
...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
SCHENECTADY COUNTY Towns push back on sex offender laws County legislation called ‘Band-Aid’ answer to problem BY MARK ROBARGE Gazette Reporter
Officials in the county’s five towns are asking the Schenectady County Legislature to reconsider the harshest rules in the region restricting where convicted sex offenders can live. At its Wednesday night meeting, the Glenville Town Board agreed to send a letter expressing its opposition to the laws and asking county officials to explain the reasoning behind the measures. Once the county responds, officials said, they will decide on their next step, which could include a formal resolution asking for the repeal or developing a new law to reflect the needs of the town. “They seem to have made a decision without the proper research ahead of time . . . and that’s what we’re looking for,” said board member Edward Rosenberg. “Maybe they can justify their actions, but it doesn’t seem like they can.” The county Legislature passed a pair of laws June 12 making it a misdemeanor for a convicted sex offender to live within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. The laws also give the county the authority to remove any registered sex offender who has not moved out of an excluded area by Oct. 1. The county’s five town supervisors complained at the time they weren’t consulted when the legislation was developed and that it would force sex offenders to move into rural areas in their communities. They have since sent their own letter through the county’s Committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation. “I’m concerned that this is a Band-Aid approach to a complex problem and that we’re just exporting the problem to areas where there might not even be sufficient monitoring,” said Glenville board member Mark Quinn. The Niskayuna Town Board planned to ask the Legislature to repeal the laws or at least push back the date when it will begin evicting offenders. Instead, the board has decided to react in similar fashion to Glenville, first making the request in a letter and then considering future action based on the county’s response. The Duanesburg Town Board approved a resolution Thursday demanding the county rescind the sex offender legislation. The resolution also asks the Legislature to first consult with all Schenectady County municipalities before creating a new law governing sex offender residency. Nearly 60 residents turned out to the board’s regular monthly meeting to voice opposition to the law and support the resolution. Many of those attending the standing-room-only meeting expressed concern over sex offenders migrating to the rural town, where there is a much smaller police presence. “People out here are just really upset with this,” town Supervisor Rene Merrihew said before the meeting. Princetown’s board passed a similar resolution Tuesday, asking the Legislature to investigate better ways to deal with sexual predators. Town Supervisor Muriel Peterson said the laws neglect to account for the needs of Princetown. “It’s important to have them all identifi ed and watched, and we’re not sure the law accomplishes that,” she said. Rotterdam board members are expected to act on a resolution later this month or in early August asking the county to rescind the law. Supervisor Steve Tommasone said by effectively moving sex offenders to the rural areas of the county, the laws leave the towns to track those offenders. “It’s really going to act to relocate these individuals from the city of Schenectady to the towns,” he said during Wednesday’s town board meeting. “All you’re really doing is shifting them from one part of your community to another, and it really doesn’t address the issue of protecting our children.” Quinn said if the county refuses to repeal the law, he would be willing to consider legislation offering similar restrictions to protect rural parts of the town, “but I would have to give it great thought.” He said he would prefer the state toughen sentencing guidelines so sex offenders spend more time behind bars and use civil confinement to hold offenders after they have completed their sentences if they are still considered a threat. “After plea bargains and after good time served, these terms are often just a few years for offenses that should be yielding much longer sentences,” Quinn said.
Talk about child abuse. More than a dozen Schenectady County high school students were “shadowing” our county legislators at a public meeting last night, and they got an unsavory and unvarnished civics lesson. Not only were the youth kept in their seats for four hours, but they had to witness both the ugly refusal by the Chair (Susan E. Savage) to permit debate on what is surely the most controversial piece of local legislation this year, and the nasty sight of posturing and pandering politicians, who “did something to protect children” by passing a meanspirited, shoddily-drafted and predictably ineffective set of residency restrictions on sex offenders. (see a FoxNews23 video covering the story) As today’s Albany Times Union explains, in “Law aims to shield kids: Schenectady County passes housing rules for sex convicts (June 13, 2007), under County of Schenectady Local Law No. 03-07 & 04-07, no matter what their risk level, the age of their victims, or the nature of their crimes, sex offenders may no longer reside near places where children congregate (that is, any elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, public park, playground or swimming pool, or youth center). Not only are they prohibited from moving to a residence within 2000 feet of such places, but:
“The change requires sex offenders — at every level — to leave their homes starting Oct. 1, should they reside within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, as well as schools, day care and youth facilities.” (emphasis added)
Indeed, if any of those facilities are built, relocated, or licensed within 2000 feet of the residence of a sex offender at any future time, he or she must move within ninety days. These draconian restrictions were passed yesterday by an 11 to 3 vote of the county legislature, with only former judge Michael Eidens, former Schenectady mayor Karen B. Johnson, and Carolina M. Lazzari voting “no.” The legislators who voted “yes” knew two things: (1) many aroused voter-citizens, who are fearful for their children and angry over having sex offenders live near them, want the County to do something; and (2) there is absolutely no evidence that proximity restrictions in any way reduce recidivism, and much research and expert advice that says they are likely to make things worse (by destabilizing the offenders, removing social networks, and making it harder to locate them). Despite the latter fact, the politicians decided to bow to the politically-urgent former one.
In case you’re thinking “they surely aren’t doing this for political advantage,” let me point out that the nine co-sponsors are all Democrats, who would not permit any Republicans to co-sponsor the bill — not even Joseph Suhrada, who had first proposed the restrictions two years ago. (The procedural bullying done by my party, now that they have local and federal legislative majorities, often embarrasses me). The Democratic legislators only became aware of the importance and urgency of the problem when a sex offender moved on the block of one of them, and the folk in one town got very loud in their demands for action. Frank Quinn, a town supervisor (who spoke for four others whose towns would likely be the destination of many offenders displaced from the more populous parts of the County) complained they were never consulted, and said last night: “There’s no reason to do this tonight. . . The problem of how to effectively manage sex offenders has been around for thousands of years.” As the TU reported, he added, “This legislation is really designed to influence upcoming county elections by pandering to selected voters and their fears.”
DUANESBURG Residents predict an increase in offenders County’s sex predator law called bad for rural areas BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Sharon Hoffman fears she caught a glimpse of how Schenectady County’s new sex offender residency law will affect Duanesburg. Early last month, her 17-year-old daughter and three of her teammates on the high school track team were followed by a vehicle as they jogged along a rural road. She said the girls didn’t think anything of it until the next day, when the same vehicle followed them again. Hoffman said the girls reported the incident to school officials, who then contacted state police investigators. Several days later, she learned the driver of the car was a Level 3 sex offender living in the town. By October, all sex offenders in Schenectady County will be prohibited from living within 2,000 feet of any facility associated with children. Hoffman, along with many other town residents, is concerned the legislation will chase offenders from the county’s densely populated areas, such as the city of Schenectady and village of Scotia, to the rural fringes. “Is it going to be worse out here because all these people are going to move to this area,” she asked. “There’s not very many of them out here now.” Dozens of residents turned out at the Town Board’s meeting Thursday to voice opposition and support a resolution asking the county to rescind the law. Board members unanimously passed the resolution, which asks that the Legislature first consult with all Schenectady County municipalities before creating a new law governing sex offender residency. “It’s clear Duanesburg won’t sit idly by while they decide our fate,” said Town Supervisor Rene Merrihew after the resolution passed. Duanesburg joined the towns of Glenville and Princetown in asking the Legislature to rethink the law. Both Rotterdam and Niskayuna are fashioning resolutions protesting the legislation, officials said this week. Some residents attending the meeting asked whether the county would provide the towns with the proper resources — such as added police patrols — to monitor where sex offenders live. Others said the legislation appeared to be a ploy to appease the areas of greatest population. Town Attorney Jeff Seigel also disputed the validity of the law. On the outside, he said, the regulations don’t seem to offer any protection for children at all. “This is a law that doesn’t get anyone from point A to B,” he told the crowd. “Restricting where someone sleeps at night doesn’t do anything for what they do during the day.” Legislator Carolina Lazzari, R-Rotterdam, doubts the effectiveness of the new sex offender regulations and fears they could make the situation worse. As one of the three county legislators who voted against the law, she said the county should seek a better alternative. Legislators Michael Eidens and Karen Johnson also voted against it. “It’s very questionable that this legislation can fulfill its intended purpose of keeping our children safe,” Lazzari said during the meeting. “It’s bad policy and it’s a bad law.” Officials in neighboring Montgomery County also worry. Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas DiMezza said the law will have the effect of moving sex offenders from one community to others, namely the rural municipalities that are more difficult to police. “[Sex offenders] belong in populated areas so that not only the police can watch them, but their neighbors can watch them as well,” he said Friday. “By having them out in the country, they’re less likely to report on a timely basis and they’re more susceptible to doing the same thing they were doing before.” But Legislator Ed Kosiur, DSchenectady, the sponsor of the law and chairman of the county Legislature’s Children and Families committee, said the legislation is crafted to protect all municipalities in the county and to move offenders to areas where they are less likely to harm children. In the case of Duanesburg, he said, there are few areas offenders will relocate to because 90 percent of the town’s residential properties are zoned for single families. “These offenders are not going to come out to Duanesburg,” he said Friday. “When we made this legislation it was to protect all children in Schenectady County, not just the city.” Kosiur, who is also running for the 105th Assembly District seat, also advocated a stronger state law to monitor sex offenders. “That is high on my priority list,” he said. He is running against Republican George Amedore Jr., who does not support the legislation, maintaining that current state laws are adequate.
I am so glad to hear the surrounding counties, standing up for their residents about this sex offender law. I still find it hard to think that the legislatures would pass such a law, with so much impact on the surrounding communities, and never once included the surrounding communities leaders for their input. Now on the otherhand....the counties KNEW well in advance about the pending legislation. Did they contact Kosiur or all the others that voted it in with their concerns? And if they didn't...they should have. But if they did...who was listening?
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
Youknow, I just read something that's NOT in this law that I think was excluded, just so the county could continue to collect it's taxes and not push the sex offendors away from somewhere that they could EASILY go and find adolescence. And it was JUST BUILT and it's been a major project in the city. Hey, at least the sex offendors don't have to move out of anyplace that is within 2000 feet of a movie theater, huh? They can still go downtown and have a good time.
And who's to say that these are the only places that children congregate? Let's take for example a house in a sub-division. Looking at something like Antonia Hills or Dolan Drive. Well, luckily, Antonia Hills has a daycare. So I guess that excludes that area from sex offendors? Or is it only establishments, meaning non-residential daycares? There is at least 1 person that I know in Antonia Hills that babysits at their house, so does that take care of the entire development? But what about Dolan Drive? I don't know that there are any residential daycares in there, so would that area be protected? Or will the people pander for a park in the middle of the triangle? Maybe the people pandering for town parks will finally get their wish. We'll have one every 3,500 feet, just to make sure they overlap enough to not have a place where these people can slip into town.
Very good point BK. I'm still somewhat dismayed at the fact that we have to even have to figure that out. But there are daycares everywhere. And I'm hoping that they are also considered under the new law.
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
Maybe you saw the column by Susan Savage, chairwoman of the Schenectady County Legislature, in this newspaper last Sunday, defending the county’s recently passed restrictions on where former sex offenders may live. I hope you did, since it was a fine example of how to sound sweetly reasonable while avoiding the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that Schemati cally County, alone among jurisdictions in New York state and possibly alone in the nation, not only prohibits convicted sex offenders from moving in to most areas of the county but also arrogates to itself the power to evict such people from the homes they already live in if those homes are within 2,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, etc. Never mind if the people in question might have been convicted once, 10 years ago, and might have lived perfectly respectable lives since then. Never mind if they might be employed, might own their own homes, might have families, and might have done everything required of them in the way of probation and counseling. If they are on the state Sex Offender Registry, even at the lowest level, which is Level 1, the county will have the authority, per its newly passed law, to go to court and force them to move as of Oct. 1. Just plain get out. Ms. Savage wrote an essay about the county not wanting to be a dumping ground and so forth, and about protecting children from “predators,” without ever mentioning that central fact, which distinguishes Schenectady’s law from the laws of other localities. I’m not absolutely positive there is no other law like it in the country, since there is no central clearinghouse for this sort of thing, and what with the national hysteria about sex offenders, municipalities are passing laws faster than you can keep up with them, but the New York Civil Liberties Union says it has looked and has not been able to fi nd any comparable law. Melanie Trimble, director of the Albany office of the NYCLU, says, “It’s unprecedented that someone who owns a house can be ejected from that house. Banishment went out in the 14th century.” Probably aware, at least at the lawyer level, of the adventuresomeness of this legislation, the county divided it into two different pieces, separating the eviction part from the more commonplace part of not allowing registered sex offenders to move in. That way, I suppose, if the eviction part gets thrown out by a court, the other more commonplace part can still stand. You can think what you want about the wisdom or the fairness of this legislation, but to write an essay in defense of it without mentioning the most drastic and controversial element of it, pretending that all we’re doing is protecting ourselves from being a dumping ground, takes a certain insouciance, I’ll say that. And I won’t go into my usual riff about the use of the word “predators” this time but will let you students of the rhetorical arts devise your own. Nor will I trouble to rebut Ms. Savage’s assertion that the county Legislature did all kinds of research before passing the law, since that is patently false. There is no study that anyone has ever produced that shows any relationship between residency laws and actual sex offenses. As for who will be first to challenge Schenectady’s law, we’ll have to wait and see. The tactical question is whether to challenge it now, pre-emptively, or to wait until someone is ordered out of his home. Also, whether to go to state court or federal court, and whether to sue on behalf of a single client or as a class action. But one way or another, the law will be challenged, and challenged for what it is, not for what the chairwoman of the county Legislature misrepresents it to be.
It sure sounds to me that a few parts of this law are clearly unconstitutional and may be overturned by the courts. Remember under our system of law everyone has rights no matter what they've done. Check out all the rights that people in jail have for committing crimes even more serious.
Nor will I trouble to rebut Ms. Savage’s assertion that the county Legislature did all kinds of research before passing the law, since that is patently false. There is no study that anyone has ever produced that shows any relationship between residency laws and actual sex offenses.
This is a lesson learned for me. I'm one of the first to think that Rotterdam has too many studies for 'everything'. Well, now I see why. This whole sex offender thing will clearly come back to Mr.Kosiur and Ms.Savage and bite them in the a**. And will cost the taxpayers yet more money for their court costs. IF ONLY THEY HAD STUDIES DONE FIRST!! All they had to do was communicate their intentions to the surrounding counties, and at least Rotterdam would have told them of the importance of those 'studies'! I guess studies ARE necessary!!!
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
