Restrictions on Sex Offender Residence Found Constitutional

, New York Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

A paroled sex offender who is having difficulty finding a place to live because he is prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of schools and places where children congregate failed to convince a Manhattan judge that the restrictions are unconstitutional.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • not available

    As the prior commentor has pointed out, residency restrictions bear no rational positive relationship to preventing repeat offenses. In fact, removing residency options from those who have been convicted of any crime makes us all less safe. Rational laws should further the goal of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, since this decreases the likelihood of re-offense, shown in many studies of those who have been convicted of crimes and are now back in the community.

  • not available

    First of all, anyone applying elementary logic and reasoning on a Junior High School level knows that residency restrictions are in violation of the Constitution, just like most of the extreme sex offender laws are.What the Judge here is really saying is that sex offenders are less than Human Beings and thus are not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.This is the same argument used to secretly kidnap, hold with no legal rights even as basic as telling someone the person has been taken and is being held by the government, and torturing that person, because they have been defined as an “Enemy Combatant” who is less than Human and therefore not protected by the Constitution, the Geneva Convention or any other law of any country.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202639511070

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.