U.C. Registered Sex Offender Open Meeting and Associated Law Apparently Tabled... Does that Bother You... You Tube Videos... [Slightly Revised]

["Sex Offender"; as submitted to You Tube by drewsmithvideo on 2/26/08; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HXaJYlo3bg]

The children and/or parents become the reporters and/or enforcers? [Perhaps, as someone on the panel at a 2007 City Hall meeting on this issue, parents should have to keep their children inside? (I guess the pervs get to use the playgrounds, in that case; so do you still want to fund them?)

["Angry Neighbors Meet About (Convicted) Sex Offender"; as submitted to You Tube by wisn on 11/21/07;
November 21, 2007; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POOkRMB0mm8]

This statistic, that most sex offenders know their victims, is a "duh." After all, the perpetrator has been able - in many, if not most cases - to move next door, "befriend" the family, play with the kids at playgrounds - teach (sometimes) the children in school - and even (sometimes) serve the children wafers in church!

["Child Abuse, We need to fight it..."; as submitted to You Tube by moretea on 4/27/08; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM5lQWFb1nQ]

Local Issue:

In yesterday's "Daily Freeman" (2/18/09) there was an article titled, "Sex Offender Residency Rule Off the Table" (Patricia Doxey; PP. A1 and A6) - that I think folks should be concerned about.

I have immense respect for U.C. Legislature Chairman Donald Donaldson, based on my limited exposure to him; but I think (strictly my opinion) - in this instance - his legal counsel gave him some bad advice...

The issue is about restricting where registered sex offenders are allowed to set up residence. The "tabled" issue had to do with a proposal to hold a public meeting on the topic / a "proposed local law" - that would restrict "registered sex offenders" from setting up residence (This makes perfectly good sense to me!) within 1,000 feet of a day-care center, school or church.

Chairman Donaldson, apparently based on the advise of his legal counsel, has used a Rockland County case - that was reputedly declared unconstitutional - to table any public discussion of (and/or further action upon?) this proposed law...

Potentially placing (in my opinion) perpetrator rights (we are talking registered offenders!) ahead of child safety needs (We call this justice?) once again!

In the Rockland County case cited [which was reputedly similar to the one being discussed (at least amongst the "powers that be")] locally - it appears as if the law (initially passed) was subsequently declared unconstitutional - at least in part - because a lawsuit was pursued by a convicted sex offender that claimed he had to set up residence near a synagogue (within walking distance) - because he was an "orthodox jew."

Which makes about as much sense to me, as saying that because (this is hypothetical...) I am a drunk - and I lost my license due to a drunk driving conviction - I must be allowed to set up residence in walking distance of a liqueur store (and perhaps... to my church of choice, as well?)...

The article also addresses a rather worn-out weary (but apparently still getting a "bang for its buck") theory that if we don't allow registered sex offenders to live exactly where they choose ('tis a big world out there!) - they will (at least according to some mental health professionals and law enforcement officers) - "choose not to register" - go underground - disappear - making it more difficult to monitor them, etc....

But this makes NO sense to me either!

1. Why is it so important to registered sex offenders that they be able to live within 1,000 feet of a day-care, school or church - when LOADS of people (young, old, able, disabled...) have to get rides, take buses, take taxi's, etc. - to get where they need to go?

2. Isn't it the job of the parole board, probation officers, mental health professionals (when intricately involved) and law enforcement personnel to MAKE SURE that sex offenders who are placed back into society - FOLLOW THE RULES - OR - BE PLACED IN VERY STRUCTURED SETTINGS WHERE THEY CAN BE MONITORED - AND/OR (AS APPLICABLE AND CALLED FOR) BE SENT BACK TO JAIL AND/OR PRISON?

What good is the sex offender registry if the associated conditions are not enforced?

What exactly are we paying all of these people (parole officers, etc.) to do, anyhow? Practice (at the potential expense of our children's health, well being and future potentialities) "unconditional love" for sexual deviants?

Give me a break!

Maybe the law enforcement (et. al.) personnel that don't track their "clients" well enough should face penalties?

How about that?

According to this article, U.C. Legislature Minority Leader Glenn Noonan (who reputedly re-introduced this law in January 09) stands in favor of having a public discussion on this matter - AND in favor of placing restrictions (as noted above) on where (in regards to child safety) registered sex offenders are allowed to live.

And THAT is the boat upon which I float...!

Because I know, from personal experience (and extensive research) - that one sex offender can potentially damage tens or hundreds or thousands of young lives...

Because I know - based on simple LOGIC - that these folks CAN FIND another solution [on the tracking / enforcement end of the spectrum) for their perceived (selfishly?) monitoring problems!

According to this article - and the New York State Sex Offender Registry - there are currently 118 Level Three Offenders (considered the highest risk for re-offending) and Level Two Offenders (one step down / still known to have a considerable risk of re-offending) in Ulster County - many of whom are likely (This is a guess...) living in the City of Kingston, the Town of Ulster, the Town of Ellenville, etc.

118 Registered...

How many ('tis often very difficult to win a conviction in these cases to begin with) unknowns?

Pretty darn scary, I'd say - considering the number of children one sex offender can harm... much less the number of children that over a hundred sex offenders might harm (might we be talking thousands - or more - of potential child victims here?)

I mean really...

If the registered sex offender / Orthodox Jew needed a ride to his religious services, perhaps his parole officer, probation officer - or some such person - should pick him up and take him...

Rather than put - for one person - thousands and thousands and thousands of children (this issue is coming up all across the states) at a heightened risk of sexual abuse, exploitation and/or worse!

Please folks, contact your U.C. legislatures and state your views on this matter!

ALL of them, if need be; and particularly, Chairman Donaldson and U.C. Legislature Minority Leader Glenn Noonan...

Write letters to your local newspaper editors...

Discuss this amongst your own Wards / groups / etc.

Put together a petition...

And/or otherwise put the pressure (Protect our Children!!!!!) on!

Thank You,

Nancy Sue Smith