New York Times and a Retired Judge Condemn Sex-Offender Laws

The New York Times says it is time to get rid of laws that attempt to limit where Registered Citizens live. The Times rationale is that the laws are pointless.

Here is an excerpt from the Times’ just-published editorial on the topic:

It is understandable to want to do everything possible to protect children from being abused. But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose any risk at all. Blanket residency-restriction laws disregard that reality — and the merits of an individualized approach to risk assessment — in favor of a comforting mirage of safety.

The fact of the matter is that this rationale applies not just to residency restrictions — it applies to the sex-offender registry itself. The registry should be abolished so that we may begin to invest our time, energy, money and other resources into initiatives that actually protect children.

Click here to read the entire Times editorial.

Meanwhile, a retired judge from Michigan calls sex-offender laws “a cancer” that needs to be cut out. Click here to read more about that.

Published by nufearless

Nebraskans Unafraid is committed to making our communities safer by ensuring that lawmakers and policymakers do not support laws that cause homelessness, joblessness and damage to families.

%d bloggers like this: