Larger cities have advantage in restricting sex offenders
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
To find sex offenders in your neighborhood, visit the Department of Public Safety's Web site at records.txdps.state.tx.us and click on "Public Sex Offender Search."
Hope of South Texas offers services for victims of sexual assault and abuse in the ...
- SHOW ALL »
To find sex offenders in your neighborhood, visit the Department of Public Safety's Web site at records.txdps.state.tx.us and click on "Public Sex Offender Search."
Hope of South Texas offers services for victims of sexual assault and abuse in the Crossroads region. A 24-hour hotline is available at 361-575-3600.
Teresa Keyser never knew 172 registered sex offenders lived in Victoria County until she recently got a postcard saying one moved to her neighborhood.
The Department of Public Safety notification set the 44-year-old mother on a campaign to raise awareness about sex offenders and, she hopes, purge them from the community. She plans to address the city council Tuesday and ask council members to write an ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live.
"I want the most restrictive, stringent restrictions we can place on their residency," Keyser said Friday.
In Goliad, Kevin Mozisek, a father of three, is on a similar quest. This week, a sex offender moved to his neighborhood. He doesn't begrudge the man a place to live, but said the neighborhood is too close to the city's schools.
"Everybody's got to change their routine because of this guy," Mozisek, 32, said. "It's just not fair."
Both offenders were convicted of indecency with young children. Both have completed their probation and currently have no restrictions on where they can live. Both have kept their sex-offender registrations up to date, which is how their neighbors were made aware of their exact addresses.
But it might be easier for Keyser to make the changes she wants to see in her community.
Victoria is a home-rule city, which means it has a charter and writes its own ordinances, said Bennett Sandlin, general counsel for the Texas Municipal League.
"It's just like passing any other city ordinance," Sandlin said.
The Attorney General ruled smaller, general-law cities like Goliad can't dictate where sex offenders live, Sandlin said.
"The rationale behind it is there's nothing in state law that authorizes cities to do that," Sandlin said. "The thinking is that general-law cities can only enforce state laws."
Still, some general-law towns have sex offender ordinances, Sandlin said.
"A.G.'s opinions are persuasive, but they're not binding," Sandlin said.
Most cities that have passed sex-offender restrictions order them to live at least 1,000 feet away from schools, day-care centers, churches and other places children meet, Sandlin said. In other states, zoning has forced sex offenders from entire cities, Sandlin said, and that could present constitutional problems. But that has not happened in Texas, he said.
Keyser is willing to start with small steps, she said, by letting neighbors know how they can find out about nearby sex offenders, petitioning council members and talking to state legislators.
"We have the right to feel safe in our homes," Keyser said. "Something needs to be done immediately."
Comments
Once again justice shows his ignorance by using mistruths to convey a half thought. The last sheriff allowed 2 sex offenders to move in an area where the new offender moved and who by the way is paroled ,so has done his time and Sheriff Brumby has no legal recourse, but to follow the law which gives the paroled man a new chance. Sheriff Brumby is following the law with a watchful eye. Once again the stupidy of mr justice on the college facts shows that he is uninformed and makes remarks about an experienced retired officer that Sheriff Brumby had the good luck of being able to add to the fine men and women of the Goliad Sheriff's office. Justice can slander a good name without facts so it shows he's a bitter failure for not being reelected. The only inappropriate conduct is the fact justice does not know his head from a hole in the ground. Get your facts together justice before you show your ignorance again, you are a joke.
October 17, 2009 at 10:10 p.m.Why, if a 18 year old female goes out a makes whoopy with a 15 year old male do we never hear about it? But swap the ages and see what kind of world ending tragedy unfolds.
October 17, 2009 at 7 p.m.legion357 hit it on the nail.. I just realized the law within the younger ones dating youger teens, to me that should be really changed, Unless it was rape therefore it would be considered forcible rape.. Laws need to be changed all around. There are alot of pervs Men and women out there in this world , we need to watch over Our children. And remember there are alot of people working with Our children whom have never been caught and they are still out there being your neighbor.
October 17, 2009 at 5:57 p.m.There are some true sex offenders, usually a relative, but some serial sex offenders too.
There is also included in the sex offender registry some people that happened to be 17 years old and where dating a 15 year old..... and the 15 year olds parents didn't like it.
True sexual predators, I agree, they should have not ever have been let out of prison.
But the sex offender registry includes even persons that happen to be a junior in high school and go out with a freshman, for the sole reason that the 15 year olds parents don't like it.
There is a lot of grey area in the law, but everyone is lumped together.
Once more, I am not defended the real perverts out there,they will burn in he77 for their sins, but some innocent people, by virtue of being two years older than their girlfriend receive the sex offender tab too.
Child sexual predators? He77 yes, high them high (as a banned poster used to say).
But IMO the law is not defined well enough.
October 17, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.x684867 - I am almost inclined to ask if your username was your dept of corrections ID number. Maybe you are a bitter relative of an offender. I am not sure, but your attempt to scoff at the registry of convicted sex offenders, and to use as a basis for your argument, DOJ and Calif. AG "statistics", falls on weak ears, when heard by parents of children entrusted to daycare and public schools. As far as the "larger cities" having an advantage over smaller towns, which wasn't adequately addressed in the article, the truth is that the sex offenders by your "statistics", aren't required to register until they are released from jail, and it is a voluntary registration process at that, and rarely followed up on by officials. Consequently, there are in most all large and intermediate cities, a large number of unregistered sex offenders, living where they please, and repeating their offenses, and making a mockery out of your weak argument.
October 17, 2009 at 3:47 p.m.Has anyone stopped to consider the factual basis for these laws or their effects?
(1) According to US Department of Justice statistics, only 5% of sex offenders released in 1994 were returned to prison for a new sex crime.
(2) According to the California Attorney General's office, "90% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. Of sexual assaults against people age 12 and up, approximately 80% of the victims know the offender." (Citing "Facts About Sex Offenders," http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.asp...)
(3) Research also indicates that most sex offenses are committed by FIRST TIME OFFENDERS and not by repeat offenders...a fact reinforced by the 5% recidivism rate.
(4) States already have registries, and now the federal government is imposing its legislation on a state matter, threatening to remove 10% of federal funds from non-compliant states. This is more about money than public safety.
(5) Do you consider your federal government MORE efficient and responsive to the public interest than the states?
(6) Do you support a national ID card system? There are more than 650,000 people registered as sex offenders today with an annual growth rate of 7%.
(7) Most are not aware of the increasing number of persons considered to be "sex offenders" or the crimes they have committed, including persons who have simply urinated on the side of the road without knowing a minor was present.
(8) The largest group of registered sex offenders are 14-year-olds who will more than likely never commit a new crime.
These laws are a bad idea.
October 17, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.Justice, why do you have such a grudge against Sheriff Brumby?
October 17, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.I can remember the former Sheriff Robert DeLaGarza allowing current inmates to wear "street clothes" because it might embarrass them. Give me a break Justice.
I can also remember the former Sheriff Robert DeLaGarza allowing inmates to have furloughs with other jailers....so if you want to compare Sheriffs then I am ready and waiting.
Oh, by the way, I can back this factual information up with a sworn deposition given by the former Sheriff, in which he attest this is the truth.
Flame on.
There are actually a total of 3 registered sex offenders on that block. The other two are a couple living next door. I'm not surprised Brumby won't do anything. After all, he is the same one who hired the former director of the Victoria College Police Academy as his deputy a couple of weeks ago. He was fired from there a few years ago for inappropriate conduct with one of his students. Feel safer now?
October 17, 2009 at 9:40 a.m.I try to think to myself, "How would I feel about a person if they exposed themselves to one of my kids or touched one of my kids"?
I wouldn't just want that slime to be forced to notify me of their location, I would also not want them allowed to occupy the same planet as the rest of us.
There needs to be a place where this type of people get to go and it should not be anywhere near where the rest of us are.
Signed: Hysterical Parent
October 17, 2009 at 5:57 a.m.This old song is un American and unfortunate. The idea of sex offenders living with openness helps them behave and reintegrate into society. The sex offender who has yet to be identified is much more of a risk then the offender who lives their life with a spot light shining on them. If a person has satisfied their punishment they should not be persecuted for the rest of their lives. The regulations afforded by probation and parole are sufficient to insure public safety and any additional requirements from a municipality is short of sadistic. We do not require murderers or kidnappers,or assaulting persons to do ordinance requirements who are, as if not more, dangerous-- this is hysteria.
October 16, 2009 at 8:13 p.m.