|
|
Forum: The Other Side
Thread (Discussion): Proximity laws: how do they work?
Message 172359
Posted by sidmanv8
on Jan 28, 2006 06:31 PM | Also by sidmanv8
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
All of these burning torch and pitchfork laws that various states and cities are passing setting distances and zones in which SO's can live. My question is how do these work exactly? Of course they are not constitutional but yet still allowed. Regardless, if you own property and already live where you live once one of these is passed, do you have to move? Do you have to get rid of property? Obviously if the law is passed and then you move, you are affected but does it affect you if you are still living in the same place before and after the law is passed?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 172667 (In Reply to Message 172359)
laws
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Feb 04, 2006 10:05 PM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
most laws will allow you to live in a school zone as long as the law was passed after you live there. Where I live I have a park, school and strip shopping center across the street. The school yard is in my back yard and the park is across from me. My home in another state actually is the back yard of a boy scout camp and lake and im still there since i owned the property before the laws were paased. My other home is in a major city in the east coast and we have everything you can imagine from schools to parks and they dont enforce either. I would think that if they attempted to force move after the fact they would have to purchase the home from you.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172359)
Message 172682 (In Reply to Message 172667)
poetsdreamscape
Posted by rodsmith
on Feb 05, 2006 04:23 AM | Also by rodsmith
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
don't bet on it....read those new articles from iowa....and other areas around the country....a lot of them are retroactive to the beginning of time..and you get so much time to get out or go to jail..it's still your property but if they catch you there..bye-bye...
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172667)
Message 172765 (In Reply to Message 172682)
Posted by Renunciation
on Feb 05, 2006 08:48 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
If these laws become retroactive to the beginning of time, people can start doing research on the family trees of the lawmakers.
If their ancestors would have been guilty of a crime in 2006, then the property held in the family should go to the state. That property should then be sold at auction and the proceeds used for victim's advocacy groups.
Sorry guys, you have no expectation of your rights if your ancestors were guilty of sex crimes.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172682)
Message 172770 (In Reply to Message 172682)
Posted by forgive
on Feb 05, 2006 09:56 PM | Also by forgive
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
actually the law only affects those who are registered after July 1, 2002 in Iowa. So in a sense it is retroactive back to then. If you moved into your residence one day before July 1, 2002, you have to move, if it does not meet the criteria for "safe". Anyone living near a school, etc, who was there before that date is OK. They still have to register of course, and if they moved again would have to go by the safe zone laws, 2000 ft rule that has been established by the powers that be, who have no idea what they are doing. AND now, as these powers are finding out, it has not helped anything at all, because you can't keep an offender away from these areas if he wants to hang around. Just as long as he "sleeps" at his 2000 ft residence, he is Ok to prowl around . What a joke.Yes, many have been displaced, I believe they called that banished at one time. Some have disappeared. Some have been rearrested,
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172682)
Message 172779 (In Reply to Message 172770)
Posted by sidmanv8
on Feb 06, 2006 12:41 AM | Also by sidmanv8
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
What I am looking for is hard facts. Iowa's law....7/1/02...is this the time the law was written/passed or was this just some set date? My reason for these questions other than knowledge is that I am currently in a state that has not grabbed the pitchforks yet. I am looking to buy a house/condo in an area where it is complete impossible to live more than 1000-2000 feet from some damn place with kids. So....if these laws are retroactive I am screwed. If they only go into effect at the time of writting them, then I am okay.
Please submit comments about information you are sure about. I have heard it so many different ways.....I am just trying to find the truth. Thanks.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172770)
Message 172852 (In Reply to Message 172779)
It depends...maybe... I'll try to find out and get back to ya... maybe...
Posted by pianoman
on Feb 08, 2006 12:09 AM | Also by pianoman
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
The alleged "safe zone" laws are different from state to state. In Georgia, there is NO grandfathering. If you live on land that has been in your family for 100+ years and a park or school is built across the street, you have ten days to get out! In Oklahoma, however, as long as you owned your property prior to 11/1/2003, they cannot make you move, even if a school is built next door. Another interesting comparison is ...how do they measure? In Georgia, it is measured by GPS from the nearest corner of the so's property to the nearest corner of the school property. In Oklahoma, it is measured from the nearest corner of the school property to the nearest corner of the actual residence. A few months ago I was speaking with one of the Oklahoma Police Departments and said, "How do you measure this? As the crow flies or driving distance?" The officer stammered and said, "Ummm...I don't know...it's never come up before!" So...good luck...we're all on our own! For more entertaining news on Safety Zones follow the ACLU lawsuit just heating up in Oklahoma City. An SO took three real estate listings to the OKC PD and said, "Can I live in any of these?" OKC PD vetoed two and gave their blessing on the third. He bought it, took out a mortgage, and registered twice while living there. Now his wife is expecting, and all of a sudden, he was told to move out. For now he is being allowed to stay there, while the ACLU is preparing to argue the case in front of an ultra-conservative Republican Federal Judge. Anyone want to guess the outcome in advance? I think it can be summed up in four letters: M O V and E.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172779)
Message 172893 (In Reply to Message 172852)
Posted by nelevel1
on Feb 08, 2006 05:38 PM | Also by nelevel1
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Nebraska,
Country: United States |
When Iowa passed there residency restrictions, small towns in Nebraska, which is where I am from and am registered, started climbing on the wagon to hinder the "exodus of offenders" from coming to their towns. I have moved from a large, eastern NE city to a smaller town. This small town is on the short list of communities in NE that is passing residency restriction laws. However, I do not live within the city limits, the law doesn't apply to me...yet. It will, but as a Level 1 offender in this state I don't have a lot of concerns. The new residency restriction laws here, will apply to all NE Level 2 and 3's.
Since, Iowa has passed there law, 30 level 3 SO's have moved to Omaha, not all have registered, and those that have, are using a local homeless shelter as their permanent address.
I don't necessarily agree with the restriction laws, to say the least they are feel good laws. But, most offenders don't offend close to home, because they don't want to be recognized. I don't feel safer living in a community with restriction laws, I know some Level 3's, some are decent enough people, because they have gotten therapy and they have gone through an intensive rethinking program sponsored by Lutheran Family Services. But, I wouldn't trutst them as far as I can throw them around my kids.
There has got to be a better way, the registry in this state at best works well, but it is not a perfect system. And residency restrictions are only going to cause hardcore offenders to quit registering and going underground. Which, will give them greater, better and more oppurtunities to reoffend. And that is what scares me the most.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172852)
Message 173164 (In Reply to Message 172893)
Levels should Level the Playing Field
Posted by pianoman
on Feb 12, 2006 05:28 PM | Also by pianoman
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
The "offender level" system, or lack thereof, is one of the greatest problems I see with registration. Some states treat all sex offenders equally and have no graduated system. Other states have a level system, but they still treat all offenders equally. I believe there would be fewer missing, non-registered offenders, if the laws were more tolerable and enforceable. Why classify me as a level 1 and a multi-repeat offender as a level 3, if all the laws are going to apply to both of us equally? Oh yeah...I keep forgetting....passing laws against sex offenders, regardless of whether they work or any thought goes into them or not, gets politicians re-elected. Sorry...stupid me... ;)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172893)
Message 173231 (In Reply to Message 173164)
PM
Posted by disillusion1998
on Feb 14, 2006 01:57 AM | Also by disillusion1998
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
I sent you a private message, did you get it?
It basically asked if you knew of someone in Georgia who was living somewhere and something came along that created a new banishment zone that included his/her home and what happened. There were a couple of other things as well.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (173164)
Message 173359 (In Reply to Message 173231)
Posted by sidmanv8
on Feb 18, 2006 05:56 PM | Also by sidmanv8
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
No, I did not receive it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (173231)
Message 173492 (In Reply to Message 173359)
Posted by disillusion1998
on Feb 20, 2006 01:29 PM | Also by disillusion1998
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
I'm sorry I was not more clear. I was responding to pianoman and intended that for him.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (173359)
Thread
172359, sidmanv8, Jan 28, 2006 06:31 PM
172667, poetsdreamscape, Feb 04, 2006 10:05 PM [laws]
172682, rodsmith, Feb 05, 2006 04:23 AM [poetsdreamscape]
172765, Renunciation, Feb 05, 2006 08:48 PM
172770, forgive, Feb 05, 2006 09:56 PM
172779, sidmanv8, Feb 06, 2006 12:41 AM
172852, pianoman, Feb 08, 2006 12:09 AM [It depends...maybe... I'll try to...]
172893, nelevel1, Feb 08, 2006 05:38 PM
173164, pianoman, Feb 12, 2006 05:28 PM [Levels should Level the Pl...]
173231, disillusion1998, Feb 14, 2006 01:57 AM [PM]
173359, sidmanv8, Feb 18, 2006 05:56 PM
173492, disillusion1998, Feb 20, 2006 01:29 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
