.jpg)
If you've ever wondered just how out of touch university faculty can get, look no further than the behavior of the University of New Hampshire's faculty union during its recent contract talks.
After shunning the Dalai Lama in September, President Obama must have shocked the Red Chinese when he spoke firmly for human rights.
More Editorials >>>
- > How about spending? An elephant forgets (10)
- > Tobacco shakedown: It's not 'for the children' (19)
- > Social blunders: Our President the yokel (69)
- > Board benefits: Nix health coverage (8)
- > The KSM trial: War? What war? (51)
- > Owned: You belong to Nancy Pelosi (70)
- > Paying for officers: Gatsas gets it right (16)
- > No guarantees: Eagle Times subsidy is wrong (34)
- > Abortion extremism: Shaheen falls on the far left (48)
- > Culture clash: Old NH meets new NH (5)
- > Dump Hackett Hill: It's a public money pit (4)
- > Unsung citizens: They say 'thanks' for us all (8)
- > A new right: Access to abortion funds (55)
- > Default or pay? Arena rock and a hard place (16)
- > To our veterans: A sincere thank you (15)
Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.Handling sex offenders: Listen to the police
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader commentsA special task force appointed to examine how Manchester should deal with sex offenders has recommended against imposing residency restrictions. Before people spout off about politicians not caring about the welfare of children, all should note that the task force chairman, Manchester Police Sgt. Scott Fuller, was one who argued strongly against the restrictions.
Fuller, who spent years keeping tabs on city sex offenders, is one of many police officers who oppose banning sex offenders from living near schools, parks or day care centers. He has long maintained that the bans not only don't protect kids, but actually put them in more danger.
Bans increase the odds that offenders won't register with the police, making it harder to find them.
Fuller recommended that Manchester try other ways of keeping offenders away from kids, such as banning day care centers in homes where offenders live. That makes more sense than enacting a policy that sends them underground.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2009.
YOUR COMMENTS
Why not utilize the technology that's currently in place and at the cost of the offender. GPS Monitoring with software boundries built into the system at the central monitoring station.
Their every whereabouts could be known and tracked 24/7.
But No, this backward Technology state is 10 years behind in the acquisition of current high technology.
No expense to the taxpayer and the police can stop chasisng them and sinply access a live database and see where they are live or where they have been.
I'm so tired or harping on this in the UL. Nobody listens. The DEA uses it to track drug dealers with bumper beepers. All kinds of other law Enforcement and the private sector uses it.
Is it that they'll be no money in it for someone? I really don't know but the technology is in place right now to do it at the offenders cost, not the taxpayer.
- BA, Derry
Since sex offenders are so likely to offend again, how about we keep them locked up instead of imposing silly bans on where they can live.
- Joe, Manchester
Banning sex offenders is useless and counter productive to the registration system...banning does not preclude these persons from driving, walking nor traveling. So you cannot keep them away from children no matter what you do to attempt to designate living arrangements. Let's get realistic and recognize that banning them is masking, or worsening, the problem. I'd love to see convicted sex offenders jailed or forced to have a hot yellow banner bumper sitcker on the back of their car stating they are a convicted sex offender. THEN we would know where they are some of the time! And it's also time for review of the actions that create a sex offender crime. Peeing in public behind a bush should not be a sex offender crime.
- Nancy from New Hampshire, Hooksett
I've not seen any studies that show that limiting residence locations provides a safer community.
Each offender needs to be restricted on an individual basis--a blanket rule or regulation is unlikely to be to society's advantage.
- Peter, Jaffrey
We want a ban to get a lot of them out of Manchester. Why are we the dump? I bet Fuller lives in a suburb like Chief Mirror.
- Mina, Manchester
I agree with the task force on this subject. I've done extensive research on this topic, and the vast majority of qualified scholarly work suggests that residency restrictions simply do not work. They are examples of 'feel good legislation' that allows politicians to champion false senses of crime security.
Furthermore, the majority of sex offenders who do indeed reoffend do so with victims they are familiar with.
- Leon P., Manchester
I think the argument that the office made was that people could not babysit other people's kids if a sex offender was in the house.
- Justin, Hooksett
Do we really need a law banning day care centers from being run in homes where a sex offender resides?
I'm sorry but if that's the best we can get on the table I'd say we as a society need to think about what direction this nation is going. Maybe we need to look backwards in time for our answers rather than keeping on the progressive track.
- Deb, Derry
OK, I understand the argument the officer is making and we should listen to someone with his experience.
But if banning offenders from living near a day care center drives them underground why would banning them from living in a day care center not do the same?
- John Bachman, Amherst
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)