Panel: Let offenders reside near schools

By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009 Share on Facebook

MANCHESTER – The city should not enact a policy banning registered sex offenders from living near schools or day care centers, a city task force says in a new report.

"I've said it from the beginning: Residency restrictions are 'feel good' policy," said police Sgt. Scott Fuller, who chaired the task force.

Fuller was one of four task force members who signed the report yesterday, though only three of those signatures could be interpreted as an endorsement. One member, state Rep. Leo Pepino, wrote a note next to his signature to show he was not on board.

The 14-page report favors less dramatic measures to combat sex crimes, such as a campaign to publicize the state's online sex offender registry. It also urges the city to set up a committee to continually monitor the way the city deals with offenders and how it fights sexual violence.

The report is being forwarded to Mayor Frank Guinta, who appointed the panel in May 2008 after word got out that a convicted child murderer had moved to Amherst Street. A mayoral aide, Nick Vantine, said Guinta "approves of" the report, but he did not say what the mayor intends to do with it.

In its key sentence, the report says the task force "does not recommend" residency restrictions "at this time." It does, however, acknowledge that city officials may be tempted to carve out some restrictions anyway and suggests that if they do write up a policy, it should be a narrow one.

Such a policy, the report says, would only target Tier III offenders -- those who have committed the most serious crimes -- whose victims were younger than 18. The offenders would be prohibited from living next door to a school or a day care center.

Fuller, who oversaw sex-offender registrations for the Manchester Police Department from 2003 to 2007, maintains that even a narrow policy could have negative repercussions. He has consistently argued that offenders who can't find an affordable place to live because of residency restrictions may not register with the city, making it difficult for the police to keep tabs on them.

Pepino was at odds with the police department before the panel was formed, and he continued to advocate for residency restrictions at every one of the meetings he attended. "That's why I asked the mayor to form this committee," he said yesterday, "so we can do something. Actually do something. We've done nothing."

Pepino, a Republican running for alderman in Ward 4, vowed to continue to push for residency restrictions if elected. His opponent, Alderman Jim Roy, opposes restrictions.

"The program that the Manchester Police Department has in place now is far better," Roy said. "They go and do surprise checks on these guys, and it's much more effective." The concept also divides the candidates for mayor, with the Republican candidate, Alderman and state Sen. Ted Gatsas, expressing some interest in it. The Democratic candidate, Alderman Mark Roy, declined to take a position but hinted he has some concerns.

"I always err on the side of protecting our children," the Democratic candidate said, "but we have to do it in a constitutional manner."

The task force's report is the latest word in a long-running debate in the Queen City. In February 2008, Pepino's plea for restrictions was rejected by a committee of aldermen.

The report says residency restrictions are now in place in 30 states and hundreds of cities and towns across the country. The restrictions have faced repeated legal challenges, it says, but for the most part, the courts have upheld them.

In August, a district court judge struck down a Dover ordinance banning sex offenders from living less than 2,500 feet from a school or a day care center. The judge said the ordinance violated an offender's rights. He also said he had no evidence that the residency restriction was protecting children.

The task force's report says there are about 406 registered sex offenders in Manchester. Of those, 361 were offenders against children.

One of the task force's recommendations would ban residents from offering child care services in a house that is also occupied by a sex offender. It may be hard to believe, Fuller said, but as a police detective, he occasionally heard complaints that a woman was operating a child care center in her home, even though her live-in boyfriend or husband was a sex offender.

YOUR COMMENTS

The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.

NOTE: If you have read this article before, you may not be seeing the newest comments. Press F5. Or click "Refresh" or "Reload" at the top of this page while holding down Ctrl. All approved postings will appear. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)

I feel as though there should be restrictions on where they can live. Keep them far away from our kids. They shouldn't be allowed to live near a school, daycare center, park..etc. Anywhere a child would be. Other states have stricter policies, why can we adopt it too?
- D.J., Manchester

Many people say sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. However, the Texas State Auditor in 2007 released a report showing that sex offenders who completed the Texas Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) were 61% LESS LIKELY to commit a new crime. That seems to show promise.

After all, in 2002, the US Dept. of Justice reported that only 5% of sex offenders released in 1994 returned to prison for a new sex crime.

Yet we spend millions on registration of more than 650,000 sex offenders in the US based on information available in the early 1990’s when research on sex offenders was poorly funded–if it was even considered.

Treatment works. The research shows this.

For more informaiton see–

“An Audit Report on Selected Rehabilitation Programs at the Department of Criminal Justice.” Texas State Auditor. March 2007. Report No. 07-026. Retrieved Oct 20, 2009. http://www.sao.state.tx.us/reports/main/07-026.html.

US Dept of Justice Report on Sex Offender Recidivism http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf
- Sam Caldwell, Round Rock, TX

A sexual offender is also all of those people that had consensual affairs with people under 16. So, I have to ask Jon from Manchester, do you honestly feel that an 18 year old that had a relationship with a 15 year old should be executed?!?! Perhaps this list should include only child molesters and we should bring back statutory rape laws rather than being able to charge these 18 year olds with felonious sexual assault, that way we won't execute the kids who loved kids too young for them!
- JS, Manchester

Tom in Pembroke, please post your address so the court knows where to ship the criminals.

Honestly, anyone who commits a sexual offense on a child should be executed. Anything else is less than justice.
- Jon, Manchester

Okay people, let's be realistic here. We can't ship them off to an island or take away their rights. Even though we would all like to. What we need to do is make sure these monsters stay away from our children and schools!
- summer henderson, Manchester_____ WHY NOT???????????????????????? How About ELBA ISLAND???????
- E J, Manchester

How bout we just relocate them and sweep it all under the rug? Deja vu anyone?
- Jake, Manchester

Agreed. Anyone who hurts a child should have NO rights. It is already bad enough that when they do hurt a child the punishment does not match the crime. They should be locked up forever. I will gladly pay extra taxes to lock up these demented people forever.
- Kathleen, Bedford

To al l of you people who think that offenders should be put away for life and/or put on an island somewhere, grow up. Our society has laws and limits as to how long a person can be imprisoned.

If your only solution is to recommend isolating them or spouting off that they should not have rights, just stop because you are not part of the solution. Offer a legitimate comment or solution or just be quiet.
- Tom, Pembroke

Tom it is also our legislators who make the sentencing laws the judges are bound by when handing out punishment. So the penalty could be made stricter or weakened depending on the legislators in office and how they vote on a bill to change the sentencing. Or we could do what Mass does and bypass the legislative process and have a judge create law. But then that is actually unconstitutional.

This is a decades old problem now for the simple reason some found the state hospitals that once housed such people unconstitutional and closed them down. Now rather than have sexual predators locked up in a mental hospital we ask them to register and move next door to our schools. So the solution may be to go back in time for the solution rather than wait for some brilliant new idea like closing down the state hospitals and putting them out on the streets again.
- Deb, Derry

Tom, in Pembroke, I think we should house them with you. You okay with that?

I am so freaking sick of bleeding heart liberals that have destroyed everything that made this country great. They've GIVEN it to the monsters.
- Mike R., Bedford

Registries only work when they register. And there are more out there that dont, than there are that do Im sure. And what about the ones who actually have committed a crime and then got off on a technicality and NEVER have to register, because they cant be taken back to court due to double jeopardy laws?
Of course, I put all this out there to remind myself and all of you that the onus isnt on the offenders to just register and leave our children alone, but US...THE PARENTS to protect our children from said predators. This isnt the 70s or before people. You cannot just let your children walk around by themselves anymore or with a friend. And we MUST monitor our children using the internet. Times have changed and with it, our restrictions for access to our children must change as well.
- T.S., Dover NH

Good point RB in Manchester. I think that if everyone read and understood all of RSA 632-A, their comments would sound more like yours. Current law lumps someone who touches whether directly, through clothing or otherwise the genitalia of a child under 13, someone who allows a child under 13 to put anything into the adult's mouth and a violent rapist all in the same category, as they are all considered Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault. The result is that less attention is put on violent rapists because there are so many 'sex offenders' in the registry, many of which are men whose wives accused them of inappropriately touching their children when they decided to get divorced to make sure that the man doesn't get any custody. Through Federal grants, these kinds of accusations are encouraged. In some cases, women who would normally get 40% of their children's father's pension during and after a divorce can get up to 90% of his pension if he is sent to prison. The statutes on sexual assault are too broad and need to be modified to differentiate between violent rapists and parents who had contact without sexual intent.
I suspect that the definitions are so broad to ensure a glut of convictions and to keep the populace scared of their neighbors so that they won't mind spending so much protection money to the government.
- AR, Concord

Being a mother of a victim of this crime (who my child was under the age of 13). I do NOT support this law. I would much rather have the sex offender register than give him/her limits on where they can live. I know that it does sound like a "comfortable feeling", but to have them not register is more of an uneasy feeling. I check the registery on a monthly basis to know who is living in my surroundings. I make my child aware of this house/person. I would rather educate my child than have my child blind. I know that no law is foolproof because if it were I would not have been in this situation in the first place. I would have already known about this person and have avoided it. But this is the exact reason this crime happened, from a sex offender NOT registering.
We can only work with the tools we have, and although I would have all the recommendations of keeping them in a prison FOREVER, we have to know that it is not reality. Reality is we follow the laws and the constitution. The same one we live by every single day.
My family followed the laws, had him arrested and charged. He has done his time and is back out in society. If he chooses to follow the laws and the recommendations of the judge, then I have to hold my peace also.
But giving them restrictions on where they can live is only a temporary solution to a much larger problem. If they do not register, it does not mean that they will not continue to live near schools and daycares. It just means that YOU will not know. And that seems to me the worser of the two evils.
- Joanne, Manchester

I say we put the sex offenders in the homes of the morons who think there should be no restrictions. Anyone who hurts a child should have no rights period.
- Steven, Manchester

Wow. Nice to see someone who hasn't bought into the sex offender hysteria. Good work, Sgt. Fuller.
- MP, Hampton Falls

I don't believe that sex offenders should
have any rights to life. Send them to an island all by themselves so not to hurt an innocent person.
What did they do to the person that they
damaged causes problems as they grow up. There's where crime comes in damaged children causing crime.
Wake up people.
- barbara philibotte, manchester,nh

A dangerous person is dangerous wherever they are. Residency restrictions will not prevent crimes. A free person should be free to live wherever they can afford.
- Cathleen, Center Barnstead

Leo Pepino is one of the most hard headed people I have ever seen take to an issue.

This issue has a history, not necessarily here, but in other places. Such ordinance do not work and make the task of keeping track of sex offenders difficult. Sgt. Scott Fuller has it right.

Then there is the useless spending of the city's funds. Despite being struck down in August (Dover) Leo still pushes and pushes. that is just plain pig headed.

Let us be responsible communities. Sex offender registries work...lets not spend money on lawsuits getting sued because the emotional component of NIMBY politics spits out a few jerks who want to create some arbitrary ordinance.
- Rick Olson, Manchester

Oh yeah, it's a real good idea to let convicted sex offenders live next to the schools. I know that these poor perverts need more special rights to protect them.... just as long as our kids can carry weapons to protect them from the pervs....
- Tom W, Candia

This was enacted in Dover and after a lawsuit was ruled unconstitutional. Do we really have the extra money lying around to enact something that will put us on the loosing end of a lawsuit?
- tracy, manchester

This was enacted in GA while I was living there and eventually got thrown out as unconstitutional. I agree, keep them locked up instead!
- Jonathan, Bedford

Ha! Just check the registry list. I did and saw that I had one living on my street, however the address (number on house) did not exsist. I call the MPD to let them know they had an error on the list and I would like to have a phone call back, since I had two small children and was concerned. You lose your rights as soon as you do unspeakable things to an innocent child, but not in Manchester. That's right, Manchester will have a child rapist live next door to the local elementary school - just to make an easy access for these sick individuals. Goodbye Manchester! I have since moved because of your policy idocracy and your lack of educational support.
- Joe, Londonderry

Let the wolves house themselves near the sheep because they've repented and they aren't really wolves anymore. A wolf is a wolf is a wolf and their favorite food is young and defenseless. Our leaders are nothing more than a gaggle of idiots.
- AJ, Windham

Once again the constitution is for those who have already broken our laws and have been convicted. It's not as if the crime is burglary or something that harmed no one. These are people who are sick and seek out our children for their desires. Banning them from living near the schools where all the children are made to go by law only makes sense.

Frankly I think the sex offender registry is a joke in itself and claiming such a law banning them from schools would make them not register only shows how pointless the law is. How many more children have to be victims before some one in leadership considers keeping them in a mental institution rather than registration and letting them live where all the children go. Look at the red dots on the sex offenders list and see how they flock around the schools.
- Deb, Derry

This is a slippery slope. We are not talking about persons serving a sentence currently. They are citizens, with the rights granted by our constitution. What if they own the home? We start taking away rights , whats next ? gun ownership. Maybe segregation by race or religion. I would worry more about the ones not known and let the police watch those who are. We have already already undercut our protections by allowing branding which our forefathers declared unconstitutional. I think sex offenders need more scrutiny to weed out those who are a danger in the first place. The system now just lumps them all together and the few dangerous ones are lost in the crowd.
- RB, Manchester

Although a long way off in practical terms, an isolation colony for convicted pedophiles and rapists to live out their lives would be ideal.

The rights of innocenct children and women trumps the rights of criminal sex offenders.

Why they live in society after incarceration, where children can be victemized again is beyond me. Not near schools, not near any child!

Of course the immediate programs in place such as checking on released offenders by police is encouraged. Banning residency near schools? If the police chief is right and it doesn't work, let's do something that does work!. Our kids are worth it.
- Dave, Keene

Great. All we need is a panel of people that can tell the mayor to do nothing.

Doesn't he do enough of that already?
- Richard L. Fortin, Manchester

PDA Home Page

Get Morning Headlines and News Alerts from UnionLeader.com