Around the Square (06.04.08)

Original Posting here.

Today on Around the Square we take a look at just how difficult it can be for registered sex offenders to find housing, any housing, and how they sometimes have to deal with problems even for doing something legal like putting up cameras on their property. We also take a look at a story that questions the efficacy of all the public money put into tracking sex offenders - is the public really getting the bang for its buck? Finally we also examine what happens to the students at a high school where a popular athlete is accused of a sex crime. Enjoy.

A no-loitering ordinance seems like an easy proposition for many registered sex offenders who often struggle simply to find adequate housing. This story from Fargo, ND, exhibits just how difficult it can be for offenders to find a place to live. We might give up too after being denied 38 times. (WCCO - June 1, 2008)

North Dakota and Minnesota have programs to provide transitional housing for sex
offenders after their release from prison. In Fargo, Ellric Giroux and
Andy Perhus are living in a Fargo apartment after being turned down a combined
38 times when they tried to find place to live. Barb Breiland, the program
manager for the North Dakota Sex Offender Specialist Unit, said the state leases
the apartment as transitional housing. For $7 a day, including utilities,
"it beats living on the street," said Giroux, who was homeless for a year in
Minneapolis.

Keeping the theme, the St. Petersburg (FL) Times asks the same question, Where is a Sex Offender to Live? (St. Petersburg Times, May 15, 2008)

Nobody wants them. No matter the city, no matter the street, nobody wants
a sex offender in the neighborhood. But the fact is, 9 of 10 people in
Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco counties live within a half-mile of a sex
offender. With more than 2,600 offenders in the three counties, they live
virtually everywhere.

Joe Coffie, an admitted Level 2 sex offender in New York, has caused all kinds of hysteria over his legal decision to put security cameras on the outside of his house. (WWNY, May 30, 2008)

Coffie says that he installed the cameras for safety and security only and not
to spy on his neighbors. He also claimed that there was drug activity on
the street and he was within his legal rights to place the cameras on his
home. The Watertown Police say that he is within his rights and that their
hands are tied. However, there are families with children that live on
Bronson Street and concerned residents want to know what Coffie is videotaping
and if their children are at risk. Michael Cooke, a concerned parent and
resident, says something has to be done. “If something doesn’t get
done…something is going to happen to one of these kids. I’m might be my kids, it
could be the ones across the street,” she said.

We so often hear of all these various tracking mechanisms and databases that the public wants law enforcement to use to keep tabs on registered sex offenders, but we rarely think about the real costs of such tools. This report from Wichita, Kansas, shows that there are significant and real costs associated with these often-overbroad measures that may not result in more effective policing. (Kansas.com, June 3, 2008)

It will cost Sedgwick County about $415,000 a year to make sure criminal
offenders live where they say they live, money the county manager says could be
better spent to put more deputies on patrol. On Wednesday, county
commissioners will consider authorizing a new "offender registration unit" to
comply with state and federal laws that require the sheriff's office to keep
tabs on people convicted of a wide range of sex, drug and violent
offenses. County Manager William Buchanan said the county will do what it
must to comply, but he's not convinced the effort will do much more than make
people feel safer. "If you're going to spend these kinds of dollars, I
guess I'd rather see (law enforcement) people on the streets targeting these
types of crimes," he said.

Finally for today, this story also out of St. Petersburg, Florida, exhibits how the cattiness and rumormongering in the high school environment can get completely out of whack when a sexual assault by a popular football player is involved. (St. Petersburg Times, June 1, 2008)

Last month, a 15-year-old girl at Dixie Hollins High accused an 18-year-old
football player of sexually assaulting her on a school bus while two others
stood lookout. Rumors flew through the halls of the school. Students
spread the name of the girl, despite laws prohibiting authorities from releasing
her identity. They circulated a petition saying she was promiscuous and a
willing participant. Some even blamed her for ruining the lives of the football
players, who are well known and liked by their peers.