›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Banning sex offenders from associations

JasonJason
edited June 2008 in Everything Else
Lawyers, can you point me in the right direction?

A homeowners' association in my area recently amended its restrictions filing with the county recorder to say that sex offenders can't own property or reside within the boundaries of the association. Is this legal? It would be my understanding that this would violate the Fair Housing Act, but I'm no expert. I know sex offenders have been legally barred from living or purchasing property within a certain distance of schools.
«1345

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    HOAs need to be eliminated. Under no circumstances should there be any governing body with the power to restrict your freedoms, even a democratically structured governing body, other than the actual US federal, state, or local government itself. If I buy a house, it's mine. If an HOA wants to tell me what I can and can not do with and on my own property, they can shove it. If an HOA wants to govern a set of houses, they should at least own a portion of each piece of property, provide services like lawn mowing, etc. like condominiums do.
  • ZeehatZeehat
    A homeowners' association in my area
    Oh god.
  • LyddiLyddi
    Thats so stupid, not every sex offender is a child molester.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    If they are not safe to be out of jail why are they out of jail? If the person is still a danger to society they should be in jail or some other kind of lock-up.
  • ThaedThaed
    Lawyers, can you point me in the right direction?
    A homeowners' association in my area recently amended its restrictions filing with the county recorder to say that sex offenders can't own property or reside within the boundaries of the association. Is this legal? It would be my understanding that this would violate the Fair Housing Act, but I'm no expert. I know sex offenders have been legally barred from living or purchasing property within a certain distance of schools.
    HOAs across the country have adopted these (including mine). I have not looked at the case law, but if it were properly written I suspect that it could enable the HOA to seek an injunction to bar someone from moving in but not to force someone already living there to move out. Sex offenders are not a protected class, quite the opposite really. Ohio wants to give sex offenders pink license plates.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    Thats so stupid, not every sex offender is a child molester.
    How is that a defense?!
  • AndrewAndrew
    How is that a defense?!
    Remember that 17 year old kid who got labeled as a sex offender because he got a BJ from his 15 year old girlfriend?
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    edited June 2008
    Thats so stupid, not every sex offender is a child molester.
    How is that a defense?!
    How about "not every sex offender did anything more than got caught pissing in public, or maybe had sex with a 17 year old when he was 19"?

    Edit: Andrew beat me to part of that. That's what I get for preloading up a bunch of tabs.
    Post edited by Funfetus on
  • RymRym
    How is that a defense?!
    If someone is out of jail and has paid their debt to society, there should be no further restrictions on their activity. If we truly believe that these people still pose any sort of threat, or that they somehow haven't yet paid this debt, then we shouldn't have let them out of jail in the first place. The sex offender list is a bad idea in almost every way.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited June 2008
    Thats so stupid, not every sex offender is a child molester.
    No. Some sex offenders have violently raped adults. You can cite an extreme minority of cases, but you can't ignore the fact that in the vast majority of cases, sex assault is a crime of violence - whether it be against a man, woman or child.
    If someone is out of jail and has paid their debt to society, there should be no further restrictions on their activity.
    This is myopic at best, ignorant at worst. Not everything can be solved in jail. Parole exists for a reason. It's to enable a successful transition into the real world and to apply the skills learned in jail to real life. That's not a bad thing. You don't just release an offender from jail and pat them on the back. You rehabilitate them and continue that rehabilitation when they are released. It's a process. Any expert in treating sex offenders will tell you just that. What your missing is that the outside process is just as important in neutralizing the threat as the process that takes place inside the jail. You can only get someone so far with treatment in jail. The goal is to get them to a point where they are no longer a threat when they are released if they continue to follow treatment outside of jail. Like I said, you have to do this to have any chance of success. (And if they don't toe the line while on the outside, you slap their ass back in jail as quickly as possible.)

    The other problem is that under no circumstances can guarantee that any particular sex offender is no longer a risk. It's not that exact of a science. You can only generalize the risk with statistical averages. Therefore, if you believe what you say, then you must also believe that every sex offender should be locked in jail until they die. You must also believe that every offender should be locked away for life, since there are recidivism rates for every type of crime.

    I have no problems with restrictions on sex offenders living near children (or whatever their target group is), schools, etc. However, I'm leery of a neighborhood wide ban. That just shifts the problem to those neighborhoods that aren't affluent enough to enact such rules.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AndrewAndrew
    You rehabilitate them and continue that rehabilitation when they are released. It's a process. Any expert in treating sex offenders will tell you just that.
    Is it possible to lose one's status as a sex offender?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Is it possible to lose one's status as a sex offender?
    This depends on what you mean. There is no single definition for "status as a sex offender." Do you mean being on parole or probation? Do you mean having a conviction on your record? Do you mean in a therapeutic environment?
  • AndrewAndrew
    This depends on what you mean. There is no single definition for "status as a sex offender." Do you mean being on parole or probation? Do you mean having a conviction on your record? Do you mean in a therapeutic environment?
    I'm talking about requirements such as having to register as a sex offender with state/national registries and having further restrictions during and after parole/probation.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Those are two different things. Typically, one has to register as a sex offender for longer than they are on probation or parole. This can be up to life. It depends on the state and the crime. You can also be on probation (or parole) for life. It depends on the state and sentence you receive.

    In most cases, however, one will eventually finish with probation or parole, and continue to have to register as a sex offender.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    How is sex offender registration not "cruel and unusual punishment"?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    How is sex offender registration not "cruel and unusual punishment"?
    Your burden. How is it cruel and unusual? It's not even a punishment.
  • AprecheApreche
    Your burden. How is it cruel and unusual? It'snot even a punishment.
    Even if on parole or probation, you are putting someone back into society so that they can hopefully work towards being an upstanding citizen. Yet, you publicly label them as a sex offender. This results in them being treated as badly as, or worse than, African Americans were treated a hundred years ago. How can you expect someone who is ostracized, feared, and discriminated against to pick themselves up and make good? If anything, that publicly sponsored discrimination almost guarantees they are going to return to doing bad of some sort. You're unfairly setting them up for disaster.

    The best they can hope for is to live in a shitty place with a shitty job and no friends. If any school will have them, it won't matter because no decent job will hire them. If somehow they actually make decent money, perhaps the lottery is their best bet, nobody will sell them a nice house. Everyone in their neighborhood will avoid them, and likely harass them. They can't move to a new neighborhood, because they will be publicly outed wherever they go, no escape. I know that if I were treated in such a fashion, there would be a point at which I wouldn't take it anymore. I imagine the same goes for most people.

    Also, if the sex offender registration is so great, why only for sex offenders? Shouldn't non-sexually violent offenders be labeled as well? A murder who does their time and eventually makes it out on the street can get a job and live, yet a sex offender can not. That might seem justifiable for the rapists, but what about the gropers and peeping toms? Technically speaking, peeing in the woods can get you labeled as a sex offender.

    If we did sex offender registration instead of incarceration for a set number of years, I could accept it. To do it for an infinite amount of time after incarceration just doesn't make sense.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Scott beat me to it. I find having to register as a sex offender akin to having to wear a scarlet letter around your neck.

    I can empathize with the kid who happens to be a few years older than his/her sexual partner and suddenly finds their relationship become illegal due to statutory rape laws. I don't empathize with those who purposefully commit sexual crimes.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited June 2008
    I love probation and parole. No matter how easy a person's conditions of probation are, that person often screws it up. Then they generate more work for attorneys.

    Edit: Carole recently gave me a Smartphone. I'm writing this while travelling down I-79 in WV on the way to our house in KY.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    How is sex offender registration not "cruel and unusual punishment"?
    Your burden. How is it cruel and unusual? It'snot even a punishment.
    I guess pillorying wasn't a punishment either...
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited June 2008
    I guess pillorying wasn't a punishment either...
    Uhh... WTF? I think anyone with at least two brain cells would recognize that it was.

    There's obviously a big misunderstanding when it comes to sex offender registry. The names of many of those who must register are not made public, or at least are disclosed only under limited circumstances. In New York, for example, the public has no access whatsoever to information about Level 1 offenders.

    Here are the level 2 and 3 offenders who live in Beacon.

    The gaping hole in your argument is that all of this information is public anyway. So the registry really doesn't change anything. If you are a convicted sex offender, that conviction is on your record for life. Even without a registry, because of the convictions:
    1) You can't get most jobs.
    2) Landlords will reject you.
    3) Etc, etc, etc.

    All the sex offender registry does is make information that was previously available only to those with $$$ available to those who are less privileged. Therefore, it's a law that treats people equally regardless of their financial posture. If a corporation can protect itself from a sex offender, then why shouldn't a poor mother with two kids?

    If your complaint is with the "scarlet letter", then your complaint is not with the registry. The registry is merely a method of delivering information that is already available to the public.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited June 2008
    All the sex offender registry does is make information that was previously available only to those with $$$ available to those who are less privileged. Therefore, it's a law that treats people equally regardless of their financial posture. If a corporation can protect itself from a sex offender, then why shouldn't a poor mother with two kids?
    Why have a "sex offender registry" at all? Shouldn't we just have a "criminal registry" that is free so the public can find out who all the criminals living near us are? If the information is public why is it not easy to access?

    CT Sex Offender Website
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Shouldn't we just have a "criminal registry" that is free so the public can find out who all the criminals living near us are?
    I obviously have no problem with making access to public information as painless as possible. You can debate whether or not it should be public, but if it is public, it should be readily available to all.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Thanks for detecting the sarcasm in my statement, kilarney.

    Of course pillorying is a punishment. Sex offender registry and all other registrations or public records in that manner are just an updated version of that in addition to the original sentence.

    Personally I'm a bit torn on this one. While I do believe that criminal records should be public, I do not believe that an HOA or any other organization reserves the right to restrict your freedom after you have served your punishment and were reintroduced into society.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited June 2008
    Of course pillorying is a punishment. Sex offender registry and all other registrations or public records in that manner are just an updated version of thatin additionto the original sentence.
    I didn't detect the sarcasm because they have nothing in common. One is as classic a punishment as you can get. The other is a law that enhances access to publicly available information. Besides... you didn't use Jason's green font of sarcasm! ;-)

    The sex offender registry is no more a "punishment" than if the courts put records online in PDF format. It's about public access - no more no less. If the highest court in the land says it does not meet the definition of "punishment" but you disagree, call me crazy, but I'll go with the court's opinion.

    Like I said, despite my feelings about the registry, I share your concern with the ability of a private neighborhood group to ban certain classes of people outright.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AprecheApreche
    The gaping hole in your argument is that all of this information is publicanyway. So the registry really doesn't change anything. If you are a convicted sex offender, that conviction is on your record for life. Even without a registry, because of the convictions:
    1) You can't get most jobs.
    2) Landlords will reject you.
    3) Etc, etc, etc.
    Alright, so let's say I am convicted of a non-violent felony. Maybe I embezzled some money. I get oh, let's say 5 years. I do my time, get out, and I am not going to make that mistake again. So now I can't get a job or a house among other things? Even if it's not just sex offenders, the same point still holds. By ruining someone's life permanently, even though they've supposedly served their time, you are setting them up. If it's difficult to get a decent job, thievery becomes a more attractive option. Living in a crappy neighborhood, with a bad job, likely living close to other people who are past or present criminals, run ins with the law are incredibly more likely.

    If you make true rehabilitation impossible, then any sentence is a life sentence. Can you honestly believe there is any justice going on?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited June 2008
    So now I can't get a job or a house among other things?
    Unless you are pardoned, the conviction is on your record for life. This record is public. Make of that what you will.

    Having said that, true rehabilitation is most certainly possible. Thousands upon thousands of people are able to walk out of jail with these types of convictions and lead productive crime-free lives. It may require work, but there are countless success stories.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Unless you are pardoned, the conviction is on your record for life. This record is public.
    I think there is a distinction between having a record of your crime and having said record affect your life legally after you have served your time and finished parole/probation.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited June 2008
    I think there is a distinction between having a record of your crime and having said record affect your life legally after you have served your time and finished parole/probation.
    So you are against the right of a private landowner to decide who can live on his land? You're against the right of a private employer to decide whom to hire? (Other than for reasons of race, sexual orientation, etc.) Interesting. I think Zimbabwe experimented with something like this.

    Call me crazy, but I believe in these individual rights, as well as having records open to the public.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited June 2008
    So you are against the right of a private landowner to decide who can live on his land? You're against the right of a private employer to decide whom to hire? (Other than for reasons of race, sexual orientation, etc.) Interesting. I think Zimbabwe experimented with something this.
    I'm talking about laws which prevent people from acquiring land or traveling or living near certain areas. If private owners do not wish to hire or sell land to someone, that's their prerogative.
    Post edited by Andrew on
Sign In or Register to comment.