New Jersey Court Rejects Home Rule and Places Children at Risk
Posted July 18, 2008

A New Jersey State Appeals Court apparently would rather cater to convicted sex offenders than protect New Jersey’s children. At least, the court said as much this past week by ruling that New Jersey towns cannot restrict the residential locations of convicted sex offenders.

On Tuesday, a three-judge court nixed ordinances in Cherry Hill, Camden County and Galloway, Atlantic County restricting where convicted sex offenders can live. According to the Courier-Post, the Cherry Hill “ordinance, which was unanimously approved by the township council in 2005, banned sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground, public library or day-car center.” Galloway’s ordinance was similar.

Aimed at protecting children from convicted sex offenders and child predators, ordinances such as Cherry Hill’s and Galloways’s are nothing new, and more than 100 New Jersey towns have similar provisions on the books. Yet, the court seems to think there is such a thing as too much protection. According to the Atlantic City Press, the “panel found that New Jersey’s Megan’s Law was ‘pervasive and comprehensive’ and should be the only law that dictates sex offender registration, notification, reintegration and rehabilitation.” 

Megan’s Law, which New Jersey became the first state in the Union to adopt in 1994, was named after Megan Kanka, the 7-year old girl murdered at the hands of a sex offender living in her Hamilton Township, New Jersey neighborhood. As explained by the Press, Megan’s Law “established a Sex Offender Internet Registry. It also requires notification of local law enforcement whenever convicted sex offenders move, whether into or within the community.”

According to Philly.com, the panel concluded that Megan’s Law “was ‘all encompassing regarding the activities’ of sex offenders and trumped municipal efforts.”

The New Jersey ACLU, which advocated on behalf of one of the convicted sex offenders, praised the decision, with Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the state chapter, stating, “Megan’s Law is already accepted as constitutional and as the state’s comprehensive approach to sex offenders. The residency requirements do not contribute to rehabilitation and may in fact undermine it.”

On the other hand, New Jersey Crime Victims’ Law Center attorney Richard D. Pompelio supported the town ordinances. As the Vineland Daily Journal reports, Pompelio “questioned how New Jersey’s Megan’s Law was pre-empted because it does not impose residency restrictions” and noted “New Jersey’s tradition of allowing ‘home rule’ by its 566 municipalities favors allowing towns to impose their own rules.”

As reported by Philly.com, Pompelio said, “If the municipalities can’t do it [restrict sex offender residency locations], basically you’re saying you can never have a law that restricts where offenders can live.”

In reality, while Megan’s Law does prohibit denying sex offenders housing, local ordinances such as Cherry Hill’s and Galloway’s do no such thing. Instead, they simply preclude convicted sex offenders from living too close to the scenes of temptation – such as playgrounds and schools.

Crime carries consequences, and when individuals choose to commit a sexual crime, it is perfectly within the purview of towns to hold these individuals accountable and to implement provisions to protect innocent children.

It is not up to the state to dictate how towns govern themselves. We stand with Cherry Hill and Galloway – and every other town affected – and urge them to appeal the ruling and stand firm in their fight to protect our children.

 

 

Archive