NJ High Court Favors Sex Offenders
Posted May 15, 2009

Last week, the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled 6-0 against the safety of our children and in favor of convicted sex offenders by denying towns the right to restrict where sex offenders may live.

As the Star Ledger reports, the Court said towns cannot bar sex offenders from "living within a designated distance of any school park, playground, public library, or daycare center."

(For a look at our past coverage of this case, visit State Supreme Court Hears Sex Offender Residency Case and New Jersey Court Rejects Home Rule and Places Children at Risk.)

Specifically, the justices wrote that the municipal ordinances in question, "establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communicates, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan's Law."

Megan's Law requires convicted sex offenders to register with the state, live only in homes and residences approved by a parole officer, and notify authorities of any changes in address or work situations. Parole officers themselves, however, admit that keeping sex offenders away from children is not their greatest priority when determining housing.

According to State Parole Board Spokesman Neal Buccino, parole officers juggle caseloads of 5,300-plus convicted sex offenders, and the Ledger reports officers "do not look at how close a sex offender may be living to a school or daycare centers, and that there are other more significant factors that help determine whether the individual is likely to commit another offense." For example, Buccino said offenders require "suitable housing, support networks, [and] employment and resources for counseling."

He noted, "We're doing the best we can, with the resources we have, with our caseload of sex offenders.. We are always willing to receive input from local authorities and review it."

So, let's get this straight. The Parole Board willingly admits that factors "more significant" than proximity to our children hold greater sway in determining where convicted sex offenders may live and also says it openly welcomes input from towns, and yet our State Supreme Court denies towns the right to prevent sex offenders from living close to places children congregate!

The rate of recidivism among sex offenders is astronomical, and yet the Court is more concerned with the supposed "rights" of convicted sex offenders than with the health and safety of the very children they target!

We echo the words of Harry Wyant, Mayor of Phillipsburg - one of the towns that passed an ordinance restricting where sex offenders may live: "[I]t's ridiculous that we can't restrict these individuals from areas of concern.. It flies in the face of home rule."

Not only does it fly in the face of home rule but it also flies in the face of the most innocent among us - our children - who depend on us for safety and protection.

State Senator Bill Baroni (R-Mercer) summarized the decision accurately when he stated, "The Supreme Court told local municipalities they don't have the power to protect their children, but they are wrong."

Indeed, the Court was wrong, and its misjudgment has placed all children across the state at risk.

The responsibility now rests with the state legislature to rectify the Court's error through legislation. We hope our elected legislators will reject the Court's preference for sex offenders and act to protect our children against sexual predators.

Archive