Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 219-248 : How to Stop a Predator: The Rush to Enact Mandatory Sex Offender Residency Requirements and Why States Should Abstain
Loading...
Files
Date
2007
Authors
Boyd, Justin H.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Oregon School of Law
Abstract
A new trend in state legislation emerged as twenty-two states
entered legally unsettled waters by enacting various residency
restrictions for convicted sex offenders. Legislators tout the need for such residency restrictions to reduce child sex
offenders’ opportunities for contact with potential victims.
However, courts disagree whether these new laws are
constitutional, and research increasingly questions their utility.
This Comment will first look at the primary legal questions
facing the courts, examining various legal challenges to state
residency restrictions and the limited research surrounding the
efficacy of such restrictions. Next, this Comment will address
the 2006 California ballot measure Proposition 83, which serves
as a practical case study of these new restrictions and their
unsettled legal ramifications. Finally, this Comment will
examine Oregon’s nonmandatory residency restriction and
explain why it serves as the best model for achieving the goals of
protecting our children, monitoring the sex offender population,
and withstanding judicial review. Ultimately, this Comment will
attempt to show that research on mandatory residency
restrictions may affect the way future courts rule on these
restrictions. This Comment will also attempt to persuade those
presently in favor of mandatory residency restrictions that more
flexible, nonmandatory restrictions will increase the likelihood
of achieving their stated objectives.
Description
30 p.
Keywords
Sex offenders -- Legal status, laws, etc., Residency restrictions
Citation
86 Or. L. Rev. 219 (2007)