|
Megan’s
Law in the United States has two primary components: the registration
of sex offenders convicted of sex crimes against children with local
law enforcement agencies, and the community notification of the
presence of a child sex offender in neighborhoods (1). The law
requires convicted child sex offenders to register any change of
address with their local sheriff’s office at least twenty days prior to
their move-in date. Not only is written notice of the impending arrival
of an offender provided to local law enforcement, it is also provided
to pertinent members of the community: occupants of the residences
adjacent to the offender’s new place of residence, the principals of
all local schools and child day care centers, and the superintendent of
the school district in which the offender newly resides (1). This
requirement applies to offenders from 10 years to life after their
release date from prison, depending on the severity of their sex
crime(s).
Since
the databases of sex offender registration are considered public
information, forty states currently also maintain sex offender
registries which can be accessed electronically. These websites include
listings of sex offenders’ residential addresses, their photographs and
detailed descriptions of their appearance, nature of their past
offences and incarceration date(s), as well as interactive maps
indicating places of residence of all registered sex offenders
currently residing in that state (2). The Jessica Lunsford Act is a
piece of legislation similar to Megan’s Law which requires convicted
sex offenders to wear Global Positioning Systems (GPS) devices on their
ankles for five years following their release from prison, to better
enable law enforcement personnel to track their whereabouts (3).
Introduced at the federal level in 2005, the act was never enacted by
Congress and thus is currently obsolete.
Many versions of Megan’s Law have been amended by local and state
governments to include legislation prohibiting sex offenders from
living within a certain distance of sites deemed to be child
congregation locations (such as schools and parks, but also day care
centers, playgrounds, school bus stops, libraries, and community
centres [4]). To date, over twenty states and hundreds of communities
have passed legislation proscribing where convicted sex offenders may
or may not take up residence, typically buffer zones of one thousand
feet around schools or other venues (although they range from 500 to
2,500 feet; [2],
[5]).
In California, Proposition 83 includes an amendment
establishing a two thousand foot “no-live” zone around all schools and
parks in the state (6; see Figure1). Although it passed in the legislature, enforcement of the law was
blocked soon after its enactment based on fears that the buffers would
be unenforceable and push sex offenders from urban to rural areas (7).
In Ohio, amendments to Megan’s Law include a one thousand foot
“no-live” zone buffer around any school-related properties (including
school fields, buildings, and facilities [2]).
While
debate over the enforcement of different versions of Megan’s Law
continues to be heated, and the effectiveness of the “no-live” zones is
controversial, we decided to examine the restricted residency areas as
applied to Vancouver. Although Canada has yet to enact any such
legislation (beyond a confidential central registry of all convicted
sex offenders), we were interested in examining how such geographic
restrictions might hypothetically apply in Vancouver. Many studies have
been conducted in the United States on the “no-live” zones proposed by
much of sex offender legislature, showing that such restrictions often
create exclusion areas making it difficult (if not impossible) for sex
offenders to find housing (8). Due to the overlapping nature of these
exclusionary zones, in many cities the only acceptable sites for sex
offender residency is in high-crime neighborhoods or commercial zones.
Even when residential areas are available, sex offenders just released
from prison may not be able to find affordable housing in those
neighborhoods (8). The studies also found that with the maximum
2500-foot exclusion zone, all of the cities’ centres analyzed would be
off-limits for sex offender residency.
In
our project we were interested in investigating the consequences of
such residential restrictions, and specifically if similar conditions
would result in Vancouver based on different “no-live” zone buffer
sizes. Within the legislature based on Megan’s Law the size of these
geographic restrictions vary, from 500 to 2500 feet. The spatial
organization of different cities, as well as the dispersion of land use
types, also affects the resulting conditions. Such use of GIS mapping
can inform legislators about sexual offender residency requirements
This would be particularly pertinent for in municipalities
contemplating the enactment of residency laws. These mapping analyses
can also be useful in determining if affordable housing is available
within the approved areas, and could ultimately demonstrate whether a
proposed law would be feasible to enforce (8). |
