Registered Sex offender Restrictions: Are These Laws Unconstitutional and Ineffective?

Registered Sex Offender Restrictions: Are These Laws Unconstitutional and Ineffective?

Are the restrictions used against sex offenders unconstitutional? Although the laws used against registered sex offenders are to protect society, these restrictions make it impossible for registered sex offenders to live normal lives. The laws used to restrict sex offenders are not civil, the offenders cannot live where they want to, and all registered sex offenders do not deserve the restrictions after being released from prison. Researchers and law enforcers say that residency restrictions for sex offenders do not prevent sexual assaults, but make assaults more productive because the offenders may go underground making them difficult to track (Goodman). Also, registered sex offenders cannot provide for themselves yet alone their families. Not many employers would hire an ex-convict who is listed on registry even if the “crime” they committed was as simple as peeing on a bush in public and was convicted of public lewdness. Even though, these restrictions have a strong purpose it seems as if they only make matters even worse.

The laws used to restrict sex offenders from the outside world are not civil. Sex offenders are not allowed to go 2,000 feet near a school, public park, or church. So even if someone on the registry wanted to pick their own child up from school or the park they are not allowed to do so. Also, if a new school is built close to the home of a sex offender the sex offender must find another place to live even if they have been live in this neighborhood for decades. Sex offenders are also not allowed to join a social media website. Although, majority of the offenders should be banned from social networks as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, some of them might just want to check their child’s usage on the website. Also, some offenders may want to join political discussions, comment on news stories, and share family