“No empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions”

By Jacob Sullum . . . Since 2005, New York has prohibited people on “level three” of the state’s sex offender registry from living within 1,000 feet of a school. In New York City, as the above map shows, those “buffer zones” cover nearly all residential areas. Because the state requires registrants to find legally compliant housing before they leave prison, these restrictions mean they may remain behind bars long after they are eligible for conditional release and even after they have completed their original sentences.

That is what happened to Angel Ortiz, who in 2008 was accused of “sexually threatening a pizza delivery man during the course of a robbery designed to secure money in order to obtain drugs.” After Ortiz pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted sexual abuse, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison plus five years of parole. He became eligible for supervised release after serving about eight and half years. But as New York Times reporter Adam Liptak notes, Ortiz remained in prison because all of the housing options he suggested—his mother’s apartment in New York City, along with “dozens of alternatives, including some in upstate New York”—ran afoul of the 1,000-foot rule.

Even after Ortiz had served the full 10 years of his original sentence, he remained in prison. All told, he served an additional 25 months because of New York’s residence restrictions.

Last month, the Supreme Court declined to review a New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld Ortiz’s continued incarceration. While agreeing that the case “does not satisfy this Court’s criteria for granting certiorari,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor outlined the “serious constitutional concerns” raised by New York’s residence restrictions, which she suggested “may not withstand even rational-basis review.”

Since that standard of review is highly deferential, requiring only a “rational connection” between a restriction on liberty and a “legitimate state interest,” Sotomayor’s assessment is a strong statement about the weak justification for residence restrictions like New York’s. But it is consistent with the conclusions of criminologists, who have found scant evidence that the policy actually protects public safety. Several courts and government agencies have concurred that residence restrictions do not work as advertised and may even be counterproductive, undermining rehabilitation and making recidivism more likely.

In a 2017 report that Sotomayor cited, the Justice Department noted that there is “no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions.” It added that the policy may cause “a number of negative unintended consequences” that “aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk.”

Read the remainder of the piece here at reason.com.

someone outside of NARSOL

Written by 

Occasionally we will share articles that have been published elsewhere. This is a common practice as long as only a portion of the piece is shared; a full piece is very occasionally shared with permission. In either case, the author's name and the place of original publication are displayed prominently and with links.

2 Thoughts to ““No empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions””

  1. AvatarMike

    Hello, I don’t understand this “can’t live within 1000ft from a school” thing. Because when you were growing and you mom or dad tell you not to do something or your in trouble ? But you did anyways and some got caught and some of you didn’t. Well how does not living within 1000ft of a school suppose to stop someone from harming a child. If someone wanted to harm a child, it doesn’t matter if they live in or outside of 1000ft from a school. Because if someone wanted to bad enough they’ll will besides this “1000ft” I measured it and it’s only 1 and 1/2 residential blocks. Heck you can see the school from this 1000ft. How do they rationale these laws especially when you can see the school from a 1000ft. My opinion is I don’t think they believe anyone will and for the most part they’re right but not completely right.

  2. AvatarChris B

    Residency restrictions, I believe, are the foremost barrier to reintegration and living a law-abiding life. The most fundamental need of a human being is shelter. A home base, if you will, from which to conduct other life routines such as working and taking care of appointments (such as legal ones). To not allow someone shelter is unacceptable in the 21st century but humans will always be the same. They will always react out of fear to imagined events. Unfortunately, mob mentality rules our society. Anyone who might have an irrational political agenda pursues the agenda within gangs. These gangs then try to bully everyone into accepting said agendas.

Comments are closed.