Keeping a tighter watch on sex offenders

Within weeks after a convicted child rapist, classified as a dangerous sex offender by the state, was arrested for the January murders of a Woburn mother and her daughter, two Lowell legislators introduced a measure to require all dangerous sex offenders who have been released from jail to wear electronic monitoring devices.

"I'm fed up with hearing these horror stories," state Representative David M. Nangle said last week, explaining why he and state Senator Steven Panagiotakos, both Democrats, filed the bill, which would mandate the monitoring of all Level 3 sex offenders, those deemed most likely to re-offend. "We have to put this tool in place," Nangle said.

The Woburn case has served as a tragic example of how difficult it can be to keep track of dangerous sex offenders despite the state's Sex Offender Registry. The case also has begun prompting action among officials, such as the proposed legislation or Lowell's decision to assign an officer to deal with sex-offender issues full time.

Michael Bizanowicz, the 41-year-old convicted sex offender charged in the murders, was listed by the Sex Offender Registry as living in Lowell, but he was spending time at the home of a former girlfriend and their daughter, who were neighbors of the murder victims, Joanne Presti, 34, and her 12-year-old daughter, Alyssa.

Bizanowicz was convicted in 1998 of raping two children in North Andover. He served about two years in jail and was on probation at the time of the Woburn killings.

Woburn police were aware that Bizanowicz was spending time in their city, but the public in Woburn -- including his ex-girlfriend's neighbors -- did not get notified of his Level 3 sex offender status until after the killings.

Woburn Police Chief Phillip Mahoney, who could not be reached for comment for this story, has said his department followed proper procedures in dealing with Bizanowicz's sex offender status. But Woburn police apparently were unaware that they could have provided the registry with a concurrent address for Bizanowicz in Woburn, which would have triggered a public notification process in the city.

"He was in Woburn every night," said state Representative Carol A. Donovan, a Woburn Democrat who supports the electronic monitoring bill. "We have to know where these people are."

Like several other Beacon Hill proposals to toughen restrictions on sex offenders, the electronic monitoring measure is an effort to deal with gray areas in the registry process.

Nangle says that at least 25 states have adopted similar monitoring programs, but the fate of the proposed measure is uncertain. Legislators are still working out the details of the system, which would cost an estimated $4 million a year, and the measure is likely to draw fire from civil libertarians, who would argue that continuing to punish sex offenders who have already paid for their crimes is wrong.

Attorney Carol A. Donovan, a public defender who represents sex offenders, said that while she has not reviewed the monitoring bill, the proposal seems like "a pretty bizarre solution to the problem of preventing recidivism by sex offenders." Donovan, who is not related to Representative Donovan, said the money would be better spent to rehabilitate sex offenders while they are in prison and after they are released and on programs to help the victims of sex crimes.

But the somewhat visceral reaction by the legislators illustrates the feeling among proponents of the state Sex Offender Registry that everything possible must be done to keep track of the most dangerous of these offenders.

As of Friday, the registry had classified 5,563 offenders who are no longer behind bars. There were 1,578 Level 1 offenders; 3,180 at Level 2 and 805 at Level 3. Each offender must register with police in any community where he or she lives and works. The registry informs police in the community where the sex crime was committed of the offender's whereabouts. Each must provide his or her name, home and workplace addresses, and fingerprints and have a picture taken by police.

The public cannot get information on Level 1 offenders, who are classified as the least like to re-offend. Anyone wanting data on Level 2 offenders, designated as a moderate risk to re-offend, must go to the local police station and formally request it.

For Level 3 offenders, police are required to publicly post information and are advised to notify neighbors of the offender. The information is distributed to schools, day-care centers, college campuses, and similar places.

Offenders must reregister with police once a year, and Level 3 offenders who are homeless must check in with the local police department every 90 days.

After several years of court challenges that mandated classification hearings for each offender, more and more sex offenders are registering with local police departments and, as time goes on, law enforcement officials are working to tighten up a system that is a lightning rod for community emotion.

In Lowell, the Police Department has assigned an officer to track registered sex offenders in the city full time. Sergeant Thomas Lombard also holds numerous public meetings to educate people about sex offenders and the state regulations.

Law enforcement officials also have broadened their approach to publicizing the names, addresses, and pictures of Level 3 offenders.

Many communities -- including Andover, Arlington, Billerica, Dunstable, Groton, Medford, Tewksbury, and Tyngsborough -- send the information to local newspapers.

Woburn police Captain James Martin would not discuss the Bizanowicz case, but said that since the murders, the department has been posting information on Level 3 sex offenders on its website. Police in Burlington and Wilmington are also using the Internet to publicize the Level 3 sex offenders in their towns.

Concord uses the public access cable television station to provide Level 3 sex offender information. In Lowell and Chelmsford, the information is available on both the Internet and on public access cable television channels. Rodney Elliott, the Lowell city councilor who proposed the cable postings in that city, said he was inundated with calls from officials in other communities, looking to implement similar programs.

Meanwhile, state officials are trying to get permission from a judge to post all of the state's Level 3 offenders in a single spot on the Internet. Lawyers for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which oversees public defenders in the state, have obtained a court order blocking the proposal, arguing it is unfair to sex offenders who are trying to start their lives over again. There is a court hearing Tuesday on the issue.

"As far as the tragedy in Woburn, we feel very sad that we were prevented from having Michael Bizanowicz's information on the Internet," said Charles MacDonald, a spokesman for the registry. "If he had been classified properly . . . there's a likelihood that Joanne Presti would have been able to see that information."

The push to toughen restrictions on sex offenders and broaden the distribution of information on Level 3 offenders concerns those who wish to ensure that the rights of the offenders are not violated.

Donovan, who is the lead lawyer in the challenge to the state's plan for posting Level 3 offender information on the Internet, called the registry system "fundamentally flawed and a waste of money."

"The idea that you create this system and that it's going to prevent crime is ludicrous," said Donovan. "The statute covers a very broad range of offenses, and it reaches way back. Some of these people have been out since 1981 and may not have committed any new offenses, but they are still required to register."

Donovan said that the plan to put all Level 3 information on the Internet undermines public safety by putting registered sex offenders and their families at greater risk.

"I've had clients who have had garbage and food dumped in their driveway, their cars keyed, 'child rapist' spray painted on their cars," said Donovan. "Their kids, wives, and mothers have been harassed ."

Police say keeping track of registered sex offenders is a difficult balancing act. Officers must avoid harassing the known offenders, but also must be diligent in making sure those who need to register do.

Billerica police Sergeant Jerry Roche, who handles sex offender information in the town, recalled a situation in which he was accused of harassment by the father of a sex offender. The man insisted that his son was not living at the family home. Acting on a tip, however, Roche staked out the home and saw the offender coming out one morning, even though he had not registered with Billerica police. He arrested the son.

Still, Roche is aware of the need to let sex offenders live their lives.

"These people have a right to work, and when you take away that right . . . you put stress on the individual, and who knows what will happen," said Roche. "I understand that people are concerned, but you can't bury them in a hole."

Local police said that the best way to ensure that dangerous offenders will be adequately tracked is to make neighbors aware that the offenders are in their midst. People in the neighborhoods are the best source of information about an offender's comings and goings, they said.

MacDonald said that now, when registry officials train new police on sex offender policies, the trainers are stressing that police are allowed to "go with their guts" when determining if a community needs to know about a sex offender. "It's up to the police to determine residency," he said.

Meanwhile, Nangle is convinced his electronic monitoring bill is on the right track. He's been researching how other states electronically monitor their most dangerous sex offenders. He is trying to put together a plan to have the sex offenders pay at least part of the cost of the monitoring program.

"No citizen in the Commonwealth should have to suffer at the hands of an identified sex offender," he said.

Christine McConville's e-mail is cmcconville@globe.com.