Strict limits urged for sex offenders

Police Chief Michael Botieri and the acting town manager, Melissa Arrighi, said Plymouth has 10 Level 3 sex offenders currently registered. They all live in restricted zones, but would be not be forced to move. The bylaw would apply to newcomers, as well as any of the 10 who changes his address, even if to move just a short distance away.

Selectman Butch Machado, who had called for the town manager’s office to draw up the residency restrictions several months ago, said the intent is to discourage sex offenders from moving into Plymouth.

“I want to send the message to these predators that ‘we don’t want you here,’ ’’ he said, adding the town needs to approve the elsewhere provision before similar bylaws elsewhere “turn Plymouth into a dumping ground for serious sex offenders.’’

Several Southeastern Massachusetts communities already have sex offender residency restrictions on the books, including Dedham, Hanson, Pembroke, Rockland, and Weymouth. Dedham and Rockland both set the restricted zone as 1,000 feet from a school, day care, senior complex, or house of worship. Pembroke and Weymouth put the minimum distance at 1,500 feet; Hanson at 2,000 feet. Plymouth’s proposed bylaw would be the most restrictive at 2,500 feet, or nearly half a mile.

Most communities impose their residency restrictions only on Level 3 offenders, while others include Level 2 offenders convicted of less serious sex crimes. Violations are punishable by fines up to $750 per day until compliance is reached. Bylaws in Hanson and Dedham also include provisions that prohibit sex offenders from loitering within 300 feet of places where children gather.

All told, there are about 20 communities around the state that have residency restrictions for sex offenders, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

In Weymouth, police used the town’s 2008 residency restriction ordinance last winter to oust a 33-year-old sex offender from a rooming house located near a day-care center. The town has nine registered Level 3 offenders.

Libertarians, though, say such ordinances violate the rights of offenders who have been duly punished.

“It imposes additional punishment after the fact and interferes with the right of a family to live together,’’ said John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. He characterized the restrictions as “flawed and dangerous.’’

“What they don’t do is provide any measure of public safety, and what they do is drive sex offenders underground,’’ he said.

The ACLU recently filed its first court challenge of a sex offender residency restriction in the state against the town of Barnstable, on behalf of an offender listed under the pseudonym Mark Moe in court records. “In Barnstable, there are very few areas outside the restricted zones, and those areas are very expensive to live in,’’ Reinstein said.

He said most of the ordinances in place severely restrict where sex offenders can live.

“When you make these local ordinances, what you are essentially saying is, ‘Not in my backyard,’ ’’ Reinstein said. “In the central part of the state, you can see these bylaws have been adopted in clusters,’’ resulting in contiguous areas where sex offenders cannot move in.

Lynn’s ordinance, approved in June, is the ACLU’s next target. “Most bylaws, in order to avoid turning people out of their homes or facing legal challenge,’’ include a clause exempting people who already live in the restricted areas, Reinstein said. “Lynn doesn’t have the clause, so they will be throwing about 50 people out of their homes.’’

Hanson’s sex offender residency bylaw came before voters last spring as a citizen’s petition, written by Planning Board member Richard Flynn.

“I didn’t want Hanson to appear to be sex-offender friendly,’’ Flynn said. “I think it goes a little further than most. The distance is 2,000 feet, and it also covers rentals. Landlords will also be fined for renting to Level 2 and 3 sex offenders in restricted zones.’’

In Plymouth, Machado says he is not concerned with the well-being of sex offenders. “If I could, I would make the restriction as far as 10 miles,’’ he said.

But Plymouth’s Finance and Advisory Committee unanimously voted against recommending passage of the sex offender residency restriction next month.

“We were concerned it would drive more of them into homelessness,’’ said committee chairman William Russell. “I think if we just passed an antiloitering bylaw, that would accomplish what the proponents are trying to do.’’

Machado said he plans to strongly lobby for the restriction to Town Meeting representatives, saying he’s only interested in protecting the children and the elderly of Plymouth.

“Just like you wouldn’t give a diabetic child $20 and send them to the candy store, why would you allow a serious sex offender to live near a school or park?’’ he said.

Christine Legere can be reached at christinelegere@yahoo.com.