The original note actually didn't say one way or another. It said he'd been convicted OR given deferred adjudication. That could mean he had served time, or it could mean he hadn't served time. I assume it's vague because it is meant to be sent out in every instance rather than being crafted specifically for this instance.
Well there is a lot of things apartment managements put in lease agreements that are not legal or binding. Just because it is in there doesn't mean he has to live by those terms. But, the reason I mentioned it is because it says people who "have been violating the law, violating this Lease Contract or any apartment rules, or disturbing other residents, neighbors, visitors, or owner representatives." That suggests they can only revoke the lease based on current activity, not past offenses. Either way, if I were this sex offender, I'd sue (though I'd probably lose since who is going to side with a sex offender?). Banginscrew, I'd rather protect the 'condemned' in this case over the 'innocent.' Afterall, it is the sex offender who is currently and actually being persecuted, whereas we're talking only about the potential risk an 'innocent' might face. Btw, since when can indecent exposure be high risk?
The Federal housing laws allow an apartment complex to exclude anybody who has a felony record. A felony is a crime which COULD be punished by more than 1 year in prison. So even if it was deferred...it is still a felony. If this guy was lying on his application or used a false name...it wouldn't pop up on the criminal history search. The complex probably found out about it and decided to cancel his lease. They have the right to do it. And yes...the lease provision has to do with current behavior. This is so they can evict somebody who is dealing heroin out of the apartment or running a business out of it illegally without the need for a criminal conviction. It is their right as a landowner.
Well, I for one have done some things wrong in my life and have actually seen many cases of young guys that were turned in by their girlfriend’s parents...Very sad situation. In one case the girls parents told him to marry her and when he didn't they turned him in. I'm just so glad that they were not enforcing things like this when I was younger. I have talked to sex offenders who can’t even pick up their kid(s) from school. And yes they have their kids obviously because they are not that high of a risk. We continue to let the government do whatever they want with people’s lives and things are only going to get worse. They say that it’s to protect us but really they are monitoring us all...I'm not taking up for sex offenders because some of them are definitely sick almost like a disease such as alcoholism. The only problem is no one knows how to begin to cure it. But they let them out and make it so difficult to succeed they end up violating anyway.
The problem is that sex offenders have an ENORMOUS rate of recidivism...and it has nothing to do with registration laws. The rate has not changed with the enactment of the laws. These are sick people by and large. Statutory rape is a different story IMO. But Megan's Law and laws like it were enacted after a slew of kids were raped and killed by repeat offenders who were living down the street without the parent's knowledge.
If he had already served time, wouldn't the apartment have picked up on that before letting him live there?
It sounds as if he was recently convicted. If the police are sending out a notification, then they probably contacted the apartment management first. The apartment notice was deffinitely written in legaleese. My bet is it came from their lawyers, and they felt comfortable with the eviction given the circumstances. The separate issue of sex offender registration: I agree that it needs to be done, especially given the high rate of recidivism. The problem is, it's VERY overused. You could go to the sex offender database and probably find 50 offenders within a mile of you -- people who fit the statutory rape example given earlier lumped in with the child molesters. Not only are we stigmatizing some people who don't deserve it, we are desensitizing the public to the more serious offenders. I'll give you an example of a registered offender that I met. At a previous employer, in a small town, my boss was a respected president of the company -- probably the 4th or 5th biggest employer locally. His father was a registered sex offender from an infraction six years earlier, and had certain restrictions. When my boss's sister moved, and was not able to care for him, so he moved in with my boss and his family. The police (that chief is another story) published that a "registered sex offender is living at 1234 Hometown Street." Letters and citizen complaints poured out, people vandilized his house, etc. They beseiged our business, convinced it was my boss, who had lived in the town for about two years. In response to the fact that they violated the law by giving the specific address, the police department printed a retraction. "We retract the earlier stated that a registerd sex offender is living at 1234 Hometown Street. The notice should have said the 1200 block of Hometown Street." So now they've posted the address twice. Even after attempting to explain the situation, with deference to his father, my boss had to leave the company and move out of the city. He was in fear for his family. What was the terrible offense? Indecency with a Minor. The father was in his 70s, at a nursing home, frail, confused, disoriented, with some dementia. Out of respect to his father, and given the fact it wasn't necessary (he had no assets, and was cooperative on healthcare decisions) they had never had him declared formally incompetent. I met the man, and he was nice. I had to introduce myself three times, and the 100 pound man couldn't have hurt someone unless he fell over his cane. Apparently, a 17 year old aid, who wasn't supposed to be working there anyway (under 18) offered to show some of the male residents her breasts, and some to feel them, in exchange for whatever cash they had on them. The nursing home fired her when they found out, and she countered with allegations of assault against some of the residents. My boss's father couldn't provide much help in his defense, because he really didn't know what was going on. Rather than subject everyone to a risky trial, the family pled out with the DA, who gave him probation and certain conditions (has to be supervised by an adult who agrees to be responsible for him, can't be with kids unless the parents knew about the situation and were present or had given consent, etc., and he had to be registered. Of course, as soon as he pled out, the nursing home, who was really responsible for the problem by hiring an underaged, unsupervised slut, gave him the boot. He couldn't get into another, so one of his children, a spouse, or someone on a list with the DA, has to be with him 24/7.
I agree that it is overused. It should only be used in the case of a child molester (NOT a 17 year old "child" either) or rape. These are infraction that the public needs to be made aware of. And the notice should NEVER, EVER list a home address...mere that the sex offender is living within x number of miles.
I agree with Megan's Law in California because children essentially have no rights and it is their parents should be informed if there's a convicted sicko in the vicinity... There are different degrees of sex offenders, and though I don't have a problem putting out a notice on all of them, I think the wording should be modified to underline the severity of the categories.
