February 20, 2008

"Child safety zones" to be be created in Bristol

City councilors plan to enact a new law next month that would bar child sex offenders from school, parks and other public places where young people congregate.
The ordinance would allow police to issue citations if registered sex offenders who have abused children are found at recreational facilities or schools, which would be designated “child safety zones.”
Offenders would face $90 fines.
“I don’t think it goes far enough,” said city Councilor Mike Rimcoski, a sentiment shared by his colleagues on the Ordinance Committee.
But the legislation the panel is urging the City Council to adopt in March is focused only child sex offenders – those who have committed a sex-related criminal offense against a minor.
Though city lawyers are still investigating their options, it appears the measure won’t bar other registered sex offenders – let alone convicted criminals who have committed other types of offenses against children – from entering the new child safety zones.
Officials said they also need to figure out whether to allow child sex offenders onto school property in unusual circumstances, which can include students who are on the registry or parents who have convictions in their past.
Generally, councilors said, they believe they can include language in the proposed statute that would let offenders into child safety zones as long as it fits with whatever probationary rules apply to the individual in question.
The measure, which largely copies one already in place in Danbury, was initiated at the request of city Councilor Frank Nicastro. Nicastro was angry that a convicted sex offender allegedly raped a 13-year-old in Brackett Park in September.
“Our parks should be considered safe havens for the youth of our city,” Mayor Art Ward said at the time.
At any given time, there are about 100 registered sex offenders living in Bristol. It isn’t clear how many of them were convicted of a crime involving a minor.
Dale Clift, an assistant city attorney, said that the new law would require Police Chief John DiVenere to send written notice of the ordinance to everyone on the registry who lives in Bristol.
Police officers who find a child sex offender within a child safety zone are required to provide them with a written warning to stay out of the areas. Only if they ignore the warnings would they face the $90 tickets, under the terms of the proposed law.
Rimcoski said he is “110 percent in favor” of the proposed ordinance but would like to see it made even tougher.
“I want it against anybody” who is on the sex offender list, Rimcoski said.
City Councilor Kevin McCauley said he, too, would like to see it apply more broadly.
But both Rimcoski and McCauley agreed with the panel’s chairman, Councilor Craig Minor, that it was best to recommend the council approve the ordinance next month.
Officials said it can always be changed later.
“It’s a start,” Rimcoski said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

it is a start and i like it but it sounds like it will be hard to inforce. my idea is better take the person into the woods and shot him in the head with my state licensed 9mm handgun. i have one of these sicko's living on my street god forbid if my child ever goes missing i know where my first stop will be. PARENTS PLEASE NEVER TAKE YOUR EYES OFF YOUR CHILDREN. A VERY CONCERNED MOTHER.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Thats setting a good example for your kid.

Anonymous said...

We can't even enforce dogs crapping in the parks do you think we can enforce this? Get real!!

Anonymous said...

Tread lightly with this one - I think they are using one failed system (Sex Offender Registry) as a way to categorize and discriminate against residents rights to use the park.

If they said "...all registered sex offenders convicted of a crime involving a child..." would be better than everyone on the sex offender registry.

There are people on the registry that don't belong on there because the laws were not written well.

Mock Example: an 18 year old boy dating a 16 year old girl from the same school - having consentual (sp?) sex and the parents find out and have him arrested. Law clearly defines he must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Now that boy is 25, has a family and can't take his kids to the park? That's just wrong.


This ordinance needs to be thought through a little better.

Anonymous said...

WOMAN with a GUN ?!?!?!?!?!

Heaven help us .

Anonymous said...

Wow how brutal.

What a great lesson to teach to your child.

Anonymous said...

February 21, 2008 9:42 AM:

I agree. This is classic politics. The "crime" you are descibing is a good example of how these "sex offender" laws are not perfect.

Why just "sex offenders"? What about the drug dealers, prostitutes, muggers and violent criminals?

Who's going to police this measure anyway?

Appearently in Connecticut it's OK to target sex offenders but not crack dealers.

Anonymous said...

are we going to be posting officers near parks to check ID's? will the BPD be ready to come out when someone is hanging out in a park wearing a trench coat or driving a window-less van past? or are we just going to wait for a drooling pedophile to start chasing a kid around the playground so we can issue them a $90 ticket?

this is just asinine. ANYONE who thinks this law could in any way, shape, or form be useful to anyone is kidding themselves. its just "pat-on-the-back-we-did-something-so-lets-feel-good-about-ourselves" politics.

Anonymous said...

Do we all feel warm and fuzzy now?

Anonymous said...

This is "feel good look what I did for you" politics. It's an unenforcable law and I'm surprised that Corporation Counsel is allowing them to go through with this.

True child sex offenders AUTOMATICALLY have probationary terms when released from jail that prohibit them from having contact with children in public places or private areas until they have been assessed by a psychologst as no longer posing a threat to society.

There is a man in our church that was released from jail this past summer after serving time for inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. He was to have no contact with any minors including his grandchildren until an assessment was made by the state. He couldn't even go to church, the library or any area that children would congregate.

This proposed ordinance in unenforcable. If these child sex offenders are released and found in the park or a school ground they are violating their probation and are sent to jail. No fine - automatic jail.

This is a law suit waiting to happen because it infringes on the rights of the private citizen that is not banned from these places as a term of their probation.

They may as well put all sex offenders on a remote island like lepars (sp?). A $90 fine is a joke.

Anonymous said...

I have questions:

Is this law only targeting pedefiles?

How many registered sex offenders do we have in Bristol that are pedefiles?

How will we know if an out of town pedefile comes to the parks and sits on a bench?

Anonymous said...

Are you one ??

Anonymous said...

A dare to the Republicans on here. Shock me and say or do something meaningful and positive!

Anonymous said...

Steve - My questions are legitimate.

Does this ordinance target only pedefiles, or anyone with a sex charge with a minor? There is a difference.

You can't tell from the sex offender registry which ones are pedefiles.

How many pedefiles do we have in Bristol that are registered on the sex offender list?

How will we know when a pedefile comes in from another town?



AND NO, I AM NOT ONE. I'M ASKING LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TRYING TO PASS THIS LAW THAT COULD VERY EASILY GET THIS CITY SUED.

Anonymous said...

You say you're not one ? Prove it or are you another anonoymous person asking questions from who? Maybe you're friends.That way you get the answers you want and never tell who you are ? Oh I forgot it's an anonymous question.If I were a politician I would give you an anonymous answer.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Republican and one of the things I agreed with Kosta D. about was his opinion on this issue. He felt (at one time at least) that young men who have intercourse with a post-pubescent teen girl and get chraged with statatory rape are being unfairly labeled "sex offenders" (although I guess according to the law they are sex offenders). But I agree with Kosta.

Anonymous said...

2:45 - a little paranoid? The person is simply asking how many pedifiles are in Bristol. How does that make them "one of them".

This ordinance is stupid. It doesn't protect our children from anything. False sense of security.

Anonymous said...

The word is PEDOPHILE...and you thought only the ordinace was stupid...

Anonymous said...

Just because someone doesn't have the best spelling doesn't make them stupid. The questions are legitimate and they have yet to be answered.

You really need to calm down. If there is nothing to hide and the ordinance is a good one that will make a difference in the lives of the people that live here, then there shouldn't be any reason why the questions can't be be answered without criticism or degrading the asker with name calling.

If you can't answer the questions then don't bother responding.

Anonymous said...

The word is PEDOPHILE...and you thought only the ordinace was stupid...

Why are you so angry and mean? Do you feel personally attacked because someone is questioning this ordinance?

If we are the voting population and we are the citizens of this town, we have the right to ask questions and expect answers.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a Republican and one of the things I agreed with Kosta D. about was his opinion on this issue. He felt (at one time at least) that young men who have intercourse with a post-pubescent teen girl and get chraged with statatory rape are being unfairly labeled "sex offenders" (although I guess according to the law they are sex offenders). But I agree with Kosta."
Oh please. Kosta is definitely the one you want to consult when it comes to matters involving sex with post-pubescent teen girls. Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

9:23 - your posts are very easy to point out because your tone is unique. You are so angry with the everyone if they don't agree with you. Lighten up and let other people have different opinions than you have without crucifying them.

The person agreeing with former State Rep Diamantis take on the failures of the sex offender list is something that many people believe. It has nothing to do with how you may personally feel about Kosta.