Sex Offender Procedures Draw Criticism

Some 50 tenants of Towers at Waters Edge met Tuesday night with a sergeant from NYPDs Sex Offender Monitoring Unit, a representative from the Queens District Attorneys Sex Crimes Unit and the parole officer of a recently released level-three sex offender who has moved into the Sayville, one of the apartment complexs high rises.
It was an emotional meeting punctuated by tenants shouting questions and, after receiving mealy-mouthed answers from the speakers, making repeated demands to know how the convicted felon, who was jailed for having sex with a five-year-old boy and an eight-year-old boy, obtained residence in their complex and why they were not immediately notified of his presence.
The meeting raised larger questions of who should be actively notified about a sex offender living in a community and where a suitable residency that nullifies any potential risk to children might be found.
According to the Division of Criminal Justice Services, as of December 2003, there are 17,560 sex offenders living in New York state and 833 living in Queens County. As part of New Yorks Megans Law, enacted in 1995, and later bolstered by the Sex Offender Registry Act, anyone on parole or probation or imprisoned for a sex offense has his or her name and home address placed on a state registry that the public can access.
Residents who want to know of any sex offenders living in the area can call 900-288-3838 and will be provided the information. To find the location of level-three sex offenders those considered the most dangerous by the state they can log onto www.criminaljustice.state.ny.us .
This information, though, is not actively provided to the public.
"NYC has a passive form of notification," said Karen Terry, a professor at John Jay College and expert on sex offenders, in an interview with The Queens Courier. "The only information given out on an individual is to vulnerable populations."
According to the states Department of Criminal Justice, when a sex offender moves into an area, local law enforcement agencies are made aware, and they provide information to those they deem most at risk in case of a repeat offense. For example, nursing homes may be notified of a sex offender convicted of abusing the elderly, but schools would not be made aware.
Yet, tenants at Towers complained that, as in their own case, passive notification and the local authoritys selective notification process are inadequate and flawed.
Tenants at Towers learned by happenstance that a sex offender moved in their complex in October. A resident realized a sex offender lived in her high rise when she saw his picture and address posted at her dentists office.
The news awakened fears in residents of the Bayside apartment, where according to tenants, 26 children live in the Sayville high rise and approximately 50 in total reside in the complex. Tenants and parents of students at nearby schools felt they should have been notified.
"I understand he has to live somewhere, but I dont understand why the parole officer did not at least notify the management of the building," said one frustrated Towers tenant and parent of a 10-year-old child, who wished to remain anonymous. "I am not comfortable with the fact that if it is on the Internet that its enough."
At the meeting, a parole officer said his agency follows a criteria for choosing a residency for a sex offender. As a rule of thumb, he said, sex offenders cant live in the neighborhood where a conviction was made. A sex offender can also not return to his or her home if the victim was a family member.
The Parole Board also tries to be restrictive with a person convicted of sexually abusing children. In such cases, the residency would most likely not be an apartment with a day care center.
However, the Parole Board makes its restrictions on residency on a case-by-case basis. Generally, the parole board cannot be as prohibitive as other states are.
"Its unfortunately very difficult in New York because of the small geography," said Terry. "Because of the nature of the housing, it is difficult to impose restrictions."
Unlike in places such as Iowa, where there are rules that prohibit sex offenders from living within a certain distance from schools, New York City, she said, is densely populated and has few locations where there are not many children residing.
Yet, tenants in the Towers and local elected officials believe the Bayside apartment complex is still not the right location.
At the meeting, the sex offenders supervisor, Parole Officer Eileen Vivas, told tenants that his parents suggested to the Parole Board that he live with them in an apartment there.
Before approving the location, Vivas said that she personally surveyed the grounds for any security risks. She said that with its cameras and doormen, the Sayville was deemed a suitable location.
Eric Goidel, the attorney for two of the three co-ops, questioned this decision. In his conversations with Vivas, he learned that the sex offender had been deemed a security risk in one of the Towers garden apartments its one- and two-story townhouses but not in the high rises. Considering the sex offender can use elevators and stairways that do not have security cameras, Goidel questioned what made the high rises more secure. In the least, he said, Vivas should have talked to the management about the possibility of a sex offender living in the apartment and questioned how effective their security cameras are and how mindful their doormen are.
State Senator Toby Stavisky, who along with Assemblywoman Ann Carrozza and other elected officials, attended Tuesdays meeting, criticized the Parole Boards choice in housing and referred to information provided on the sex offender registry Website that stated the convict living at Towers is not permitted to be around children under 18 years of age without adult supervision. Vivas attempted to clarify this point by saying the sex offender is not allowed to initiate interaction but does not have to leave an elevator if a child boards. However, it only infuriated the crowd and elected officials.
"He should be in a building without an elevator," said Stavisky, noting that the Sayville high rise provides too many opportunities for unsupervised interaction with children. "This is not an appropriate setting. We have a halfway house and group homes for people like this. There are all sorts of step-down facilities."
Stavisky and other elected officials from the district are writing a letter to the Parole Board to ask for re-evaluation of their decision to let him live in the Towers. They hope to have news this week.
Stavisky would also like the Parole Board to make its guidelines more restrictive in how close a sex offender can live near a school. She said she hopes they do it administratively but would be willing to go the legislative route if necessary.
Though there are no statistics about the recidivism rates in sex offenders, representatives from the district attorneys office and the NYPD said that anecdotally the evidence is low. Sex offenders may return to jail but rarely for the same crime. However, it is level-three designation that worries tenants and parents in a nearby school. The designation is reserved for convicts deemed the most dangerous and most at risk for a repeat offense.
"There is a big degree difference between a first and third degree offenders," said Fred Blumenfeld, a president of the Versailles co-op, another high rise at Towers, not mincing words. "A third level they see no future for. He should be in a rural place, where you are driving miles to get to a school, where shopping centers are not next to a house."
Moreover, tenants say the sex offender registry Website provides vague information about the man living in Towers. For instance, the Website states the man has a curfew but does not give details about when it is and where he must be.
"Under the special conditions on the Website, there are no specifics," said Stavisky. "Special conditions ought to include such issues as whether he has to maintain employment or is participating in sex offender treatment program."
Towers residents at the meeting also railed about the lack of information provided to areas where children congregate like nearby schools, The Bayside Terrace shopping center and the YMHA.
Terry said that its the lack of manpower in NYPDs Sex Offenders Monitoring Unit seven officers supervise more than 4,000 sex offenders that restricts the law enforcement agency from notifying more than those deemed the vulnerable population. She said that in other states, officers go from door to door notifying residents that a sex offender lives in their neighborhoods. Law enforcement in New York, she said, will normally notify a school, not necessarily to inform parents, but to make an administrator aware, if the sex offender seeks employment there.
Yet, parents at the meeting were perplexed that the administrators of three schools nearby PS 169, PS 209 and PS 41 were unaware of the sex offender until concerned parents brought it to their attention.
"There is a breakdown somewhere," said a parent of a 10-year-old at PS 169, who did not wish to give her name. "Schools are not being notified."
At a meeting, an officer from NYPDs Sex Offender Monitoring Unit said that in the past, under the Board of Education, the local precincts in this case it would have been the 109th notified the school districts office. The schools were then notified and sent home letters. However, the officer said, under the Department of Education (DOE), police no longer notify the schools. He said DOE gets information straight from the states Department of Criminal Justice.
However, parents from PS 169 who live in the Towers said when they told the principal she was unaware. Moreover it took a group of parents making a fusillade of phone calls to DOE for three weeks before the school finally sent out letters to parents.
Despite repeated requests by The Queens Courier, DOE did not return phone calls concerning its protocol about how it received and distributed notification of sex offenders living near schools.