Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Landlord to sex offenders in Ware says safe home cuts risk

Landlord to sex offenders in Ware says safe home cuts risk

 

Mr. Pentlarge’s effort to help sex offenders was recently in the spotlight when his latest tenant, high-profile child rapist Paul R. Shanley, moved into an apartment that Mr. Pentlarge owns at 31 Pulaski St. Mr. Shanley had been incarcerated for 12 years for repeatedly raping a boy at a Newton parish in the 1980s. The former street priest was at the center of the Roman Catholic priest sex abuse scandal and was defrocked.


Mr. Pentlarge said some sex offenders have reached out to him for a place to rent after learning about him and his volunteer work with the Criminal Justice Policy Coalition after his release.
The Boston-based CJPC, created in 1996, works to bring together individuals and organizations concerned about the repercussions of what they see as the “increasingly retributive nature of criminal justice policy in Massachusetts.”

Some of the offenders who rent from Mr. Pentlarge shared cells with him while in prison. Typically, lawyers for sex offenders who are about to be released contact him.

He said he received a phone call several months ago from Eric Tennen, a Boston attorney, who asked if he would be willing to rent to Mr. Shanley. The lawyer, who previously represented Mr. Pentlarge, was retained to argue against any civil commitment of Mr. Shanley after his prison sentence.

Mr. Shanley, 86, was met here upon release by journalists and local residents, many of whom said they fear for children in the neighborhood. They pointed out that several Level 3 and Level 2 sex offenders reside on Pulaski Street.

According to data from the Sex Offender Registry Board, seven Level 3 sex offenders rent properties owned by Mr. Pentlarge, four of them at 31 and 33 Pulaski St. More than a dozen Level 2 sex offenders live in Ware, four of them on streets - two on Pulaski Street -where Mr. Pentlarge owns properties.

Information about Level 2 sex offenders - deemed to have a moderate risk of reoffending - including their addresses - is only available through local police departments. Thirteen Level 1 sex offenders also call Ware home. Information about them is not available to the public because of their low-risk of reoffending.

“People ask why are all these sex offenders living on Pulaski Street?” Mr. Pentlarge said. “They’d like to live in Paxton, but they can’t afford to. They can’t get a job because they’re on the Sex Offender Registry. They can’t even get a job at Walmart or Lowe’s.”

Town Manager Stuart B. Beckley said the number of Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders in town doesn’t seem to be a high number.

“If you look at the (Sex Offender) Registry Board, you can see a variety of offenders in a variety of towns,” he said. Police Chief Shawn Crevier said he doesn’t recall a time when any registered sex offender living in Ware has reoffended. The chief, a lifelong town resident, said he had wondered if there was a connection between Mr. Pentlarge and the number of registered sex offenders living in town.

Ware, which has a population of fewer than 10,000 people, has a significantly higher level of registered sex offenders, particularly at Level 3, than other communities in the area, including Belchertown, Palmer and Ludlow, which have larger populations.

According to the Sex Offender Registry Board, Ware, with a total population of 9,707, has 13 Level 1 sex offenders, 16 Level 2 sex offenders, and 23 Level 3 sex offenders.

Ludlow, which has more than twice the population of Ware, has seven Level 3 sex offenders, roughly a third of the number in Ware.

Mr. Pentlarge said he is committed to not reoffending. The shame and pain that he caused family, friends and acquaintances is something he never wants to repeat, he said. He has apologized to his four victims, he said. Two of them, now adults, visit regularly. He said they had court orders prohibiting contact lifted.

One of his victims went on to be imprisoned twice for raping two girls.

When asked if he thinks what he did led to that, Mr. Pentlarge was quiet and stared into the distance for some time. “I would hope not,” he finally said
.
Since his release, Mr. Pentlarge has purchased several more housing units and has done much of the repair work himself, bringing the properties back to the tax rolls. Personal health issues now limit the repair work he does.

Mr. Pentlarge has also battled cancer and is now in remission. In 2010, he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Because of his health and a favorable recommendation from probation officials, he successfully petitioned the court to discontinue his lifetime probation.

He said he was surprised by the intensity of the media’s interest in Mr. Shanley’s release from prison. As the priest moved in, a woman stood outside his door with a sign that said, “Beware.” He was also told of two people throwing garlic at the house where Mr. Shanley now lives.

“This is a level of hysteria that makes you think we’re not that far removed from the witch hunts of Salem,” he said.

Some residents have expressed anger that Mr. Shanley is not required to wear an electronic monitoring device. They also question why he was not interviewed by psychologists who determined that because of his age and major health issues he should not be civilly confined as a sexually dangerous person.

State Sen. Anne M. Gobi, who heard from constituents on Facebook and other social media about Mr. Shanley’s release, said she is also concerned that he is not being electronically monitored and that he was not required to meet face-to-face with the two experts on sex offenders before being released. She said she plans to meet with the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to discuss legislation she is considering.

“I was appalled that he was able to get out of jail. He only served 12 years,” she said. “And the psychologists were not required to interview him. That is something that should be addressed ... I’m sure residency will be part of” legislation that will be filed.

Ms. Gobi said she’s also looking at what other states are doing regarding residency requirements for sex offenders.

“If two, three, five Level 3 sex offenders are living in the same building, I think that’s a problem,” Sen. Gobi said.

Felix Browne, spokesman for the state Department of Public Safety, said the Sex Offender Registry law does not give the state board the power to approve where an offender lives. If an offender is paroled, as opposed to finishing a prison sentence, the probation department may set conditions.
Dozens of communities have implemented residency restrictions on sex offenders, banning them from living near parks and schools, with the intention of protecting children. But in 2015 the state’s highest court invalidated the local restrictions because they violated state law.

The sweeping SJC case was based on a 2011 ordinance in Lynn that banned Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or park. The court ruled the Lynn rule effectively banned offenders from nearly all city housing. The court also likened the housing restrictions to the country’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the removal of Native American tribes from their homelands.

A bill filed by state Rep. Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading, seeks to prohibit Level 3 sex offenders from residing together unless they are biologically related.

Robert A. Prentky, a psychologist who worked at the state treatment center in Bridgewater for sex offenders civilly committed after being deemed sexually dangerous, said restricting where registered sex offenders can live could do more harm than good.

The forensic psychologist was contracted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 to lead a three-year pilot program on campus sexual assault predator treatment. In a telephone interview last week, he noted that housing restrictions are not imposed on other criminals, including those released from prison for homicide and those with long histories of drug dealings and abuse.

“As long as there are housing restrictions that are placed on sex offenders, we create more of a problem than we solve,” said Mr. Prentky, who directs training programs on forensic psychology at Fairleigh Dickenson University in New Jersey. “They have to live somewhere. When housing restrictions are severe and draconian, we end up with all the sex offenders living under a bridge.”

Mr. Prentky, who provided Mr. Pentlarge with counseling after his release, said the likelihood of Mr. Shanley reoffending is decreased because if he were to reoffend, he likely would die in prison. “The risk to reoffend is inversely related to age. The risk goes down as age goes up,” he explained.

Mr. Pentlarge said he understands that parents want to protect their children. But focusing on Mr. Shanley or him “isn’t remotely close to what they need to do.” He pointed out that the vast majority of sex offenses are committed by someone the victim knows - family members, friends and acquaintances.

“It’s basic good parenting,” he advised. “They need to have open, loving relationships with their children to be able to discuss candidly with their children what’s going on in their children’s lives.”

No comments:

Post a Comment