Christopher Barrios Jr.’s death was completely avoidable,?

This is a very important and sad situation. In this case the residency restrictions greatly harmed a child and helped no one. We must go back to looking at ALL Americans as human beings, with a right to have a productive life and protect their own families. Each case is different, and it is morally outrageous to label past offenders and banish them with their families. They have already been judged and paid their penalties. It is selling away the very birthright of Freedom - guaranteed by our Founders - to all the generations of children coming after them.

Some of the risk factors for re offense are stress, unstable home and family, no job, lack of support system(a) It was not until Edenfield was cited for living too close to a school and taken to court, found in violation and sentenced to more probation, then forced to move from his home, that he reoffended. Coincidence??? I don't know for sure. The Edenfield's are not poster children for mental stability, but I don't much believe in coincidence. Especially not when we hear over and over again from sex offender treatment professionals how important stability, jobs, and support are.

In fact, is is a simple matter to prove that residency restrictions harm more than help but those who support them can only say "It might help, or if it only saves one child." Well, if you could ask Christopher Barrios, I don't think he would agree with you.

Residency Restrictions don't work:

(b) The Iowa County Attorney's Association (Prosecutors) have been begging to have the state of Iowa's residency restrictions abolished because the had a 50 % increase in sex offenders going underground and not registering, many of the ones who did register were homeless and very hard to keep track of, and they sited the difficutly offenders had getting to support systems and treatment facilities.

(c)The majority (93%) of child molestations are not committed by strangers but by people who are known and trusted within or about the family. Many of these are also first time offenders that neither the registry or residence restrictions would stop. Residency restrictions determine where an offender must or must not lay his head to sleep at night...our schools, daycares, parks, pools, are empty of children then also...this does not make sense.

The money spent enforcing and prosecuting these ineffective laws allow for much less resources to be spent keeping track of the small percentage of truly dangerous offenders with a high risk of recidivism.

This is a perfect example of how banishing sex offenders regardless of their offense is a banishment of their children as well. We end up with sex offenders clustered in small areas. The children of offenders are exposed to potentially more serious offenders, most often in low-income housing areas. Georgia law forced Christopher into living beside this offender because his own father had no other options. In order to "save one child" (which one was saved here?), residency restrictions sacrifice the safety and stability of thousands of children of many low-risk offenders. Given the fact that most offenses are committed by a family member or family friend, residency restrictions are ridiculous.

In this case, abosolutely. When ever you give anyone, especially a family limited options on where they can live, it will leave the children vulnerable to their surroundings.

But it's obvious the government doesn't care about the children of SO's. So sad.