The journey from there to here

An Iowa law (article below) restricting convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or day care centers is working its way through the court system.

Frankly, I have VERY mixed emotions about this.

While the idea has merit and we DO need to protect our children as best we reasonably can, how far could this type of legislation go? Could a convicted burglar who's served their time be denied housing in an upscale neighborhood for the same public interest? It's a question that should be asked before we go overboard.

Most areas already have sex offender registration laws. The violators of these laws wouldn't pay attention to their proximity to schools or day care centers; they're already violating the law in the first place. And those who DO comply are readily identifiable as offenders.

What we really need are better laws to put away sex offenders. If, as these laws imply (and as MANY studies have shown), there is little chance of repeat sex offenders being successfully rehabilitated, then the answer is as simple as it is humane: they should not be allowed to see the light of day again. We owe it to our own children and their past victims to assure them that, once convicted of a serious sex crime such as this, they will not be allowed back on the streets. And we owe it to the criminal (oddly enough) to assure them that the controls they are either unable or unwilling to place on their behavior will be placed on them by society.

But before we reform sentencing, we must reform the prisons. Make them a place where someone with something to contribute who is unable to live in an open society can still contribute something. Give them privileges (WITHIN the walls ONLY) commensurate with their willingness to contribute to their own support; for instance, if they EARN cable TV, they can HAVE cable TV...but not unless they WORK for it, like the rest of us.

I'm not saying we should make the prisons into country clubs. A prisoner should have to wake up every day and be reminded that they are, in fact, in prison. But I AM submitting that a "life without parole" sentence, without the potential for a certain degree of self actualization within the walls, is no different than a death sentence protracted over several years.

 

By TODD DVORAK, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago
 


IOWA CITY, Iowa - As communities around the country move to restrict where child molesters can live, legal experts are closely watching the fate of an Iowa law working its way through the federal courts.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The Iowa law, one of the most restrictive in the nation, bars convicted child molesters from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center.

In April, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying the restrictions on sex offenders' freedom to live where they choose were "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest" — public safety.

The ruling marked the first time a federal appeals court anywhere in the country had taken up a sex-offender buffer-zone law.

While the ruling is binding only in the court's seven-state Midwest region, it could be a persuasive precedent elsewhere. And because the case is further along than any other such challenge, it could wind up before the     U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Iowa law should be a good test case for this type of regulation because it's a broad restriction and a significant one," said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in criminal sentences and policy.

At least 14 states have laws prohibiting sex offenders from living near schools, day care centers, parks or school bus stops. Earlier this month, Miami Beach, Fla., created a 2,500-foot buffer zone, covering nearly the entire city. In May, Hamilton Township, N.J., and Davie, Fla., adopted similar measures.

"I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more communities giving this type of legislation a go because sex offenders have become the moral monsters of the day," Berman said.

In April, a federal judge refused to block a state residency restriction from taking effect in Ohio. The law gave prosecutors authority to evict sex offenders living within 1,000 feet of schools. In Illinois and Arkansas, state judges have turned back lawsuits challenging residency restrictions.

The Iowa Legislature borrowed from Alabama in approving the 2,000-foot restriction in 2002. The law was challenged in federal court a year later by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union.

A federal judge ruled that the law improperly singled out offenders for additional punishment and left them with too few places to live. The federal appeals court disagreed. The ICLU is asking the full appeals court to reconsider.


Comments
on Jun 24, 2005
The problem is different stated consider different things to fall under Sex Offender crime. They had an article about one guy who was out at a bar late drinking and then walked home. He had to urinate and there was no place to go. So he found a dark alley and too a leak. Unfortunately a cop passed by and arrested him. He was charged and convicted as a sex offender. So if he moves to Iowa that means he can't live within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center.
on Jun 24, 2005
mick,

Thanks for pointing out another part of our system in serious need of reform. We need to identify the TRUE sex offenders and deal with them, not someone who takes a leak in public.

I guess the main point I wanted to make is, if they are so dangerous that we must legislate where they can and can't live, perhaps they shouldn't be out on the streets in the first place.
on Jun 24, 2005
The thing is, Gid, this power is already at the judge's descretion. I have a sex offender living two streets over from me, and he has been ordered to never be less than 1000 feet from a school. He lives about a half-mile from my daughter's school, tops, and kids walk past his house to and from every day.

I think something like this is honestly good for the sex offender. If I were to see the guy I mentioned walking in front of my school, I *guarentee* he'd be harassed. No ifs, ands, or buts. He'd be escorted past politely, but down the road he'd go.

So, better to make sure they understand how they'll be recieved, don't you think? The state has a responsibility to protect them, and they are in grave danger if they get into interaction range with our kids.
on Jun 24, 2005
If one has to choose between a law that keeps a known pedophile sex offender a certain distance away from the very type of people he likes to sexually assault, or to have no laws that would keep a known pedophile sex offender a certain distance away from the very type of people he likes to sexually assault, I'd opt for the former.
Reforming The Prisons
With the US jails bursting as the seams with more on the way, that's an impossibility. The more inmates, the more apathy, not to mention more diseases, more violence, a more predatory jail culture, the list can go on and on. The 'we have to rehabilitate them' argument is as old as the prison system itself, and it never worked then just like it doesn't work now. Rehabilitation includes actually caring about those you're trying to rehabilitate, and the hacks in the system make no bones about the fact they don't care about them at all, whatsoever.
on Jun 24, 2005
The 'we have to rehabilitate them' argument is as old as the prison system itself, and it never worked then just like it doesn't work now. Rehabilitation includes actually caring about those you're trying to rehabilitate, and the hacks in the system make no bones about the fact they don't care about them at all, whatsoever.


Damn I HATE to say this but, I agreeg with RH on this. Screw rehab, it has NEVER worked!
on Jun 25, 2005
The problem is, many sex offenders have been "rehabilitated". Of course be "rehabilitated" I mean, they have learned to curb their actions (if not desires). Like everyone else, it is not the desire that is criminal, it is the actions. The best protection against the predatory pedophile is knowing who they are and where they live. Again, like everything else, there are few things that modify behavior better than scrutiny.

Controlling where they live has historically been a total failure. You can't keep a rapist "1,000 feet" from a rapist. You can't keep a voyeur 1,000 feet from a bedroom window.... etc. They are as wrong headed and unenforceable as the stupid 1,000 feet from schools laws for guns.

That being said, MOST predatory pedophiles do fit in the category you describe. Longer sentences, and better definitions of "sex offender" are Very important. Unfortunatly there are enough pedophiles within the justice and legislative systems to keep the whole thing frustrated for decades to come.

on Jun 25, 2005
There are 21 Sex Offenders living withing 3 blocks of me. Finding that out only reenforced my concerns for living in a safe neighborhood. Last week a 7 year old girl was snatched and raped....by a previous Sex Offender in her neighborhood. Do I think a law will fix the problem? No, but should we really tempt those with a problem until they give in?
on Jun 25, 2005
I live in Iowa and I also have many sex offenders in my area. I would love to see them put away for life but the liberals wont put up with it. So in the mean time, lets keep them from living by schools and day care centers. Its for the CHILDREN.
on Jun 27, 2005

I know that both Dr. and Reiki believe rehabilitation doesn't work, but I beg to differ. The problem is our penal system's approach to rehabilitation.

The argument I am making is that if you "warehouse" these criminals for their entire sentence, you virtually GUARANTEE recidivism...and worse yet, recidivism by a more educated criminal, who has learned through years of incarceration how to decrease the likelihood of detection.

Our prisons are busting at the seams because we insist on long prison sentences for victimless crimes. Criminals put away for drug offenses will spend much of their life behind bars while rapists and murderers walk through the doors because of prison overcrowding. Whatever one thinks about drug use, drug use alone does not impact society NEARLY as harshly as do rape and murder.

There ARE ways to reform our prison system, and to lower recidivism rates. This has been proven. But as long as we insist on our fatalistic thinking, we can guarantee it will never happen.

on Jun 27, 2005
You really think child molesters can be rehabilitated to a degree they can be trusted, Gid?
on Jun 27, 2005

Baker,

Personally, NO. That's why I am against incarceration for victimless crimes (even if you don't want to embrace the Libertarian extreme on this, alternate sentencing such as house arrest is a preferable alternative as it reduces cost by forcing the offender to be self supporting, and reduces the prison overcrowding so that we can use truth in sentencing for the serious offenders). I believe SOME sex offenders can be rehabilitated to the point where they can function in society, but NEVER to the point where they can be trusted. Giving trust to a sex offender is like giving a fifth to an alcoholic; you're handing them something they're incapable of handling.

Personally, I'd like to see the concept of the penal colony restored. There are simply some criminals who should never be returned to society, and a penal colony would give them an opportunity to lead a semi productive life while protecting society from them and protecting them from themselves.