I hate to write about this subject because inevitably people always draw the conclusion that I'm soft on sex offenders. But these so called 1000 feet rules on sex offenders are absolutely ridiculous.
First, we need to understand the nature of the crime committed. It's is very rare that a sex crime involving a child is committed by a stranger. I received a call from a radio station sales rep telling me that 200,000 children in this country are abducted every year. I called her out on the math. If that were true an Amber alert would be out 24/7. In fact, child abductions by a stranger are so rare, it's a national story when a child appears to be abducted by a stranger.
In the Cincinnati area, look at the public attention to the Marcus Feisel case when it was feared he might be abducted. 200,000 a year? I think not.
Second, many of the people who end up on the sex offenders list commit what are called "opportunistic" offenses, not predator offenses. An opportunistic offender would be a 22 year old having a consensual sexual relationship with a 15 year old. While, yes it should be a crime, to think this is someone who is a general threat to society after they do their time is kind of hysteric.
But politicians peddling to the kind of hysteria surrounding Polly Klaus have put in place a public policy that make absolutely no sense in controlling this type of crime. In addition, the politicians expanded the definition of who a sexual offender is that no one can really distinguish between someone who is a threat to their children and who is not.
For instance, under current law, a sex offender cannot live within a thousand feet of a school yet it's perfectly legal for that same offender to drive up next to a school and watch kids on a play ground or a park.
I know a guy who is a sex offender, as part of his probation, he must be inside of his home by 10:00 pm. Just how many kids are out on the street at that time?
Politicians throw these kind of laws out so it looks like they are doing something and the public gets a false sense of security that all the bad guys have been put away; all the while it's Uncle Buddy you really need to worry about.
If the public really believes that these guys are such a threat, the smartest solution would be to strap a GPS monitor on every convicted sex offender's ankle and monitor each and every move they make. If the offender goes to an area the court believes should be off limits or the offender takes off the monitor for any reason, it's an automatic 5 years in prison.
Instead, we are going to force these guys to live in modern day leper colonies. At least they'll be able to live with the smokers.
2 comments:
Actually, you are onto something regarding colonies. But the only way to do it, Constitutionally, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, which I am in the process of doing.
It is obvious. Nobody wants sex offenders to live in their neighborhoods, or even their cities. I'm a parent, and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent sex offenders from living anywhere that children may live, even if their victims were people they knew. It means NOTHING to me; what means EVERYTHING to me is they committed an atrocious crime against children. That's enough for me.
Unfortunately, these sex offenders have rights. If they are not in prison, they will probably get the ACLU to sue the city and we will have to spend thousands of dollars defending the restrictions.
The ONLY thing, therefore, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, creating sex offender colonies to restrict where these convicted sex offenders live in the first place. How to do this?
The first thing that needs to be done is to create an outline of such an amendment. I looked at the process for how an amendment is created. Here is the process:
Under Article V, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to ratify them.
To propose an amendment
1. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
To ratify an amendment
1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.
I would submit that the state legislature route would probably be more effective, but the congressional method can be tried first. It can effectively be used as a litmus test for voting, i.e., if someone doesn't want to vote for proposing the amendment in congress, their 2008 opponent can have a field day in saying that the incumbent protects sex offenders at the expense of children's safety, etc.
Such an amendment would solve many problems. First of all, the registry would not exist in its current form. Parents don't have to worry where the sex offenders live, as they all would, by law, have to live in the colony. This also eliminates the need for GPS, as the sex offenders would be restricted to the colony in the first place. No worries about convicted child molesters stalking your children's school or favorite park, or trolling on the Internet.
Next, registrants would constitutionally have to be subjected to non-court ordered search of their premises within the zone. In addition, all their mail and phone calls would constitutionally be authorized to be monitored for illicit activities. Internet usage would also be strictly regulated, with all file storage for every computer actually done at the server-level. In addition, emails would be assigned by the administration, no Instant messaging or accessing MySpace or other children sites allowed, and all keystrokes and sites visited will be recorded 100%. All costs for such usage would be borne out by the offender, incidentally.
All registrants would be required to work, with their paychecks being handled by the administrators. Deductions for medical, rent, all services, and everything else would be done automatically, and any credit the registrant have be used for discretionary income ONLY from the colony store. Also, EVERY registrant will be required to go through treatment appropriate to his crime, and be certified as cured; otherwise, he can be subject to a felony charge and returned to prison.
Now, please keep in mind one thing: The sex offender colony is NOT...repeat...NOT a replacement for tough, appropriately long, non-paroleable sentencing guidelines in the first place! THAT IS PARAMOUNT. The colony would exist because society cannot handle the large amounts of offenders in their neighborhoods, with the inherent terror parents have with the knowledge that offenders are around their children. Therefore, the colony is SPECIFICALLY for offenders to spend their entire registration periods in a constitutionally-approved manner, eliminating the need for registries as they exist now.
Keep in mind, many offenders also are able to leave the registry for certain crimes after a specified amount of time has passed. Therefore, once a registrant's time period has expired, he can petition the administration to be relieved of the duty to register and live in the SORERA zone. A panel of professionals, law enforcement individuals, and the offender's victim representatives, will go over the request. If they feel the offender is ready to join society, then he can leave the zone and live anywhere he wants, although he will have to permanently register with law enforcement wherever he goes for the rest of his life. Bear in mind, also, that any registrant who has to register for life will NEVER get the opportunity to leave the zone. Only the most benign of the registrants will ever be allowed to leave.
So there you have it. With a constitutional amendment, we can control where they live, where they work, and how they communicate, with confidence that they won't have a "relapse" when our own children are in striking distance.
Anonymous: You are a nut case. Do your homework on who is labelled a "registered sex offender" before you advocate this "sex offender colony" AKA a concentration camp.
Post a Comment