Lincoln is in the early stages of a serious discussion about the rights of individuals convicted of sex crimes (aka "sex offenders"). Please humor me while I engage in a bit of a lunchtime stream-of-consciousness monologue.
Lincoln is in the midst of what is known as a "policy window." The opportunity is ripe for modifying sex offender-related ordinances in Lincoln for several reasons. First is the fear that sex offenders will move to Nebraska from Iowa because communities there have enacted restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live. Many individuals have effectively been forced from their communities. Second is the recent sexual assault at Arnold Elementary School. Those two events, among other factors, have increased paranoia among the general population, and especially among parents and grandparents of young children. Lincolnites are ready to kick all sex offenders out of the city, with Police Chief Tom Casady leading the way.
The comparisons to post-9/11 Americans' willingness to sacrifice liberty for perceived security are difficult to ignore.
Indeed, it's the "perception" thing that gets to me. Do these No Sex Offender zones actually work? Do they protect anyone? Are repeat sex offenders more likely to commit their crimes within 2,000 feet of their homes than outside of that zone? I suspect there's a short-term drop in sex crimes after these laws pass -- that's just a hunch, not based on facts -- but does the drop hold over time? Do buffer zone laws cause sex offender registration to drop, thereby pushing more people under the radar? Those aren't rhetorical questions. I really want to know the answers. Does anybody have them? Can we as a society enact this sort of legislation in good conscience without knowing the answers to these questions?
And what of the rights of the individuals being punished? Like it or not, they do have rights, and most of them aren't monst
ers. Most are willing and able to be rehabilitated. Some of them already have been rehabilitated and want nothing more than to become productive members of society. They should be punished, sure. When one commits a crime against an individual one forfeits some rights in proportion to the crime committed. But punishments, except in very rare circumstances, should not be perpetual. They should be limited and well-defined. And punishments should be meted out by the criminal justice system, not by municipalities, and certainly not by the reactionary public. I have no problem with a judge telling a particular criminal that he cannot live within certain boundaries or engage in certain acts during the course of his probationary period.
I don't support the type of restrictions Mayor Seng and others are proposing. I can't. They're too shallow, too reactionary. They are bad policy.
I know I'm nowhere near the majority on this topic. Some people have genuinely thought through the matter and have come to different conclusions than me. I'm fine with that. But I fear most people never get beyond the superficial notions that "It's for the children!" or "Sex offenders are icky!" Those are the people I have a problem with. The proposed ordinance deserves a long, difficult community discussion. I hope it gets one.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I wrote a letter to the editor today about it. We’ll see if they print THAT! Basically, there are offenses in other states that cause a person to be classified as a registerable sex offender. Terrible, heinous things, like peeing in an ally or off of a bridge ( indecent public exposure), building snow anatomical objects ( sexual harassment), or making out with your significant other and getting caught, and the like. Both of which im guilty of in some form. NE law right now states that registered offenders from other states only have to register here for offenses if their crime resembles one of our ‘registered’ offenses. But with backward thinking propositions like this, why not change the definition! I mean, the chief of police himself is on the record saying that if he had his way sex offenders wouldnt live in Lincoln at all. Wow. Unbiased opinion there. Where is the money going to come from to fund this mandate when it goes to court 30 seconds after it passes ( as it probably will) and Lincoln is sued back to the stone age? Never mind that both victims groups and treatment professionals state that it won’t help. It will just move suspicion away from the majority of friends, aquaintances, and relatives that commit the crimes in the first place. Real sexual predators don’t care about registering anyway, just like murders don’t usually have registered firearms or gun licenses.
All of which.-edit.
The supposedly mortal threat of sex offenders has been pushed with increasing vigor for years by such media luminaries as Oprah Winfrey. Does their purple prose have anything to do with the facts?
Here are a few links to get you thinking.
http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/commentary-megan-history.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-myword23a05oct23,0,1786844.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/news/stories/20040608/localnews/595940.html
http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=3651165&nav=0Rcx3aIN
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050929/NEWS01/509290362
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050702/NEWS/507020306/1006/SPORTS
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_6.htm
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.