As a local government attorney in Florida I struggled with the political pressure to draft an ordinance that dictated residency restrictions for registered sex offenders. I was directed to draft requirements more strict than those imposed by state law. What I came up with was tough, I mean REALLY tough. And, at the end of the day, the politicians told their constituents that they were better protected from these predators. Intellectually I knew that those residency requirements were a false promise which offered nothing more than a false sense of security. For example, they did not prohibit sex offenders from driving by a bus stop or a school or a library or the beach or a park. Those residency requirements simply prohibited residing near those points of youthful activity. Those requirements did not prohibit attending a party at a house that was near a bus stop, school, library, beach or park. Those residency requirements simply prohibited residing near those points of youthful activity. I would imagine if one was going to commit a heinous crime against a child, a little thing like one living more than 2500 feet away is not such a big obstacle to overcome.
Many argue that driving sex offenders out of residential neighborhoods is making them harder to track for the Department of Corrections. As the mother of young ones I for one do agree that I would rather know where they are and have them closely monitored than have them homeless and virtually impossible to track.
And, what about those that argue that the standard of behavior that results in the label of “sex offender” may be a bit off target? Some say that urinating behind a building has resulted in their conviction as a sex offender – surely I am not scared of that guy!
I thank Ronald S. Chapman for his blog on this topic – His blog got me thinking about this subject again and I always think a bit of self-examination/self reflection is a good thing. For now – round and round and round we go – where this issue will stop, no one knows…