The problem with sex offenders is… well… they’re sex offenders. And like most people in this country, I don’t particularly want them living next door to me. But the issue of how to deal with them brings up some interesting questions about our legal system, personal rights, and the practicality of our government actually doing everything they can to keep people safe.
Yesterday, I read in the paper about the number of ‘homeless’ sex offenders that are now flying under the radar because stringent laws about where they’re allowed to live may be in fact, too stringent. Let me recap the article for you…
Basically, Jessica’s Law which was approved in California as a response to a girl named Jessica who was raped and murdered by a paroled sex offender, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In cities like Los Angeles, where schools are pretty much in every neighborhood, that significantly limits where sex offenders can actually live. The result, apparently, is that many of these sex offenders are now just claiming to be homeless even though they aren’t because they’re living in houses and apartments that violate that law. Once they file their addresses as ‘homeless,’ they become very difficult to track. The reason the state tracks paroled sex offenders is so that if a child winds up missing in a certain area, authorities can start with the sex offenders living near by as a basis for a search for the child. If a sex offender is actually living in a neighborhood, but on record is listed as ‘homeless,’ the system breaks down because no one really knows where these people are.
So the question becomes… if the laws are less restrictive, does that actually aid authorities in keeping accurate tracking records about where these people are? Or, is it worth it that some of these offenders go off radar to keep a law in place that prevents them from residing near the places where children are most prevalent on a daily basis?
In my opinion, it’s even a bit more complicated than that. The Bureau of Justice Statistics did an interesting study on the recidivism rates of sex offenders who were paroled after being incarcerated for rape or sexual assault either against a child or an adult. Here’s the study’s link. In short, within 3 years of being released, 43% of sex offenders were rearrested for some other offense and 5.3% of those were rearrested for another sex crime. Forty-three percent may sound like a lot, but compared to the rearrest rates of non-sex offenders (60%+), they’re actually a safer bet for integration back into society.
I don’t want to speak for Christopher because Lord knows he can speak for himself just fine… but he and I have disagreed on this subject many times before. His position boils down to basically this: once you’ve served your time and you’re released, it’s not fair for the government to harass you or limit where you can live. He also feels that too many lesser crimes (like statutory rape — for example, an 18 year old male having sex with a 16 year old female) carry the heavy stigma of “sex crime” and force someone who is not a threat to society to be stigmatized on the Sex Offender Registry for life.
While I agree that certain sex crimes (depending on the individual circumstances of the case) shouldn’t qualify for the Sex Offender’s Registry– like public indecency, statutory rape cases if the individuals involved are within 2 years of age of each other, etc., my concern lies more with protecting the public from becoming a sex crime victim over protecting the rights of a paroled sex offender.
The study I cited earlier was the most comprehensive that had been done at the time and used the largest sample of any study prior to it (over 9,000 parolees). The average length of time served is 3 1/2 years. Since sexual assault and rape are both violent crimes against other human beings (as opposed to property crimes, etc), 3 1/2 years doesn’t really seem adequate to me. If we’re that worried about these people recommitting the crimes, perhaps we should keep them incarcerated longer.
While we can discuss a million theories on how to keep the public safe, we have to first decide whose rights should be protected most? Someone who has committed a crime and served his/her time (since 95 out of 100 of them will not commit another sex crime anytime soon) or the rights of potential victims? And if we agree that it’s the rights of potential victims that have priority, are the methods we’re using to protect potential victims doing IN PRACTICE, not just theory, what they’re meant to do?
If we make it too difficult for parolees to find housing without breaking the law, it’s only obvious that they will lie about where they’re living to avoid parole violations. But on the other hand, by letting them move in across the street from an elementary school where children are walking and congregating daily, are we neglecting to do everything in our power to protect society’s children?
I don’t have the perfect solution. My opinion is that a few things need to happen:
1. We need to reform our system so that only sex offenders who are deemed a major threat to others are placed on the Sex Offenders Registry. There are people on that list who don’t belong there and that ultimately dilutes the seriousness of that list.
2. We need to keep dangerous sex offenders in prison longer. The fact that some sex offenders are being released after serving fewer years than drug offenders is, imho, a problem.
3. I don’t believe that once you’ve served your time, you’re just like the rest of us. There are consequences to your actions. If you choose to do something that hurts another person and takes away their rights, you can no longer be trusted the way everyone else is. I believe the state (and other citizens) do have the right to tell you that they don’t want you living in their neighborhoods. And that’s not to say that parents should only pay attention to their kids when they know a sex offender is nearby. Of course, they should always be paying attention to their kids’ safety, but the reality is, most people are not sex offenders and the idea of being on a constant heightened alert (the way you would be if you knew a sex offender lived next door) doesn’t serve anyone.
I think we should do as much as we can to stack the deck of success without recidivism in these parolees’ favor for sure. Education is good, therapy is good, job placement programs are good. But would you encourage an alcoholic to get a job in a bar? Part of success is the reduction of temptation in many cases. If they’re having a problem finding housing that doesn’t violate Jessica’s Law, we should be helping them find appropriate housing.
