Sex offenders: The outcasts of our time

by: sam bailey
Staff Writer

It’s amazing what you can find on the Internet. In under five minutes, I was able to find three sex offenders within a two-block radius of St. Ambrose.

Two of them seem mostly interested in children under 13, so the young ladies on campus probably don’t need to be too concerned. The third, who lives right off the eastern boundary, however, was convicted of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse on an adult female just five years ago.

Now the obvious question that occurs to me is why is this guy out of prison already? The second question that occurs is can he really live that close to what is probably the largest concentration of potential victims in the area?

With any luck, the answer to that second question may soon be changing. A movement in Iowa has been gaining speed lately, and has even begun to take hold in Davenport. On Oct. 19, the Davenport City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance that would restrict child sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of "where they [children] congregate or play in public places". The Davenport ordinance expands a statewide law restricting child sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or daycare.

A not unintended consequence of this Davenport ordinance is that it renders nearly all of this city uninhabitable for these predators.

Iowa is taking the lead in this fight, and I applaud the effort. So far, this is an issue that has transcended party lines for the most part. It seems our society, which has become all too permissive and hospitable to criminals, has decided to draw the line when it comes to child molesters.

Of course, not everyone supports removing child molesters from areas where they can observe and prey on children. The Iowa Civil Liberties Union boasts on its website of their "class action lawsuit" on behalf of the affected offenders. Although the lawsuit managed to convince Judge Robert Pratt of the law’s "unconstitutionality", two out of three slightly more legally knowledgeable judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Pratt’s ruling.

Not to be deterred, the ICLU has vowed to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. One imagines an ambulance-chasing lawyer, flanked by James Janssen and the guy who lives a few feet from campus, shaking his fist, vowing to fight the good fight.

Using the classic strategy of concealing unpopular positions with "hard-headed realism", R. Ben Stone, executive director of the ICLU, claims the restrictions will be a "law enforcement nightmare...[and] will likely cost the taxpayers of the state millions."

Well, if Mr. Stone promises not to whine, I’d be happy if we saved the "law enforcement nightmare" of carrying out the restrictions, and just imprison all sex offenders for life. It’d still cost millions of dollars, but then again, so do social programs. Curiously, the ICLU has yet to be concerned with the fiscal implications of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services.

The ICLU also states that "law abiding" citizens who have not had convictions for decades will be affected. Since I was able to find the statistics on recidivism of child sex offenders, I’m sure the legal beagles at the ICLU could, also. Sex offenders are more than four times as likely to re-offend than non-offenders. Again, maybe the ICLU will join with me in just keeping these guys locked up for life, instead of worrying about this.

The fact of the matter is, this law is not in the least bit unconstitutional. It does not violate the rights of these offenders, it merely makes it more difficult for them to molest children.

They have found that neither the Fourth or Fifth Amendments prohibit this sort of legislation, nor does this count as "cruel and unusual" punishment. It does not violate due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. What it does do is make life a little difficult for convicted child sex offenders.

Try as I might, I can’t muster any tears for them.

The law and the ordinance is not perfect. First, it targets only child sex offenders. While I would agree that children require the greatest amount of protection, it would be nice to see it eventually expanded to include all sex offenders. Because of the constitutional prohibition against after-the-fact laws, we will not see a grand exodus of perverts leaving Davenport.

Finally, it’s wishful thinking to believe that all sex offenders will obey this law. Obviously we’re going to have to trust in our local law enforcement to do their jobs and make sure that these predators are monitored and are following the restriction guidelines.

Although it’s inevitable that a few will slip through the cracks, it will remove the vast majority of them from the area, while also giving the courts an easy way to imprison any offenders found violating the law.

Is this a solution to this problem in our society? No. But it is a step in the right direction, and if it removes even a quarter of the predators from areas where they have easy access to their prey, than it is more than worth it.

Of course, maybe my friends at the ICLU, in their quest for efficient and fiscally responsible law enforcement, will join me in calling for the mandatory life imprisonment of child molesters. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.