Posted on 11/12/2005 10:56:47 AM PST by ncountylee
IOWA CITY, Iowa — One after another, cities and towns across Iowa are rushing to shut the door to child molesters.
In the past month, nearly two dozen cities and counties, from Des Moines to the little town of Garrison, have approved or considered restrictions on where convicted sex offenders may live.
The rush came after a federal appeals court, in the first such ruling in the nation, upheld a 2002 Iowa state law that bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center.
Emboldened by the ruling, Iowa cities and towns are drawing their own buffer zones around parks, playgrounds, trails, swimming pools, libraries and school bus stops.
"We've seen similar responses in Florida and New Jersey, but what's happening in Iowa may be a bit more extreme, simply because they are going beyond the state law," said Scott Matson, research fellow with the Center for Sex Offender Management, a branch of the U.S. Justice Department.
The new restrictions have had — or will have — the effect of making entire small towns off limits, and several sex offenders have already been forced to move.
Some experts are warning that the restrictions will only make sex offenders more desperate and more dangerous, by making it harder for them to establish stable lives and relationships and hold down a steady job.
"They might as well just exile all of them … banish them from the state," said Don Santee, a 30-year-old registered offender who was forced to move out of Shellsburg because he was convicted at age 17 of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.
"I am being punished again," he said. "I'm trying to keep this in all good faith. But I'm waiting for the world to wake up
(Excerpt) Read more at rutlandherald.com ...
An excellent idea! But I don't want thieves and murderers living near me either. Can we ban them as well? Please?
Let's send them all to France.
I think somebody already sent theirs there. That would explain a lot.
It should be illegal for these guys to live anywhere in the US except San Francisco and maybe Baltimore (since half of them seem to live in Baltimore already). If these criminal pervs don't like it, too bad. They should be thankful that these crimes aren't punished with rope.
If they were sent to certain States (Idaho, Montana etc.), the rope might come into play.
"An excellent idea! But I don't want thieves and murderers living near me either. Can we ban them as well? Please?"
My thoughts exactly. Yeah I don't want any sexual predator living close to me neither, but if you start banning them, people will eventually want other types of criminals banned. It can really snowball and only makes it harder for these ex.-crooks to get back to a crime-free life.
Flame away.
I'd prefer to see the classification of "sex offenders" considerably narrowed so that it includes all of the dangerous people, but ONLY the dangerous people. I heard of a case recently where a teenage boy got caught taking a leak in public and is now required to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life. That kind of bull$##t makes the whole thing meaningless, for one thing, and criminalizes behavior which may be stupid and indiscreet, but which is essentially innocent.
The current classification is fatally flawed. It doesn't block the bent one from entering our state to campaign for his "wife" in the 2008 caucuses. If it could do that it might actually be good for the country. I would also like our Gov. to explain how all the "ex-"felon sex offenders can exercise the voting rights he restored them when they can't find anyplace to establish residence within the state. Or does this law will let them define an address for absentee voting purposes so long as they don't actually live there.
If they locked these evil people up as long as they deserve, this would not be an issue.
It would be different if they "Got Better".
Some bank robbers, for example, can be persuaded not to rob banks any more.
They all go to San Fran and Berkely, where they belong and will be celebrated as misunderstood.
Basically, these laws give people (politicians and voters) the feeling that they've done something to protect children. Have they? I doubt it. For one thing, these laws merely limit where the perverts (and others) can reside, but say nothing about where they can go.
At any rate, these laws won't survive a proper SCOTUS review. Banishment has been struck down before.
If they can't live in town they will be forced to live in the farm country, where I've heard them referred to as "cheap targets".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.