Posted on 02/15/2007 11:38:42 AM PST by Monk Dimittis
HARLAN - The Shelby County Board of Supervisors is asking the Iowa Legislature to repeal the 2,000-foot residency requirement for sex offenders.
he board unanimously passed a resolution urging repeal of Iowa Code Section 692A.2A, which requires convicted sex offenders to live at least 2,000 feet from schools and day care facilities.
"Our county attorney (Marcus Gross Jr.) requested we do this," Supervisor Richard Ferry said. "He said it is a difficult law to enforce. People are living in abandoned houses and cars. It's hard for law enforcement to find them. It's not right."
The supervisors joined the Iowa County Attorneys Association, the Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association, the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Abuse, the Prevent Child Abuse Iowa organization, the Iowa State Association of Counties and several other Iowa groups and associations supporting repealing the law, which took effect in September 2005.
The Shelby County resolution indicated the board considered the issues of ineffectiveness and expenditure of law enforcement resources related to sex offender residency restrictions in passing the resolution.
Gross was pleased the supervisors lent their support.
"I think (the Legislature's) heart was in the right place, but the law needs to be replaced," he said.
He said it is tough for offenders living in rural areas to find housing that meets the law's requirements.
"They are living in cemeteries and out of their cars," Gross said. "We really don't know where some of them are. It is really counterproductive."
Gross said the law does not really address the problem. He said it may keep sex offenders from living close to school/child care centers, but it doesn't keep them away from these facilities.
"It doesn't do what it needs to," he said.
The law does not appear to have had any appreciable impact on sex crimes.
Convictions for sex charges, the vast majority of which involve children, have remained steady since the 2,000-foot law and similar local ordinances took effect. The state's 2006 fiscal year saw 759 such convictions, versus 750 in 2005.
About 140 people have been convicted of violating the 2,000-foot rule since its inception, but the penalty is small. It is a misdemeanor, usually punishable by fines and probation but no jail time.
Division of Criminal Investigations Special Agent Joe Motsinger said he doesn't have statistics to indicate whether offenders are failing to report changing residences because of the 2000-foot law, but said he personally knows of situations where that is the case. Motsinger heads the Sex Offender Registry.
"When they are arrested for not complying, the reason they give is they couldn't find a place because of the 2000-foot rule," he said.
Ferry said he wants the Legislature to revisit the issue and try something else.
"It is a difficult issue to get a handle on," he said. "I don't know what they can do."
-"It is a difficult issue to get a handle on," he said. "I don't know what they can do."-
It's really quite simple. If you have people who are so dangerous you can't let them near children, you keep them locked up. I'm thinking we have to lock up the enforcers as well, because they're clearly stupid.
If they're assaulting women or children they shouldn't get out of jail in the first place. Which means you should (a) revisit the sentencing of violent predators and (b) take a close look at what constitutes as "sex offender". A lot of people get the "sex offender" label for doing what teenagers have been doing since the dawn of man.
Keep them in jail, then we can find them anytime we want. Think of the savings to law enforcement. Why if they never have to arrest another sex offender, because they are all in jail, we are all winners.
So assaulting men is okay? Interesting notion of equality you have there.
bump
WHAT IF they were merely in the cemeteries, but not necessarily living? End of problem, neh?
Yep. And for some, you make their probation requirements extra supervised; medium risk, low risk, etc.
By lumping such a huge range of offenses into one category and treating everyone in the category as if they were the worst, the system has become both meaningless and unpractical.
Just how many pervs do they have in that county?!
While I do not condone 18-21 year old guys having 15-17 year old girlfriends, I know that it is not the same thing as an adult raping a pre-teen. There should be radically different treatment of these two crimes.
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.