The Dangers of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

One of the most disturbing trends in how the law and courts handle sex offenders that are on probation/parole or otherwise complete their incarceration is the concept of "residency restrictions." It's a somewhat lofty term, but it boils down to a simple meaning: sex offenders are not allowed to live within a specific distance from certain types of locations. The concept of preventing sex offenders from residing "near" one of these "safe zones" may be the most dangerous developments coming to a state, county, or town near you. Are you concerned about a sex offender living near your child's school? If you're a parent, you're likely to accept anything that's handed to you in the name of keeping your children safe and helping them grow up right, but it is the unwritten "fine print" on such things as residency restriction laws that actually endangers your child. Let's examine these new restrictions that are being enacted across the country to see if the objectives written on the front of said laws are equal to the actual effects of the laws.

The premise for residency restriction comes across not unlike a very tasty meal. Sex offenders are people who have committed a crime that has some kind of sexual element involved (for example, streaking is a sex offense in some jurisdictions because it involves exposure of the genitals). Unfortunately, all "sex offenders" are typically referred to as one category and synonymized with far worse terminology such as "child predators" and "baby rapers." Sex offenders, who are often thought of as "child predators" regardless of the specifics of each individual case, are considered by most typical law-abiding citizens to be an "unwanted element" of society. In general, no one wants anyone else near them or their family members that is not guaranteed to be a decent, upstanding, law-abiding individual, and any ex-con falls out of that comfort zone. Two factors make sex offenders stand out over other ex-cons and subject them to additional discrimination and segregation desire: the crime was of a sexual nature (often referred to as "violation" of another), and sex offenders have all of their personal information plastered all over the place for anyone to see, with complete disregard for the offender's rights or safety. Increased public awareness, media hype, and availability of information on sex offenders has scared the living crap out of many a parent who didn't realize that there was a sex offender down the street (because the offender didn't bother their family in the first place, right?)

The trend in modern societies toward lazy parenting, living in fear of the neighbors, and trusting what is heard rather than coming to one's own conclusions drives these now paranoid families to ask the government why it "allows" a person with a sex-related conviction to live anywhere near them or their children. So powerful is the fear of a lazy parent for their child that they will stop at nothing to prevent these "evil elements" from coming within a thousand miles of their kids. Nothing done to the convicted sex offender is too harsh or cruel, as long as it keeps the children safe.

Remember the tasty meal I mentioned? Here's where dinner is served: a vote-begging politician decides to take advantage of the fear of these lazy parents by promising to "get tough on sex offenders" and "protect the children from these ruthless predators." You vote for this guy, hoping he will live up to what he says. How does he make sure that you know he is out there crusading to protect your kids? Simple! Introduce a bill that proposes "taping off" sex offenders from living inside a certain radius around key locations that your child spends most of his or her life. The goal of this bill, obviously, is to protect your child from being sexually assaulted. To reach this goal, the idea is that sexual predators won't be able to live near a place where children frequent. That's the only positive point: predators would LEGALLY be unable to live nearby, which is secondary to the real point--to get your vote next time around. Let's examine the negatives in a little depth and realize why these restrictions are the worst thing to happen to your childrens' safety in a long time.

• Promotion of a False Sense of Security - Designating any given area as a "safe zone" implies that those areas will be free from danger, and also implies that other areas will be more dangerous. This is far from the truth. If a sex offender were to reoffend, nothing written in a law book is going to prevent them from walking, riding, or driving down to a "safe zone" and reoffend. More dangerous than this is the fact that the majority of new sex crimes are committed by people who are unregistered, and therefore have none of these restrictions. People let down their guard when they feel safe, and that actually endangers your children more, because the warning signs of criminal intent will be ignored; after all, it's a SAFE ZONE! There are NO PREDATORS in a SAFE ZONE!...and that could be a fatal assumption.
  
  
• Increased Stress Promotes Recidivism - Sex offenders have a very hard time rebuilding their lives, much harder than other categories of criminals. Their presence is known to all, and they suffer illegal harassment, abuse, threats, denial of housing and employment, and a host of other things, all because of their past that they are trying to learn from and leave behind. As if things weren't bad enough, these "can't live within X feet" restrictions significantly reduce housing availability to a class of people that already suffers from housing denial and ineligibility to ask for help from government-assisted housing projects. Worse yet, if an offender is in the pre-defined range BEFORE the law takes effect, the law will often be used to force that person to relocate, with no regard for how long they have lived there or how well they are doing with rebuilding their lives. This uprooting of offenders that are stabilizing their lives puts extreme and unjustifiable stress on the offender, "just because." It has been proven in numerous studies and through the testimony of many qualified sex offender treatment psychiatrists that increasing stresses on sex offenders increases the chance of reoffense. These laws unfairly damage offenders' lives, thus making your child less safe.
  
  
• Residency Restriction Banishes and Concentrates Sex Offenders - I have included maps at the bottom of the page to demonstrate how increasingly large restrictions on where sex offenders can live relative to other places can effectively banish sex offenders from entire cities, or at least concentrate them into certain places where they are closer together. If the places that are outside of the restriction areas refuse to rent or sell to sex offenders, this would also banish them from the city entirely. Housing problems created by ever-increasing residency restriction laws increase the stress on sex offenders, and re-read the last point if you don't understand why this is dangerous to your child. Why do this to people who have returned to being law-abiding citizens?
  
  
• Using Legal "Safe Zones" Instead of Residency Restrictions is Equally Bad - There are some places that recommend establishing actual "safe zones" where a sex offender could be arrested if the offender enters that area. This is often proposed as an alternative to residency restrictions, but remember what I said earlier? Laws in a law book don't stop people from going places if they want to go there. Laws against something do not stop that something from happening. Laws only allow fines, imprisonment, prosecution, and other legal remedies after that act has been committed. Also, remember that most new sex offenses are first-time offenses by unregistered persons that "safe zones" wouldn't prohibit in the first place. This type of law will do nothing to prevent sex offenses from being committed, but it will certainly prevent sex offenders that have families from taking their children to school, church, parks, public pools, and any other area that is legally "taped off."
  
  
• Residency Restrictions Don't Address the REAL Problems - If you're a parent, get off the couch and teach your children how to recognize the warning signs of a potential molester. Drill into your children the concept of "safe touch." Teach children that someone who touches them in a certain place are doing a bad thing and that they need to tell someone immediately. Educate your children instead of begging a politician to raise your kids for you. Tell kids about sex and its purpose at an early age so that it is not a strange thing that they will want to try behind your back in their adolescence. In addition to teaching your children, you need to pressure politicians to address real problems in a way that will prevent new sex offenses from happening, rather than trying to punish the person AFTER they violate your child. Encourage politicians to make laws that explicitly prevent therapists and psychiatrists from reporting persons to law enforcement that seek help for their "bad thoughts!" If help is made available to potential future offenders to help them avoid acting on their urges, many new sex offenses will be prevented before they can happen. Unfortunately, this does not fit in with some child protection advocate groups' political agendas. Why? Ask the tough questions.
  

While the residency restriction and safe zone laws may make you feel like your children are safe, they're not. You only endanger your children by blindly allowing these things to be put into law, without questioning the actual effects of the law when it goes on the books. Common sense would destroy many of the laws on the books as they are written today, but we live in ignorant times. Take the time to educate yourself and your children.

In closing, I would like to put out a special bit of praise for the State of North Carolina, who explicitly codified a grandfather clause for sex offenders when they put a 1000-foot rule in place, preventing the uprooting of sex offenders that have established a home before the law came into effect. In light of this, I have taken a bit of time to snag a map of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, North Carolina (of recent fame due to a student that bulldozed through a crowd at the university commons in the name of dead Muslims). I have mapped out schools and day care centers, which are the restriction points, marked by the 1000-foot radius coverage area surrounding them. Also, to show how residency restrictions effectively banish sex offenders from or horde them together within a typical city, 2000-foot and 2500-foot restriction maps have been made as well. On the 1000-foot map, schools are red and child care or day care centers are yellow.

1000-foot Residency Restrictions (current)

2000-foot Residency Restrictions (theoretical)

2500-foot Residency-Restrictions (theoretical)

Questions? Comments? E-mail the Offender and let him know what you think!

[ Main Page ]