With JonBenét Ramsey back on the front pages, parents will undoubtedly be reminded of the dangers posed by sexual predators.
Only last month, Greenwood Village became the first city in the state to pass an ordinance prohibiting convicted sex offenders from residing near schools, parks or playgrounds – essentially making the city off-limits.
There isn’t a parent in Colorado who wants to live within close proximity of a sexual offender. And that might be the glaring flaw in this piecemeal solution.
According to Jeralyn Merritt, Denver- area lawyer and proprietor of
TalkLeft.com, it’s not the only problem.
“I think these are terrible laws,” Merritt says. “First of all, they are a short-
sighted non-solution. Either these laws drive people underground or the result is that fewer people end up registering. You are pushing people to the outer limits, further not only from their jobs but also treatment centers. Making people live their lives in the shadows is not a solution. A lot of these people will become homeless.”
Sorry, I have zero empathy for sex offenders. Still, there are reasons to believe banishment laws are feel-good exercises with little positive outcome.
The majority of pedophiles, according to experts, are familiar to the family – and that could mean a neighbor. But there is nothing to prevent a predatory pedophile from driving to the next town.
Greenwood Village, in fact, has only four registered sex offenders. Not one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in the area. What happens when a predator from Greenwood Village packs up his belongings for Commerce City? Do children there deserve this new neighbor?
Another dilemma faces parents. The present system of registering offenders does not distinguish between the dangerous and the formerly dangerous – bundling statutory rape cases with violent pedophiles.
Without excusing anyone’s criminal behavior, it’s obvious such a system is unreliable and unfair.
“The question is, what was that person convicted of and how long ago was it?” Merritt asks. “One of the problems is that we register violent sexual predators and someone who 10 years ago pled to having sex with an underaged girl as the same. A lot of these people are just not dangerous.”
Yes. And a large number are. Reviewing recidivism rates among pedophiles and sexual offenders will send the most confident parent into chills. “Not dangerous” is a concept that is hard to swallow for obvious reasons.
So I almost recoil when asking this question: But where exactly are these people expected to live? And if we relegate offenders to ghettos, are we pushing them to avoid treatment and registration?
According to Merritt, banishment laws “help no one, but they hurt the sex offenders. They hurt those who have come out of prison and are trying to get a job and get their life back together. This could prevent them from living and finding a job, and then they may revert to economic crimes. A better solution would be to provide treatment.”
There is another nagging problem, and this involves principle: If a criminal has paid his debt to society, what right do we have to tell him where to live? Has this sort of banishment law met the constitutional test? “It’s been upheld in some places,” says Merritt, who explains there is a major test underway in the Georgia court system right now.
In 2002, Iowa passed a state law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and child-care centers anywhere in the state. But the law applied only to criminals whose victims were younger than 18. As of now, 15 states have similar laws on the books.
Greenwood Village would like to rid itself of offenders. Guess what? So would every other city in Colorado.
Is there a fair and productive way to protect children and rehabilitate sexual offenders? I don’t know. But I do know no one wants the banished offenders of Greenwood Village in their town.
There has to be a better solution.
David Harsanyi’s column appears Monday and Thursday.
He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
