I'm Cold, and There are Wolves After Me

As many of you know, I've taken on the bucket of sleaze MSNBC series, "To Catch A Predator," in a few very long-winded posts. (The disclaimer in both of these posts still applies, natch. Please don't accuse me of supporting pedophiles.)

Part the First

Part the Second

Part the Third

Part the Fourth

In the second post, I expressed my concern that shows like "Predator" combined with the general hysteria and hand-wringing over "child molesters" that is currently getting a lot of airplay would eventually lead to a witch hunt mentality that would be good for no one. In the third, I showed how this very mentality resulted in a very real death. The fourth showed a "creative" punishment for a sex offender that would probably lead to a "creative" beating.

A major component of this issue is the fact that the term "registered sex offender" has become synonymous with "pedophile." Needless to say, the terms are hardly interchangeable. That, combined with the extremely elastic and vague definition for R.S.O.s, is trouble waiting to happen.

Well, guess what? Some new feel-good, "keeping our children safe" legislation is starting to cause problems. Apparently, draconian "one size fits all" laws aren't exactly a magical band-aid that will heal all wounds. Go figure. (Bolds mine)

Some Curbs on Sex Offenders Called Inhumane, Ineffective

As convicted sex offenders go, they seem to pose little danger.

One is 100 years old. Another can barely walk and is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease. Another is dying of heart disease in a nursing home.

Yet under a new Georgia law, thousands of registered sex offenders, even the old and feeble, could be pushed from their homes and hospices.

"He doesn't really know anything about it," said Ruby Anderson, 77, whose husband was convicted of having sex with a minor in 1997 and, at 81, no longer recognizes members of his family because of Alzheimer's disease. "The trouble is, I just don't know where we can go."

As states around the country have sought in recent years to control the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, Georgia's law stands out as one of the toughest, a testament to the daunting public fears regarding children's safety.

And there's the money quote. "Public fears" might not be quite so intense if shows like "Predator" weren't fanning the flames of hysteria; making it seem as if every child in America is constantly being approached by potential pedophiles. Having your Secretary of State encourage you to check the Sex Offender registry online might get your paranoia percolating as well. And when the public starts a-yellin, the politicians start a-legislatin'. Well, if it's a nice, family friendly issue that will make you look good during your re-election campaign, that is.

The roughly 10,000 sex offenders living in Georgia have been forbidden to live within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop. Taken together, the prohibitions place nearly all the homes in some counties off-limits -- amounting, in a practical sense, to banishment.

"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state," Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R), who sponsored the bill, told reporters.

Got that? This is nothing but running the undesirables out of town. If you're a convicted sex offender - and the nature of your crime isn't important - Keen expressly states he wants to make your life such a living hell, that you'd rather leave the state than try and live your life. Can't afford it? Don't want to leave your job (if you still manage to have one, after being branded with the R.S.O. scarlet letter) or your family? Too old or ill to leave? Or perhaps you're (dare I say it?) innocent?

Tough. Get out of our state, you. We don't like your kind around here.

Can you say "cruel and unusual?" Can you say "setting a dangerous precedent?"

I wonder how the good people in Florda, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee feel about Keen's little plan?

Since the law's enactment in July, however, a federal judge, human rights advocates and even some of the sheriff's departments that are supposed to enforce the measure have suggested that the zeal for safety may have gone too far.

The residency law applies not only to sexual predators but to all people registered for sexual crimes, including men and women convicted of having underage consensual sex while in high school.

Advocates for the sex offenders say the law is unfair to people who have served their sentences and been deemed rehabilitated. Many police officers, prosecutors and children's advocates also question whether such measures are effective. Most predators are mobile, after all, and by upending their lives, the law may make them more likely to commit other offenses, critics say.

"We should be concerned when we pass laws for political purposes that are irrational," said Sarah Geraghty, a staff lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the Atlanta-based group that filed court actions against the law's provisions. "This law will essentially render thousands of ex-offenders homeless, and that's just going to make them harder to monitor."

Exactly. Regardless of how someone may feel about R.S.O.'s, they have to admit that this is simply bad legislation. Not only does it paint minor and major offenses with the same brush, it is, in effect, making it easier for R.S.O.'s to commit another offense. Not to mention that the depression and desperation that goes hand in hand with homelessness would probably increase the chances of more crimes being committed.

But hey, if they're not in your state, who gives a fuck, right?

This month, Californians voted to bar sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks -- though a federal judge quickly blocked that provision.

In Iowa, which in 2002 became one of the first states to impose residency restrictions, police and prosecutors have united in opposition to the law, saying that it drives offenders underground and that there is "no demonstrated protective effect," according to a statement by the Iowa County Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors.

"The law was well-intentioned, but we don't see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend," said Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the group.

[...]

Enforcing the law consumes lots of law enforcement time, he said, and leads some offenders to list interstate rest stops or Wal-Mart parking lots as their addresses.

"Our concern is that these laws may give a false sense of security," said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We're not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized."

Not all sexual offenses are related to children. Placing residence restrictions around these areas is simply playing into the pedophile paranoia that surrounds R.S.O.s and creating a false sense of security for parents. Imposing restrictions doesn't put up magical invisible barriers that somehow keep pedophiles away from schools and parks. And are we expected to believe that pedophiles only approach children at schools and parks, where they are more than likely to be accompanied by an adult? This is a gross example of cheap talk to placate worried parents. And frankly, if I were a parent, I'd be right pissed that Keen apparently took my real concerns so lightly.

Here are some other folks that might be pretty pissed at Keen right now:

Among those swept up under its definition of sex offender are a 26-year-old woman who was caught engaging in oral sex when she was in high school, and a mother of five who was convicted of being a party to a crime of statutory rape because, her indictment alleged, she did not do enough to stop her 15-year-old daughter's sexual activity.

If you have a 15-year-old daughter, what are the chances that you won't live within 1000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop? It's ridiculous that these two women should be lumped in with the worst sex offenders in the first place, but to then give them no other option than to leave the state is vicious. Keen, however, simply can't wait to rub it in how little he cares.

Keen and other advocates have defended the legislation, calling it above all an effort to protect children.

Any time a politician says "this is for the children," they really mean "this is for my public image." This law does bugger all to protect children.

"We felt if we were going to err on any side, we were going to err on the side of protecting the innocent rather than those who have already been convicted," he said.

Again, regardless of the nature of the crime committed, if you're convicted, you're fucked. And if you yourself are innocent of the crime you're convicted of, what then?

He has no plans to alter it. As for those who feel it unfairly targets them, he said they can petition the local school board to move the bus stop.

Is he serious? That is a completely snide statement to make; oozing with holier-than-thou contempt. That's the verbal equivalent of kicking them when they're down. Christ, what an asshole.

Although the legal actions have focused attention on the rights of convicted sex offenders, he noted, the victims "have been given a life sentence."

"There's not a day goes by, if you pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV, that you don't see these crimes continue to happen," he said.

What sanctimonious claptrap. Yes, people that are real victims of sexual crimes have been "given a life sentence." However, some of these "crimes" have occurred between consenting adults, and there is no "victim." I simply cannot stand these appalling, heartstring-plucking, family-friendly soundbites that have nothing to do with justice or protection.

For those affected by the law, however, it seems to have reached too far.

"Every other block, there's a church," Ruby Anderson said. "Where can we go? I've checked."

Her husband, who was a janitor, was charged with statutory rape in 1996 for having sex with a girl younger than 14. He pleaded guilty on one count and was sentenced to probation, according to Houston County court records.

"At this late date for him, the law is very unfair," Ruby Anderson said. "He doesn't have any recollection of what happened."

Well, Ms. Anderson, you can go anywhere you like. As long as it isn't in Georgia. I'm sure Jerry Keen has plenty of suggestions. Well, one, anyway.

(Go to jail. Do not cross-post. Do not collect $200.)