Man Bites Dog? Rational Discussion About Sex Offenders Begins

I want to amplify Doug Berman’s post today about a new statement from the Iowa County Attorney’s Association. The group – which as best as I can tell includes the county attorney from each Iowa county – has taken a position opposing Iowa’s sex offender residency restrictions. It argues that the state’s law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools and child care facilities is actually counter-productive. In particular, rather than keeping offenders away from kids, it is both ineffective (most offenses occur against relatives and acquaintances, not strangers) and actively increases risk (by rendering offenders homeless and less subject to tracking). At the same time it imposes additional costs that are either unjustified or increase risk in their own right (such as damaging family structures.) The Association offers some policy alternative they see as a more effective responses to sex offenders. Read the whole statement here.

It is heartening to see rational policy debate creep into what has otherwise been the land of moral panic: regulation of sex offenders. Brutal retaliation against such offenders may make people feel safer as they watch hour after hour of reality TV. There is little evidence of the efficacy of most of these regulations, however, and they exact serious costs.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Sex Offender Mania: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back

    Four very different developments in the ongoing frenzy against sex offenders:

    STEP FORWARD: A New York judge has reiterated her view that G…

  2. Michael Dell says:

    The Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) concluded in their report entitled Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangments for Location of Sex Offenders in the Community 03/15/2004, that there is noi correlation regarding thelocation of a sex offender’s residence and their likelihood to reoffend.