As I have noted many times before, there is a definitive split opinion in the state of Iowa among policymakers, law enforcement, and the public about the efficacy of the state's sex offender residency restrictions. The Des Moines Register explained the problems with reforming the existing laws:
Iowa sheriffs and prosecutors on Monday blasted lawmakers for failing to roll back a controversial and politically charged law restricting where sex offenders can live.
"They're just afraid to take action, and the people of Iowa should be ashamed," said Story County Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald. "It's absolutely politics at its worst."
A legislative subcommittee examining possible changes to the state's sex offender statutes will meet at 8 a.m. today to mull what some hope will be a compromise before the end of the legislative session.
Earlier this year, the bipartisan panel heard during a series of public meetings from a number of groups - sex offender experts, statewide law enforcement associations, prevention experts and victims - who uniformly criticized the state law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or child care centers.
Residency requirement laws, which have been passed by more than 20 states - often in the wake of high-profile child sex crimes - poll well with the public, researchers say.
But law enforcement officials and other experts counter that the restrictions offer the public a false sense of security. Iowa and other Midwestern states, they say, have found that many more offenders tend to lie about their living arrangements or cease reporting their whereabouts altogether.
Several lawmakers said Monday that they thought the Legislature ultimately would pass a measure prohibiting registered offenders from entering "safe zones" around schools and other places where children gather, as well as other law changes. But Senate Minority Leader Mary Lundby of Marion said Republicans would resist any attempt to repeal the 2,000-foot law, which went into effect in 2005. Lundby said her belief is that people do not support such a move.
It will be interesting to see what policies come out of this discussion. My guess is that the law will stay as it is as inertia is a powerful force in policymaking. But with enough sheriffs and prosecutors protesting the law, something could get done.
The situation highlights one of the greatest frustrations: advocates of draconian laws have convinced a powerful segment of the voting public that research and experience, and the testimony of law enforcement, victims, and prevention experts are all utterly wrong.
How did we reach the point where those who know the most about the subject are the least trusted and believed? How do you counter that sort of illogic?
Posted by: Ilah | April 25, 2007 at 06:29 PM