Iowa lawmakers who are faced with a deadline to enact Adam Walsh Act-compliant laws might use the opportunity to eliminate the state's 2,000 foot residency restriction. From the Chicago Tribune:
As Iowa faces a deadline to update its
sex offender law to match a stricter federal one, state lawmakers
may use the opportunity to get rid of a controversial 2,000-foot
rule restricting where offenders can live.
Under the federal law, sex offenders would have to stay on an online public registry at least five years longer, reveal more personal information about where they work and go to school, and face more supervision from law enforcement.
If Iowa doesn't comply with the federal provisions by the July deadline, the state could lose up to $450,000 for law enforcement activities.
For some Iowa lawmakers, the federal law is providing an opportunity to toss out the state's 2,000-foot state rule that bans sex offenders from living near child care centers and schools.
Under the federal law, sex offenders would have to stay on an online public registry at least five years longer, reveal more personal information about where they work and go to school, and face more supervision from law enforcement.
If Iowa doesn't comply with the federal provisions by the July deadline, the state could lose up to $450,000 for law enforcement activities.
For some Iowa lawmakers, the federal law is providing an opportunity to toss out the state's 2,000-foot state rule that bans sex offenders from living near child care centers and schools.
"Scrap what we have because it's not working," said Rep. Clel
Baudler, R-Greenfield, a former state trooper.
The proposed legislation would replace that residency restriction with "exclusion zones," which would limit where sex offenders may be present or loiter and require written permission to visit school grounds and child care centers.
Baudler and others say that while the federal law does not require Iowa to repeal its 2,000-foot rule, it would provide lawmakers some cover if they want to do so.
"If they're afraid of political ramifications, I can assure them that anything we move forward with is better than what we have now," Baudler said.
The proposed legislation would replace that residency restriction with "exclusion zones," which would limit where sex offenders may be present or loiter and require written permission to visit school grounds and child care centers.
Baudler and others say that while the federal law does not require Iowa to repeal its 2,000-foot rule, it would provide lawmakers some cover if they want to do so.
"If they're afraid of political ramifications, I can assure them that anything we move forward with is better than what we have now," Baudler said.
Iowa was one of the first states to implement its residency restriction law (because its litigation finished with relative speed). It also adopted one of the largest exclusion zones of 2,000 feet. It would be a very significant signal nationwide if Iowa decided to abandon its residency restriction program. It might even turn the tide against such laws in other states.
I think you are a tab bit optimistic about the impact rolling back restrictions would have. It certainly will give a few enlightened people pause, but most of those people are pausing anyway. Residency restrictions weren't driven by reason or logic, they were driven by panic and fear. While that fever shows some signs of abating, it certainly hasn't run its course.
So long as people enjoy being pandered too on this topic, politicians will keep pushing it. Politicians didn't follow Iowa because they saw that it worked legally, they followed Iowa because they saw it worked politically.
Posted by: Daniel | December 02, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Sadly, I think the more likely result is that they will keep the residency law and implement AWA.
Posted by: David Hess | December 02, 2008 at 03:03 PM