AP: Iowa towns put themselves off-limits to sex offenders

[question everything]

Iowa towns put themselves off-limits to sex offenders

Appeals court clears way for buffer zones

By Todd Dvorak
ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 12, 2005

IOWA CITY, Iowa – One after another, cities and towns across Iowa are rushing to shut the door to child molesters.

In the past month, nearly two dozen cities and counties, from Des Moines to the little town of Garrison, have approved or considered restrictions on where convicted sex offenders may live.

The rush came after a federal appeals court, in the first such ruling in the nation, upheld a 2002 Iowa state law that bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day-care center. Emboldened by the ruling, Iowa cities and towns are drawing buffer zones around parks, playgrounds, trails, swimming pools, libraries and school bus stops.

(snip)

Some experts are warning the restrictions will make sex offenders more desperate and more dangerous, by making it harder for them to establish stable lives and relationships and hold a job... In the meantime, the Iowa Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Iowa statute in what could become the first U.S. Supreme Court test of sex offender residency laws now being used in some form by as many as 14 states. Iowa lawmakers from both parties have said they will fight any attempt to water down Iowa's law, considered one of the toughest among the states with such laws.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051112/news_1n12iowa.html

[Itchinjim]

1. They did that here in Davenport,

but have since backed off. A lot of people, while not having much sympathy for sex offenders, were disturbed by the potential implications of this law.

[Critters2]

4. You're in Davenport?!

I was born in Davenport. Lived there til I was 11! Went to Adams School

Hi, fellow Iowan!! :hi:

[Oceansaway]

10. Hello former/present Quad Citians !!!

[Hardrada]

13. Hello Quad Cities!!

I'm further up the river.

[WearyOne]

2. a very dangerous precedent-you cannot punish people for what

they might do. Efforts would be better spent on genuine rehabilitation. Making people desperate means they may react the wrong way and offend again if they think everything's against them..and no other kid should suffer because of blinkered thinking.

[PSPS]

3. Is this the next "issue" for the right?

Substitute "negro" for "sex offender," and this could have been written verbatim fifty years ago.

[beam me up scottie]

5. You'd be surprised how many

on the left would vote for this.

They mock the sheep who buy into shrub's whole "terra" meme but make the same mistake themselves when it comes to this issue.

Excellent point, BTW.

[depakid]

14. It's a problem with critical thinking

and that's unfortunately not something that the right has a monopoly on.

Take a hot button issue like this one, especially- one that invokes strong emotions, and it's difficult to get people to consider things like "precendent" or "slippery slopes" and such.

The abortion issue works the same way. For years, I tried to explain to people that abortion wasn't what many if not most of the anti-choice people were after- it was birth control.

Now that the agenda's been laid bare of course, a few are in shock- but many more still don't get the connection- and won't until their state outlaws it or their pharmacy won't dispense it.

[beam me up scottie]

15. My dad told me about how the

religious nuts fought tooth and nail against the pill when it was first marketed.

With them, it's not even about birth control, it's just about control.

It's insidious and you're right, people don't get it.

Look at abortion, if they really wanted less abortions, why not advocate education and preventative measures?

Since so many women can't take the pill, why is the US decades behind other countries when it comes to researching alternative birth control methods?

The people that focus only on Roe v Wade need to step back and look at women's history in this country and who has been behind every attempt to stop the women's rights movement.

[NorCalDem]

7. The difference of course being that to be a "sex offender"

is a crime, whereas to be a "negro" is not. I prefer the argument that by alienating these people from society and not providing adequate counseling/rehabilitation we do more harm to both them and the rest of society.

I understand you're point, but I just felt that it was slightly misguided. It would work perfectly for GLBT rights however because inter-racial marriage had also been illegal at one point, and we've gotten over that :D

[SoCalDem]

16. Yep.. Why not just set up "special" towns for groups of people

Sex offenders should serve long sentences, and then IF they are released, they should have to wear an ankle bracelet. Schools & parks could have transmitters/transponders/ whatever installed, so that when a s.o. gets within a certain number of feet, HIS device emits a siren ..like a car alarm...

[madrchsod]

6. the problem is just what is a sex offender

and to what degree of severity was their crime? 15 yr old having sex with a 14 year old maybe considered a crime or under age boys or girls victims of older men or woman, etc.. actually child molesters should probably never let back into the general population.

[NorCalDem]

8. I always try and make that point too, but you can't argue that angle

with Republicans!

Yes, even sexual molestation can have varying degrees of damage. An 18 year old and a 16 year old that are dating each other (and sleeping together) isn't the same as 50 year old child pornographers and molesters. But, the 18 year old in the hypothetical could be labeled a sexual offender if the 16 year old parent's found out and decided to press charges. Obviously, I don't have any issue with this person being let back out into society. The child pornographer however....

[JVS]

9. I declare this to be fucked up, based on the simple principle that...

if every town were to do this, then sex-offenders who have served their time would be unable to live anywhere.

[Gyre]

11. Registered sex offenders

should probably just disappear. The principal difference between them and "blacks" of yore that some of you alude to (as targets of racist gov't policies), is that these are criminals convicted of some of the worst crimes possible. A substantial difference IMO, rendering any analogy off-point and gratuitously misleading.

Gyre

[beam me up scottie]

12. "disappear" ?

Oh brother.

Nevermind, I don't even want to know what you're advocating.

[Occulus]

19. Convicted, served their sentence, and been released.

And some of them- yes, Virginia, it DOES happen- didn't actually commit any crime at all, but were set up by people who simply hate them.

It is ridiculously easy to set someone up with such charges. I doubt many here realize just how easy; there doesn't need to be any physical evidence at all to secure a conviction.

Part of the problem is hysteria. It is possible to be prosecuted for a sex offense you committed in your sleep, for example. And I do mean that quite literally, because that's exactly what happened to the guy I live with. His angry stepson and his angry (now ex) wife set him up, cooperated with each other, and destroyed his life forever.

Thanks to attitudes such as yours, nobody will hire him, not even fast food places. He never leaves the house and is expected to not use the facilities of our apartment complex- facilities which he pays an equal share- if even one child is present. He won't allow children near him without another adult present, not because of what he might do, but because of what the child might accuse him of.

Innocent parties who live with him get their address on the registry as well. Since he uses my car, if my state had that bumpersticker law, I wouldn't be able to drive my car to work. Ever. Why? Because people would assume it was me who did the crime, since the sticker was on my car.

And on, and on. All because an angry ex wife wanted- and GOT- the house, the car, the bank account, the credit cards (which she very intentionally maxed out and then refused to pay), the kids... everything. A comic book collection worth several thousand dollars- which she promptly trashed- a knife collection, which she also trashed- etc., and etc.

When is enough enough for some people? How can he possibly prove, to the satisfaction of yourself and others, that he won't "re"offend? How many years of NOT "re"offending does it take before you assume he won't, and if that's not possible in the eyes of yourself and others, just exactly what do you expect him and others like him- others who were set up with false charges- to do?

YES- it's true that many on these registries DID molest a little kid, but it's just as true that there are people on the exact same registries who did nothing so horrible as that. Some of them peed on the side of the road. Some of them were seen naked by a child- unintentionally. And some of them were teens who slept with someone a few months under the limit. And, as I pointed out, some of them did nothing at all but become involved with a person who would use these laws to destroy someone they decided they didn't like at the moment.

Where does it end? When is enough enough?

[Bassic]

17. Yeah, let's all shove the problem in someone elses hands

That's always a good solution in the end! :sarcasm:

[gizmo1979]

18. I'm not for sex offenders but

that doesn't sound like it will pass the legal test.Sounds unconstitutional to me.