Ridiculous Thoughts

I have been planning to post something up here explaining why the residency restriction Holden is proposing is a bad idea. My friend Cynthia sent a speakout into the local paper that covered it all, so I asked her for permission to reproduce it here.

This proposal was dreamed up as election year pandering by a candidate who has refused to support the school district and the public safety building. The evidence is in. Colorado and Iowa have seen the results and are looking to remove these restrictions from their states.

Let’s keep the debate firmly focused on the safety of our children. It isn’t intuitive and it is hard to believe; but the evidence is overwhelming. This proposal is a danger to our children.

Vote with your minds or vote with your hearts. But don’t vote with your guts—instincts will lead you astray on this one.

As always comments are welcome below.

Steve

—-—-——-

The rush to enact a sex offender residency restriction bylaw here in Holden is misguided, ill-informed, and potentially dangerous for our children.

According to the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics — the authority regarding factual matters of criminality — fully 93% of child and juvenile sexual assaults under age 17 are committed by either a family member or an acquaintance of the victim. Thirty-four percent are committed by family members and 59% are committed by acquaintances. That leaves only seven percent committed by strangers. Almost half of the offenders of victims under age 6, by the way, are family members. “Stranger Danger” is a dangerous myth that creates a false sense of security and denies the fact that 93% of child sexual assaults are committed by family members or acquaintances of the child.

But many of you do think that creating buffers around schools and child-care centers will reduce the number of child sexual assaults. It may save one child, you say. Well, other states have gone down this road and guess what? Colorado, Minnesota, and Iowa as well as the Department of Justice’s Center for Sex Offender Management and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children have come to realize these buffers don’t work. Restricting residency has no positive effect on the incidence of child sexual assault. Indeed, their experience shows such restrictions have the opposite effect; they actually endanger children. As recently as this past December, the Iowa County Prosecuting Attorneys Association recommended Iowa rescind all of its residency restrictions. And these are prosecuting attorneys who have real experience dealing with the consequences of residency restrictions. Post-release, virtually half of their sex offender population feel off the map, becoming either homeless or living somewhere in secret. How is losing track of sex offenders supposed to make our children safer? The notion is absurd.

So let’s say a residency restriction bylaw is enacted anyway. Remember, nearly half of all sexual abusers of children under age six are family members—and your bylaw does not speak at all to the first-time offender. Whether you like it or not, those offenders often go home to their families. Are we going to make them move? Now families are uprooted, many of whom have children who have already by victimized once. Here’s what will happen. Offenders will be homeless or will lie about where they living. That’s the reality. Homeless high-risk sex offenders, lost to follow-up, are a serious danger.

Lastly, I want to talk about responsibility. As elected officials considering a bylaw with far-reaching consequences, you have a professional and ethical responsibility to do your homework. So far, those of you who support this bylaw have demonstrated no evidence that these bylaws protect children. None. Zero. You seem willing to “legislate,” if you will, by the vagaries of your gut. You seem willing to ignore the considered opinions of real experts with real experience managing this offender population. Well, here’s the rub. Your support for a bylaw that is known to create barriers to effective law enforcement, that is known to result in dangerous sex offenders becoming lost to follow-up guarantees you this: you will be held responsible for your decision, which includes the first sexual assault by a sex offender who failed to register because of your bylaw. Perhaps then you will see the merit of rational and reasoned decision making over tough-on-crime rhetoric that “feels” good.

Cynthia Bazinet