Published: January 04, 2006 09:57 am      

Time to end toothless restrictions

CLINTON — What is 2,000 feet?

Aside from being the name of a garage band that used to play at my high school talent shows, it’s the minimum distance a registered sex offender in Iowa must live from things like schools and day care centers.

It’s also a false sense of security, because the law only permits people from taking up permanent residence inside the halo, and there are no border patrol agents making sure the offenders don’t simply walk or drive in.

In some communities, such as Dyersville, the 2,000 feet rule, approved by the state Legislature, wasn’t good enough, so they’ve banned registered offenders from living in the town altogether. They’re not banned from shopping in stores or visiting people they know of course, or even just driving the streets, but they can’t get their mail in Dyersville, so everyone must be safe.

Can you see how ridiculous this is? Iowans keep adding restrictions to where sex offenders can live, pushing them into rural areas without schools and daycare centers or, as we have seen in the Gateway area, across state lines to other communities with no such laws.

I oppose the residency restriction not because it’s too strict, but because it just doesn’t make any sense.

I’ve had people ask if I want my son growing up with a sex offender down the street. I answer that I want him growing up in America, where I used to think people could assume they’d have a reasonable amount of personal freedom.

Do people who violate children revoke that freedom when they commit their heinous acts? You bet they do. So why does our state send them to prison, then release them to the public so unrehabilitated that they can’t be trusted to live in their own house?

It seems as if the Department of Corrections isn’t doing as much correcting as it should. What the state needs is not more and more laws on who can live where, but a thorough examination of sentence limits. In short, if you’re so dangerous to everyone that you are basically barred from an entire community, then why aren’t you still in prison or some other state-controlled facility?

A few lawmakers have been talking the right talk heading into the upcoming session, with some Republicans calling for a 25-year minimum term to any adult who has sex with a child younger than 12. I’d support even more prison time. A child subjected to such abuse could have so many emotional problems down the road it may be fair to say their life has been ruined.

House Speaker Chris Rants, a Republican, and Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal have both called for a review of how sex offenders are classified in Iowa.

As it is now, a teen convicted of statutory rape in the bounds of a consentual relationship is lumped in with someone who inappropriately touches a first-grader.

When Rep. Jim Van Fossen, R-Davenport, says “Don’t expect me to feel sorry for some sex offender who has to move,” he has to realize how narrow and petty that comment sounds when the state basically views all sex criminals as equally dangerous and likely to reoffend.

Should an indecent exposure conviction haunt someone for the rest of their life, any more than any other crime? I’m not notified if someone with a meth conviction moves in across the street. I covered a murder case once where a woman took an Alford plea and got 20 years for voluntary manslaughter. Once she’s out, she can live anywhere she wants. Does that seem right?

This has been a hot topic of conversation in many arenas, and the newsroom has not been immune. While we share a lot of opinions, consensus is hard to come by. I’m sure it will be even harder to come by at the statehouse, where compromise is something only the most experienced lawmakers can vaguely recall.

Hopefully our elected officials will take steps toward actual, meaningful restrictions that keep dangerous predators locked away while allowing petty criminals to pay their debt to society and attempt a return to a normal life. No law will keep crime from happening, but we don’t need to waste any more time on toothless restrictions that cause more trouble than they’re worth.

Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.