Resident restrictions for sex offenders has been a hot topic over the past few months. It seems states and localities without resident restrictions are rushing to pass new laws to catch up with surrounding communities that have already passed laws. This domino effect has reached Nebraska. Most articles on the subject focus on the supporters of such laws, but last week, I was suprised to see an article about Senator Pat Bourne who opposes such restrictions.
Predator restrictions blasted – Omaha World-Herald
The chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee said residency restrictions for sex offenders are “lazy” and “simplistic” and will not solve safety concerns about sex offenders in Nebraska.
“I can assure you a residency restriction will not be coming out of committee,” said State Sen. Pat Bourne of Omaha.
“I’m tired of legislators sitting in their La-Z-Boys and reading newspaper accounts of what has happened in other states, slapping it into legislation and implying it will work.”
Bourne said restricting where sex offenders live could have unintended effects.
“Offenders simply won’t register (with the state) and nobody will know where they are at,” he said. “Kids will be in more danger, and I find that offensive.”
I don’t know how the majority of Nebraskans feel about this issue; it would be interesting to see some type of poll on this topic. I happen to strongly agree with Senator Bournes assessment of the situation. I thought this was an opinion shared by a very tiny minority in the state. After talking with a few people about this issue, I realized that this opinion is more wide-spread than I first thought.
Although passing a law that limits where sex offenders can live looks good on a politician’s resume, does it really solve problems? The jury is still out on whether these types of laws reduce sex crimes. I commend Senator Bourne for speaking up and asking questions instead of just reacting. His opinion on this subject, although it may be unpopular, contains logic and common-sense. I’ve always been a fan of politicians that put logic before emotion.
I was thinking about this earlier. Sex offenders of course rank with murders and rapers. But, I kind of see a problem of double jeopardy. Didn’t they already serve a sentence for what they did and hopefully went to some type of treatment. Plus, they can still go to parks, malls, toys r us ect. . . . I went to Chuckee Cheese with my three and six year old yesterday and there was like standing room only. I was unintentionally bumping and grinding (maybe not grinding) into all kinds of children. If there was a sex offender in there his/her puritant desires were more than fullfilled. Well, what can we do? I thought casteration may work. But, than they still have their hands. So we got to cut them off too. But, they can still see the children. Okay burn out their eyes. Anyway, I think these laws (despite who they are directed towards) infringe on our few little rights that we have left.
Glad to see at least one legislature member has the brains to stand up against these ridiculous laws.
A) Approximately 70-90% of molested children are molested by someone they know. So 70-90% of the time, these laws have no chance of protecting anyone.
B) The law in Iowa doesn’t just apply to those who have actually molested kids or been involved with child pornography. It also applies to those who simply had sex when they were teens. One of the persons in the lawsuit challenging the Iowa law was convicted in another state, when he was 18, of having consenting sex with a 15 year old. Although this is NOT illegal in Iowa or Nebraska (both these states require a larger age gap before it is illegal), the Iowa residency law still applies. It applies since he was convicted in another state of a sex offense against someone under 18. So if, for example, someone moving from California to Iowa was convicted in California when they were 18 of having consenting sex with a 17 year old (which is NOT illegal in Iowa, but it IS technically illegal in California), they would be banished from most Iowa cities for the rest of their life, because of their California conviction. (See http://iowaclu.org/news.asp?ID=7 ) The residency restriction has no expiration, the law would apply even if the person in the above example was 60 years old and had never been convicted of anything else since the age of 18.
Sounds more like life under the Taliban than in the US.
Those who support the Iowa law in general know nothing about sex offenders. Those who support applying that law to 18 year old/17 year old consensual sex are simply Nazis.
References:
http://iowaclu.org/news.asp?ID=7
http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=19211&c=15
D. Finkelhor, “Sexually Victimized Children,” Free Press (1979, 1981).
“Albuquerque’s targeting of sex offenders challenged,” USA Today, May 12, 2003.
MK thank you for your making comments that are documented and backed up with data. Those are definately points to think about.
In case anyone wanted to read it, one of the professors at UNO did research on Sex Offenders in 2003. You may find it an interesting read.
Sample, L.L. and Bray, T.M. “Are Sex Offenders Dangerous?” Criminology and Public Policy,3(1): 59-82.
If you are interested, you can find full text in Ebscohost.
It might not be the perfect solution “restrictions on where sex offenders live” but isn’t it better than NOTHING AT ALL??? I’d rather have a BAD plan in place than no plan at all.
No… not all sex offenders will register and there will NEVER be a perfect system but if we can get 1% to register, it’s worth it in my opinion. I’m hoping everyone that has strong opinions against restrictions has kids because if you do not, then you do not understand the whole story.
This site has all the latest updates I have been able to find in regards to sex offender news.
Sex Offenders Report
I’ve found some pretty good news articles on there that relate to what different states are doing.
I suggest a treatment program before they are allowed to leave jail or while they are serving time. It seems as if sending sex offenders to a warehouse for a few years is not a truly effective way to make them change their ways.
Restricting where a pervert lives is not going to make your child safer. There are already requirements on registering as a sex offender and how close to schools and daycare they are allowed to live.
Also, perfect plan involves parents playing an active role in their child’s life.
Jimmy wrote:
>>>It might not be the perfect solution “restrictions on where sex >>>offenders live” but isn’t it better than NOTHING AT ALL??? I’d rather >>>have a BAD plan in place than no plan at all.
In this case, a bad plan is MUCH WORSE. It is MUCH WORSE than nothing at all because it doesn’t just punish child molesters or child pornographers. It also punishes, FOR LIFE, innocent people who have never molested a child or seen child porn. It punishes those who, when they were teens, simply had consenting sex with another teen not more than 1 to 3 years younger than themselves. It punishes them even when this is not illegal in Iowa or Nebraska, but was technically illegal in some other state and resulted in a conviction in that state. This is a life sentence imposed on someone just because the fundamentalists don’t like the fact that they had sex when they were in their teens. (See my previous post for details.)
Please note that the most recent Nebraska sex offender legislation, restricting residence options for sex offenders in Springfield, has no wording regarding the level of the sex offenders, or who their victims were.
So effectively, a man who grabbed a woman inappropriately in a bar and was charged for a level 1 sex assault _ that man cannot live in Springfield.
That’s ridiculous.
Quite honestly, I find this idea to be “dumb as hell!” If one was to stop and actually look at the current sex offender list, they would see that the majority of individuals that register with the state as a “sex offender” are those people that committed such crimes long ago, or are people that are not likely to re-offend. These are not the individuals that society should be in fear.
Also, were are we going to put these people if they cant live within 50 miles (or whatever it is) from a school, park, library, etc. Are we supposed to put a fence up around a nice square state like Colorado, and lock them all up there?? I mean come on, this is just a ridiculous idea!!
From my point of view, working the streets of Omaha, there has only been one occasion that I have actually had a run-in with a registered “sex offender”, BUT on the other hand, I have had incidents with over 500 drug dealers, crack addicts and meth heads! Why aren’t we worried about keeping these people away from the schools, parks, etc. These are the people that have the most likelyhood of Fucking-up the future of America.
It is interesting that Nebraska is jumping onto the perverbial band wagon with IA with this legislation. But it would be even more interesting to see if IA got their “idea” for banning sex offenders from Illinois or another neighboring state because they banned them. Who is next after NE? Will Kansas ban sex offenders from living their because they are afraid that all of Nebraska’s sex offenders will migrate down there?
Just a random thought I think I will call “Wildfire Legislation”
I do not like these laws. I committed a sex offense at the age of 13 in the state of Oregon. At the age of 19 they convicted me of it. I was still in high school when charged. This is on my adult record and I am a registered level 2-sex offender in the sate of Nebraska. I was court ordered to undergo a sex offender treatment, which I completed successfully. I understand the concerns that people are having, because I am also a parent. My wife and me are very successful and we own a home, and live several blocks from a school. The laws that are trying to be passed will segregate me from my community. I will have to sell our dream house and move. I don’t believe that the government is on the right track. Segregation will only make these problems worse. Sex offenders will go into hiding, causing devience, causing unhealthy cycles, causing more victims. We do not tag people who have been convicted of other crimes, why not? Because some people deserve to have a second chance in getting there lives together again. These laws will totally take away that chance from people like my wife, my kids, my family, and myself. Then what?
Jon
this law is absolutely ridiculous, and it accomplished nothing besides displacing people who have probably lived in their homes for years. People who say that a sex offender should be locked up for life should be ashamed, they may have committed a crime against another person, but they are still people. Offenders that have paid their dues to the government by going through treatment programs should not have the government run their lives forever and tell them where they cannot live. I know someone who committed a sex crime once, and they have spent grueling years through treatment programs, and now they may have to move out of their home of more than 20 years. I hardly find that constitutional. There is absolutely no way that these laws would protect a single child. I hope the governments that have already enacted this legislation falls on their faces and realize that the false sense of security that they feel wasnt worth it.
Tell the truth about child molesters or you to afraid of the liberals that will go after you Don’t be afraid do what is right for the country and the children. the fact is the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, liberal bed-wetters cause these problems in our society to day and it started with the gays. Look back in history, gays where persecuted, ridacuted and put to shame and even imprisoned before we where even a country.People felt that gay acts and being gay was amoral and now they feel that it’s ok because the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, liberal bed-wetters started whining that the gays have rights.In some states it is legal for gays to get married, and it’s ok for them to adopt children. The words you are speaking are the same words that was spoking in the past about gays. So keep hammering on these people and you will have the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, liberal bed-wetters repeating history.Albert Einstein wrote, “The problems that exist in the world today can not be solved by the level of thinking that created them.most Americans or in denial or, simply shut their eyes from seeing The truth. Those that do see are cowering in the dark, knowing full well what awaits them if they speak out. A few are speaking out, but only a few, Americans may be able to hear them during a commercial break, while watching another inane sitcom or perhaps another sports extravaganza. That is provided, they aren’t doped up or drunk to see The truth.
I am not a racist or anything like that this is the truth and if you or going to maeck comments about society and it’s problems at least Tell the truth about how the break down in or society began
Wow. Sometimes ignorance speaks for itself.
You said it Dave. I Just loooove it how bigots come here to spew their diluted form of christianity they always preface their hateful remarks with things like : I’m not a racist however the correct term for this guy would be homophobe. Although judging from the rant he took us all on racist wouldn’t be far behind.
You know equating Child molesting to being gay is just so adgregiously off base is should be considered criminal. Numbers support that most molesters are heterosexual and don’t look like the guy in that commerical.
If Brunning truly cared about Children instead of collecting political browny points, He would should molesters as they truly are everyday people. Your neighbors and mine, upstanding respectable faces of the community.
That is why it so hard to catch them. They are already leaving among us not as soem dark seedy charcter that Brunning makes them out to be. soemtimes they look just like you and me.
As for molesters being gay and this guy not being a racist. It wasn’t so long ago that people like Randi thought my being in an interracial relationship would destroy the moral fiber of the country.
My final thought Randy isn’t racist no he just hates people who have learned to live together in brotherrhood and love. It’s not just minorities he hates of every ilk. It’s the common decencey that we as liberals so to our brothers and sisters.
It’s not us he hates per say but Tolerance that makes him ill.
Got TOLERANCE?
no I am not a racist in fact my best friend is black and now I know what you are going to say about using the word black so here is what my friend said I am a black American not an african American or any thing else. I have four homes and three of them are in the country and one is in the city in a interracial naborhood and in fact I chose to live in the interracial naborhood so if I didn’t like people I would live in the country. And I am not a christian in fact I am a evolutionist. If you would have read it right in no way did I say that gays where child molesters . Robin again to show you that I am not a racist or anything like that my nephew is gay and he is not a child molester, even though I do not believe in his choice of a life style I do not condemn him for it. And as for you or any one else being in an interracial relationship it would not destroy the moral fiber of the country as long as you have family values. I was not compeering gays to child molesters I was using it as an example that people believed that being gay was emoral and wrong. I am sorry but if you don’t believe that liberals are doing this go to google and type in Sex predators ACLU and read the articles. Here is an article that you can go to http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=314 and after you do that do some more research and you will see that it is happening. Here is another example there has been a lot of female teachers having sex with their students and if you look at these cases you will see that their punishment keeps getting lighter and lighter every time in fact this last one is doing no time so I guess the next one won’t even get a slap on the wrist. They are already saying that it is a double stander so watch and see what happens and you will see what I said will happen. These people are standing up now and being heard and forming their own organisesations and with the ACLU help and others they will make it legal to be a child molesters.The fact is you have been “conditioned” (some people call it brainwashed I call it you or stupid) and that is criminal. As I said Americans or in denial or, simply shut their eyes from seeing The truth. And Dave talk about ignorance look in the mirror.
randy,
You may not have come right out and said it but your post alludes to the assumption that gays=molesters. You also go as far as to blame liberals for child molesters. How completly absurd.
the ACLU is an organization who fights for the rights of conservatives and liberals alike. It is a trick of right that has you believing that they only fight for liberals.
Oh and when you call of liberals and add creative adjectives such as whinny . You only make yourself look ignorant. I embrace the term liberal. I wear that badge proudly. It liberals that brought you the 40 hr work week, clean air and water, social security and a host of other “immoral and grandeous” ideas.
Every postive idea that has come about in this country and have come from liberals and, what have conseravtives done well they spent their time voting against these legislation and trying their damnest to set all of these great strides back fifty years.
robin may be I should have worded it a little bit differently where you could have understood it. Again I used it as an example if you give me a few days to get Ann Coulters book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) may be I will understand how to explain it to you. I don’t understand how a person who is in a interracial relationship can support the ACLU that supports the KKK and Nazis and Communists. Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as “a transmission belt” for the party the founder of the ACLU,Roger Nash Baldwin, said “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” and it is carried on still today.Could you please explain that to me.And as for 40 hr work week, clean air and water, social security if you could be more specific about what they have done then I could respond to it. The Social Security Act, which covered workers in commerce and industry, was created by President Roosevelt not the ACLU. And if you are talking about the Clean Air Act The ACLU did not take part in it.
randy,
I support the ACLU because Freedom is rarely Free. What sets us part from other countries is that even if someones personal thoughts are hateful and bigoted they have just as much right to express them as I do mine. As long as those words don’t insight violence then, I can think that person is ignorant as hell but they still have a constitutional right to be a DUMBASS.
When you start surpressing dumbasses then where does it stop? Please read my post I never gave the ACLU credit for S.S or clean air. I gave LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS credit for all of those wonderful things.
It doesn’t matter how hard u try to twist my words. The fact is that you seem to think liberals are responsible for child molesters.
robin
the ACLU and liberals did not create then, but they do support child molesters and you say you support the ACLU because Freedom is rarely Free. If you are so worried about being free why would you support the ACLU that has a history of being Communist. Did you go to google and type in Sex predators ACLU and read the articles? If you would have done that there is no way that you can say that the ACLU and liberals don’t support child molesters. You might have a different opinion about child molesters but we are not talking about you we are talking about the ACLU and liberals as a group. You are right every one has a constitutional right to be a DUMBASS even liberals. I am glad that I have finely found a liberal with a back bone. It’s been a good debate so far. I have a question for you, As I said I believe in evolution dose this mean that I should look at Sex predators as an evolutionist and not look at it with any moral values because if I did look at it as a evolutionist then I should look at our cousins the monkeys, every day throughout their lives there is rape and Incest so is this the way it should be with humans after all we are all animals I hope you don’t think so. Even if you did think so it wouldn’t be the best thing for our society.
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! utHUYShRvnJpr