Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Officials Say 2,000-Foot Rule Does Not Ensure Public Safety

No kidding! It's just not practical... some quotes I like in particular:

Schmidt said had the 2,000-foot rule been in effect 10 years ago, not one case in the files would have been different.

But, he said a rational solution is needed. He said unless we're willing to execute them in prison, there must be a place for sex offenders to live.

Capt. Mike Brown, head of investigations for the Scott County Sheriff's Department, worries that the public may be lulled into a false sense of security by laws such as the 2,000 foot restriction.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the 2,000 foot restriction sounds good... afterall, nobody wants a known sex offender in their neighborhood. And it's a popular viewpoint that all elected officials would like to hop on! But it isn't going to solve anything, it's going to be a nightmare to monitor and keep up!

First, we need to get the RIGHT people on the list - the people who plea bargain, who get away with minimal "counseling" and those likely to re-offend. Eliminate those who were involved with consensual relationships with teens who were close to their own age. Then we have to find a way to protect our children from them... it's not so much where they live, it's what they are doing with their lives - are they in counseling, do they understand what they've done wrong? Are they doing everything possible in their own lives to ensure that they won't re-offend??? Then, we can monitor and pass harsher sentences against those who do re-offend!

I do think that the vast majority of sex offenses are committed by family members, friends of the family, or people in authority who have regular contact with those children who are the biggest threat to those children. How do we protect children from their own family when courts are so tuned into parental rights these days???

No comments: