Keeping Police From Preventing Sex Crimes

"They could show up anywhere." That's a quote from Metro Police Lt. Mickey Garner about homeless sex offenders. Not exactly a comforting thought, especially considering how policies modeled on Jessica's law are putting more and more offenders out on the street.

It's worse than uncomfortable. It's tragic. Take the case of Samuel Dorsey, a convicted, unregistered and homeless offender who has been charged with raping a 17-year-old girl. Garner, who works in the district, told local television station WSMV-TV that the police couldn't keep up with him because they didn't know where he was.

You would think policymakers would try to make sex offenders easier to keep track of, not harder. Residency restrictions do little more than address the phantom issue of where offenders live in order to make communities feel safer. In the meantime, it increases the cost and difficulty of police monitoring; and, most detrimentally, creates an instability in the lives of sex offenders that heightens the chance for re-offending.

A panel organized to advise governor Schwarzenegger sums up the problem with policies modeling Jessica's law by saying that such laws "seem to have been made for political reasons or what feels good at the time ." Accordingly, plenty of money has been "wasted on policies and programs that do not make our communities safer, but are politically popular.”

This comment comes at a crucial time for California, a state with more convicted sex offenders than any other in the country. In addition to Jessica's law and Megan's law, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego) recently introduced Chelsea's law to state legislature.

The bill has some intelligent provisions. It would limit where sex offenders can and cannot go, instead of focusing on where they live. At the same time, though, it wouldn't amend the faulty residency restrictions of past laws. What's more, it also contains a one-strike provision which would guarantee life without parole for forcible sex crimes against children. As the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (who oppose the bill) argue, there's no proof that longer prison sentences and parole terms reduce the risk of re-offending.

In general, the approach to sex offender laws has been based in sentiment, not fact. Even Fletcher, the bill's sponsor, says the community is channeling "fear," "anger" and "frustration" into "motivation for change." Those aren't exactly emotions that scream rational thought (or good policymaking).

The sheer fact sex offender laws are named after the girls molested, raped and murdered plays to our emotions instead of our brains. This is too important an issue to be manipulated for emotional or political gratification. It's time to craft laws that intelligently address issues — rather than laws that simply dismiss problems, allay fears, exact retribution or win elections.

Photo Credit: Victor Van Werkhooven