City wants to require sex offenders to post yard signs
(1/06/06 - CUERO, TX) - Some registered sex offenders in Cuero might have to post signs at their home declaring their status under an ordinance that received preliminary approval from the Cuero City Council.
It seems to have become fashionable in our “OH MY GOD!! What about the children??” hysteria that surrounds any sort of sexual offense to want to permanently banish offenders from the communion of good society. Yes, make a mistake and you are branded for life- marginalized, demonized, and loathed as something Evil and sub-human. We may not be able to execute you, but we can certainly consign you to a miserable existence of being forever branded as a second-class citizen with no hope of EVER being regarded as a legitimate member of society.
I will certainly agree that sex offenses, particularly those directed at children, are heinous and intolerable. Does this mean, however, that we have the right to cast these offenders aside permanently as less than human, worthy only of our fear and opprobrium? At what point can we reasonably begin to credit an offender for having paid his (or her) debt to society? Or are we justified in our collective desire to simply toss people aside like so much garbage…because of the children?
My purpose is not to justify or minimize sexual offenses committed against children. I’m just not certain that branding sex offenders as evil, subhuman permanent dangers to good, God-fearing citizens is ultimately good for society as a whole. If we do not allow offenders the opportunity to reform and rejoin society as full citizens, then what incentive do sex offenders have to reform and clean up their act? If we are to forever and unchangeably regard them as monsters, why would they ever want to straighten their lives out?
Only moderate and high-risk sex offenders who move to the city or register after the ordinance takes effect would be bound by its requirements. Registered sex offenders who already live in Cuero would be exempt.
Council members unanimously approved the first reading of the ordinance on Thursday, the Victoria Advocate reported for its Friday edition. The ordinance must pass two more readings to gain approval and take effect.
So, essentially what the the City Council is doing here is attempting to discourage sex offenders from moving into their fair city. NIMBY, indeed. Of course, if these fine, upstanding public servants were truly wanting to protect Cuero’s children, why wouldn’t they want to do something about the people who already live there? Perhaps because they realize that, while branding people is an appealling option, they have no legal standing to take this step. This way, they at least LOOK as if they are addressing the “problem” without actually doing anything of any real value. Nice, eh? Such is the stuff that demagogues are made of.
“By not adopting the sex offender sign ordinance, we are encouraging the abuser,” resident Jazzmin Bhuiyan told the council. “We are saying we are standing by the offenders, not with our kids.”
Right. So enacting an ordinance that really doesn’t DO anything demonstrates a strong commitment to protecting children? Are these people really so ignorant and narrow-minded to think that ANYTHING done in the name of “protecting children” is better than nothing at all? This is exactly the sort of hysterical demagoguery that makes it virtually impossible to address this issue in a sober, reflective manner.
If we are truly concerned about protecting our children, we should be able to discuss the matter with an eye toward solutions that will actually work. Instead, the politics and the debate is controlled by those who rely on emotion and demagoguery to feed the fear and hysteria that surround this issue. What none of these folks seem to realize is that fear is no basis for rational and effective policy…and permanently condemning sex offenders as Evil, subhuman second-class citizens is no way to reduce the rate of recidivism and the threat to our children. Sober reflection and rational debate would seem to be a fair and reasonable way to address this issue, and to perhaps even find solutions that work while still respecting an individual’s basic humanity and civil rights.
Honestly, though, politicians and those hateful, fear-motivated types who see nothing wrong with denying a class of individuals their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights don’t really want to have a reasoned, rational debate. What they want is to whip up emotions so they can look as if they are riding to the rescue of our children.
It’s still an open question as to whether Cuero’s new ordinance will accomplish anything close to what it proponents promise that it will. Ultimately, I believe that it will leave some people feeling as if they are taking care of business, but in the end NOTHING will change. Then what? When do we begin burning people at the stake?
