A get-tough sex offender policy in Maplewood would virtually blanket the city with restricted zones where predators could not live, which would either help protect children or force convicted molesters to go underground, according to two sides of a growing debate.
I think we should be able to agree that all of us want to protect our children. It’s what a good parent does. The question becomes to what lengths a municipality can go in order to protect it’s children. In it’s efforts, does said municipality have the right to turn certain people living within it’s borders into second-class citizens? Does it have the right to restrict where they may live? And if so, can, should, and will that right eventually be extended to restricting where these folks may eat, shop, or congregate?
This isn’t an easy question to answer, unless of course you happen to be talking about sex offenders. Mention those two magic words, and suddenly it seems that everyone wants to deny these folks the basic rights any American enjoys. Yes, I understand that sexual offenders/predators have committed, and in some cases continue to commit, heinous crimes, particularly when perpetrated upon children. There can and should be no lenience shown to those who would rob our children of their innocence. Having said that, though, when do we consider that an offender has paid his or her debt to society? Or, having once offended, are they to always be forced to wear the scarlet letter? In condemning them to permanent second-class citizen status, do we ultimately consign them to a life which provides little incentive to reform and become a productive member of society?
The city council of Maplewood, MN, a suburb of St. Paul, is wrestling with this question, and coming up against two strong and yet diametrically opposed positions on this issue.
Preliminary City Council discussions — and a Pioneer Press analysis of the draft of a proposed ordinance — show how complicated it can be to implement even the most well-intentioned of policies. A map compiled by the newspaper shows the toughest restrictions being considered by Maplewood would effectively make the entire city off limits to convicted offenders.
Backers of a proposed ordinance, which will come before the City Council for the third time in six weeks Monday night, say a step to protect even one child is worth taking. Those supporters include the city’s legal staff, the Maplewood police chief and, with reservations, at least a couple of council members.
So, why not just build a wall around Maplewood, and reduce the number of entry and exit points? That way, you could more easily control those who have access to your fair city. By making sure that only the “right” people get in, you should have no problem protecting the children of Maplewood.
Yes, the idea of protecting even one child is laudable, but at what point does a city cross the line and effectively become a walled citadel? And here’s another question: If you are willing to do this sort of things to make the lives of sex offenders in Maplewood less pleasant, where is the logical stopping point? Why not extend this to murderers, alcoholics, embezzlers, or Packers fans? How long before a potential resident of Maplewood has to pass a criminal background check or perhaps even a credit check and take a loyalty oath? Yes, this may be taking the question to a silly extreme, but once you begin sliding down the slippery slope, how and where do you stop?
Its opponents, including the mayor and some county and state-level sex-offender experts, say residence restrictions would make ex-offenders’ lives less stable, increasing the chances they’ll again commit crimes or simply elude the sex-offender registries designed to track them.
If done in moderation, an ordinance along the lines of what Maplewood is considering may have merit. The problem, though, is that this bell, once rung, is going to be difficult to unring, if indeed it can be unrung at all.
If a criminal, in this case a sex offender, has served their time, if they have paid their debt to society, do we as good God-fearing, law-abiding citizens have the right to continue to hold them back from full membership in American society? Does a person, having once committed a sex crime, become forever stained with that label and therefore irredeemable?
“Studies will show this won’t prevent all sex offenses,” said Trevor Oliver, one of the city’s legal counsel who wrote Maplewood’s draft ordinance. “We can’t come up with an ordinance to prevent first offenses. You can’t write an ordinance that bars offenders from living on a block where children live.
“But you can write an ordinance that protects places where children congregate.”
That is the intent of the proposed policy, which arose not from public outcry but conversations between the city’s legal staff and police, in part over a highly publicized ordinance adopted last year by Miami Beach, Fla. The Miami Beach ordinance created a 2,500-foot buffer zone barring predators from living near places where children typically gather.
But does this sort of thing even work? There seems not to be a clear answer to this question. Perhaps this is really all about making people FEEL safer, though. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that this ordinance will provide at least the illusion, if not the reality, of safety. Sometimes, though, feeling safe and actually being safe are two very different things.
I would agree that there is some merit in the philosophy behind Maplewood’s proposed ordinance. I’m just not certain that this sort of thing will have the effect that it’s supporters believe it will, and I’m not at all sure that the safety and security of Maplewood’s children will be increased. And in the end, won’t Maplewood just be driving the problem onto someone else’s doorstep?
We’re talking about people here- Americans with right and liberties, the same as you and I possess. We should be very careful when we head down the path of proscribing certain rights and liberties, because we can never know when this can and will be used to take away some of our own rights and liberties.
Yes, we need to protect our children. I’m just not at all certain that Maplewood’s proposed ordinance will prove to be anything more than a feel-good Band-Aid that turns out to be little more than smoke and mirrors and an excuse for people to make themselves feel better by turning a class of people into second-class citizens.
