MA- GAIL M. MACDONALD: Predator zones don’t work

3-14-2009 Masachusetts:

QUINCY — As the director of a preschool, I am entrusted with the care of 50 children every day. For that reason, I take safety issues very seriously and, like most everyone, abhor any person who would harm a child, particularly a sexual offender.

But despite my professional and personal commitment to the children of Quincy, I cannot support the proposal put forth by City Councilors Doug Gutro and Kevin Coughlin to prohibit Level III registered sex offenders from living, loitering and perhaps even working within 1,500 feet of schools, parks and other places where children and elderly people congregate.

The bottom line is that the unintended consequences of such a law would decrease, rather than increase, the safety of our city’s children.

Laws designating certain neighborhoods as off-limits to registered sex offenders can create a false sense of security.

It is only human to want to shield our children from the evildoers out there, but we live in a free and democratic society comprised of “porous” communities where people come and go as they please, including registered sex offenders.

To believe otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking.

When it comes to protecting our children, there is no substitute for adequate parental supervision and public safety education.

Another serious, unintended consequence of such an ordinance is that it will lead to avoidance behavior.

Under the current system, a sex offender who moves into Quincy must present himself to the local police to be entered into the registry.

In towns that have passed similar ordinances, sex offenders who cannot find acceptable housing often choose not to register at all.

Others falsely claim a homeless shelter as their residence.

Either way, they remain in the “shadows” and impossible to track.

When a sex offender does not register, the police cannot communicate his whereabouts to neighbors and school officials. Thus, the entire sex offender registry system is undermined.

A further challenge to this ordinance lies in its enforcement.

If this ordinance passes and a sex offender provides an address to the police which violates it, will the police have to conduct follow-up visits?

Will the police also assume responsibility for removing that sex offender from a restricted neighborhood?

And if a registered sex offender refuses to move from his residence and opts to pay – or ignore – the fine, what happens next?

Right now, neither the councilors nor the police department have answers to these questions. And the bigger question we must ask is: Do we really want to divert our limited police resources to this ordinance at a time when we are witnessing more drug use, weapons and criminal activity in our city?

Aside from the logistical challenges of this ordinance, I have serious misgivings about the civil rights implications of it. I have no sympathy for sexual offenders and, like most people, wish they were given longer sentences, even life sentences for chronic recidivists.

However, a registered sex offender is no longer a prisoner and as such cannot be denied the same constitutional rights as you and me. A law that dictates where he can live, work or even stand for 15 minutes because he may commit a crime in the future has a “police state” feel to it that I cannot accept.

Councilors Douglas Gutro and Kevin Coughlin’s proposal is well-intentioned, but our children would be better served if we demanded that our criminal justice system impose longer, harder sentences on child sexual offenders.

Passing unenforceable “feel good” laws will only undermine the sexual offender registry and compromise our constitutionally guaranteed rights. ..Opinion Source.. Gail M. Macdonald