Journal Times editorial: Sex offenders vs. Not In My Back Yard

4-24-2013 Wisconsin:

You’re a NIMBY, aren’t you?

You’re not alone; most of us are.

NIMBY, of course, stands for Not In My Back Yard. It means you’re not bothered by what happens on the other side of town, or two towns over or in the next county. But the prospect of something coming to your neighborhood — on your block, your street or in your town, depending upon your perspective — gets you off the couch and in front of the microphone during public comment time at the Village Board or City Council.

You can be a NIMBY about a big-box retailer setting up shop, or a power plant under construction. That’s you telling your elected officials “I don’t want this here.”

But what about sex offenders who have been released from prison?

That’s the one that, understandably, produces the most strenuous objection, surely because it evokes thoughts of predators living down the street from our children. But it’s also the question with the most uncomfortable answer.

On a 12-2 vote on April 15, the Racine City Council approved an ordinance which bars violent or child sex offenders locating to Racine from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, library, park, playground, swimming pool or house of worship. The ordinance will take effect Wednesday.

That’s quite a laundry list of locations. We have schools, parks, playgrounds and houses of worship distributed throughout the city. What about storefront churches adjacent to places of businesses? Does “day care center” include such businesses operated out of private homes? A recent Journal Times report included maps that revealed how few locations such parolees have available to them in the city.

We respond emotionally to the words “sex offender,” and especially “sex offender in our neighborhood.” We seem to think that released sex offenders are the most likely to re-offend, to victimize another person. But the facts don’t support that thinking.

A U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics report revealed that, when it comes to recidivism — the percentages rearrested, but not necessarily guilty, within three years of their release for the “same category of offense” for which they were most recently in prison — drug offenders have the highest rate of recidivism, at 41.2 percent. Larceny is next at 33.9 percent, followed by burglary, assault, fraud and robbery. Rapists, the study found, are rearrested for rape just 2.5 percent of the time.

This would suggest that, an overwhelming percentage of the time, sex offenders are released because they have been correctly found to no longer be a threat to the community, and that those still deemed dangerous remain behind bars.

When you’ve paid your debt to society, you are allowed to re-enter society. While we might like to see sex offenders move someplace else, state law requires that released offenders return to the city, town or village where they resided at the time of their offense. This is understandable, especially from a political point of view; Madison doesn’t want Janesville’s sex offenders, Green Bay doesn’t want Appleton’s, Kenosha doesn’t want Racine’s.

Make no mistake: They are our sex offenders. We don’t condone their behavior, and we want to see them punished for their crimes. But when they have served their sentence and the jail doors swing open, they are our sex offenders, and they must be allowed to resettle here to get on with their lives.

We can, and should, keep them away from schools and playgrounds, away from day care centers and libraries. But if we aren’t going to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, they need a place to live. ..Opinion.. of Journal Times