Harsher Sex Offender Restrictions Won’t Make Anyone Safer

Steve
Blow and Josh
Gravens are two of my new heroes. I met them both when I
went to Dallas three weeks ago to speak at the Reform Sex Offender
Laws convention. Gravens is a sex offender who also spoke
at the convention. I went with him to see what it’s like to
register and that
became a story in itself.

Blow is a beloved columnist at The Dallas Morning
News. He’s a local institution. Last week, he wrote a column

about me and Free Range Kids.

In
his latest column, Blow talks to Gravens and explains why harsh
laws restricting sex offenders’ movements are unwise:

We’ve talked here lately about how our laws on sexual misconduct
have gone badly overboard. And now the City Council looks at
joining in.

In a briefing session last week, the council heard a proposal to
impose residency restrictions on registered sex offenders — setting
distances on how far they must live from parks and schools and
such.

Josh, a Lake Highlands resident, was among those who spoke
against the idea. He introduced his wife and five children.

Josh and I talked at length the next day. “It would be one thing
if these residency restrictions had some proven safety benefit,” he
said. “But there is not one study that has found any benefit.”

Don’t take his word for it. Here’s what the experts say:
“Residence restrictions are simply not a feasible strategy for
preventing child sexual abuse.” That’s from the Association for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Blow goes on to quote more experts who concur “that—contrary to
popular belief—registered sex offenders have one of the very lowest
recidivism rates.”

Really, it is very hard to get anyone to believe that point,
although all
the evidence (as opposed to hearsay) I’ve seen reaches the
same conclusion.

The evidence also concludes that 1) Residency restrictions don’t
make anyone safer, although they do make it very hard for sex
offenders to live normal lives and hence gives them less incentive
not to re-offend. And 2) Sex offender lists are teeming with people
like Gravens who pose no actual threat to kids. As Blow
concludes:

Evidence is mounting that our broad-brush approach to sex
offenders is doing more harm than good. We mistakenly came to
equate “sex offender” with “pedophile predator.”

A tiny percentage truly fall into that second category. And they
need close monitoring, which can be accomplished through better
parole and probation oversight.

The rest pose little or no threat of re-offending. And we only
increase that possibility by preventing them from working, from
living in decent housing, from reuniting with family.

It may take a bit of courage, but if the Dallas City Council
wants to make a decision based on evidence, it will stay off the
hysteria bandwagon.

Amen.