The effort underway to pass residency restrictions is misplaced and misguided. The overwhelming majority of evidence in the field is that these laws do nothing to increase safety of children, and may actually exacerbate the problem by giving parents, teachers and other adults a false sense of security, and by destabilizing convicted sex offenders, increasing their likelihood of recidivism.
As I said in testimony before the Portland City Council Public Safety Committee during the first of several meetings to review the proposal - residency restrictions for sex offenders are bad law and bad public policy.
Even the scaled down version, which would prohibit convicted sex offenders deemed "high risk" by the Portland Police Department from living near schools and city parks, is ill advised.
That's because research shows no reliable link between residence and offense. That is because these are crimes of relationship, not geography. Most child sexual crimes are committed by individuals known by their victims, with most of the offensive encounters occurring in the victim's home. Those sex offenders who do target strangers, do so away from their home or work and with no propensity towards those areas usually covered by restrictions (schools, churches etc.).
As previously stated, “what matters with respect to sexual recidivism is not residential proximity, but rather, social or relationship proximity.” (Minnesota Department of Corrections; Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota.)
In addition to and because of lack of nexus between these restrictions and reduced risk to children, these laws are invalid because they violate the equal protection rights of those effected. As articulated in a July 2009 New Hampshire court decision, despite the State's unquestionable compelling interest in protecting minors, the State had "not produced any evidence showing a causal connection between the residency restrictions and the protection of minors. Instead, the State argues that its stated basis for the ordinance, which is the common sense cited by Councilor Mayberry, is insufficient."
Because the State "failed to produce any evidence showing a substantial relationship between [the residency restriction of sex offenders] and the protection of minors" the ordinance was invalid because it violated defendants' equal protection rights.
Common sense has been argued here in Portland as well. But that shouldn't cut it. The rights being infringed upon and the potential unintended consequences too great.
As someone who worked with severely abused and neglected children for 6 years, I understand the fears involved. But this is one of those times where we need our heads to overpower our guts and hearts. Focus should shift away from ostracizing and vilifying sex offenders and towards treatment and prevention that works. We need to educate our youth about the dangers of the world, including sexual predation and molestation, and help them recover if they are victimized. We need to put resources towards supporting known sex offenders so they don't recidivate, and to reaching those at risk of offending.
What we do not need to do, however, is pass laws that don't work, pat ourselves on the back for a job well done, and move on to another issue.
