American Justice

Today's newspaper headline asked the question "Where do Iowa's sex offenders live?".
A few years ago the state legislaturers enacted into law a 2,000 foot rule (over a mile), where people convicted of sex crimes against children and registered into a public online database to track their movements are forbidden to live (home is defined as the place you sleep) within 2,000 of a school or daycare center. Looks good on paper protecting our children, but with one flaw: the rule does not apply to everyone on the sex offender registry. If the offender has lived in his home before the school or daycare opened, they are not forced to move. For years this law has not been enforced because a civil liberties group petitioned the courts saying it is against their civil rights to do this when they are released from prison and continue to punish them. This year the group lost.

Then earler this year, 2 girls were murdered and were raped before the died within months of each other causing outrage in the community to protect the public from sex crimes. Next, with the law enforced and eviction notices handed out to those disobeying the law, communities not protected under the 2,000 foot rule decided to banish all sex offenders from moving into their neighborhoods. New rules were quickly made including no registered sex offender can live near parks, hiking trails, swimming pools, etc., leaving these evicted people no place to call home. Today the paper has answered that question, Where are they living now?

These people are sleeping in rest areas, parking lots, tents in public parks where allowed, under bridges, and hotels. That is they only sleep overnight in freezing weather in these places under a dozen blankets. They leave their new homes for warmer houses and jobs when they awaken. This is Amercian Justice at work.

Obviously "Where do sex offenders live?" is it not a question any supporters of the
2,000 foot rule answer, all they say is "Not in my neighborhood". I fail to see how forcing sex offenders to live like homeless people in poverty solves any problem. Exporting them into other states does not solve anything either. The simple fact remains: Unless sex crimes carry life sentences, they can't stay in jail forever. I do not feel my toddler niece is safer from sex predators living in parking lots, motels, and rest areas. I noticed after the Jetseta Gage case people cried how they were never told there was a sex offender living nearby and these same people also admitted of never glancing at the sex offender registry online, most public libraries have internet access. These people have the audacity to assume an official
sends out fliers every time a sex offender moves into their neighborhood.
They don't because the registry is public information, Duh.

Which brings me to add that this 2,000 foot rule does not apply to unregistered sex offenders, including convicted rapists of adults. Is my toddler niece any safer than I am from a sex crime? I hardly think so. But some people love living in denial believing false security protects the public. We Americans call that having your head up your ass so far you can't see what is happening. So where do we go from here when anyone who defends sex offenders is accused being evil and concerned with the inconveniencing violent criminals. Not exactly, we just live in the real world and think the 2,000 foot rule only looks good on paper. I hardly call living in a car or under a bridge in below freezing temperatures an inconvenience. Since no elected
official will speak out because that would be political suicide, we little
people nobody listens to must speak out.

Though I wonder if this tale ever made it to the national news level. I think it is interesting. Post later. Bye!