« Ind. Courts - "Suit blames Alcoa for toxins" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 26 NFP) »
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Ind. Law - More on "Should sex offenders' wrongs cost them their civil rights?"
Following up on reporter Laura Lane's comprehensive look yesterday at the issues posed by sex offender statutes (see ILB entry here), today the Bloomington Herald-Times adds its editorial voice ($$$):
In 2003, the Indiana General Assembly established Indiana’s sex and violent offender registry, giving the public free online access to photographs, addresses, employers and conviction information for thousands of convicted sex offenders.Soon after its enactment, the law was challenged and upheld by the Indiana Supreme Court. Accepting the legislative premise that disclosure of such information is necessary for the protection of public safety, the court ruled that “Zachary’s Law” — named for the 10-year-old boy who was murdered by a convicted sex offender — did not violate privacy and reputation rights granted by the Indiana Constitution.
The General Assembly has continued to amend the law to further restrict sex offenders. One amendment, currently being challenged on constitutional grounds, prohibits an offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school, day-care center or youth program.
Effective July 1, a new Indiana law will require sex offenders to sign a consent form authorizing law enforcement authorities to search their computers and monitor their Internet usage. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana recently has filed a lawsuit alleging that requiring such “consent” — which is hardly consent if required by law — violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Keeping children safe should be a priority of all three branches of government. Sentences for sex offenders should be meted out and enforced. But the General Assembly should not be allowed to use its legislative power to create constitutionally suspect restrictions that last far longer than a completed sentence.
Neither the 1,000-foot rule nor the computer-search consent rule distinguishes between low-risk and dangerous offenders. Nor is there a demonstrated correlation between residency and sex offense; the latest law merely creates an illusion of safety. Experts agree that most offenders are not strangers but persons known to the victim’s family.
Describing the situation of a convicted offender who has served his sentence but lives just within 1,000 feet of a school, Monroe County Sheriff Jim Kennedy said of the overreaching nature of the law: “Taking people and moving them from homes they have owned for decades, with no subsequent behavior problems, I have a bad feeling about that.”
There is also no demonstrable interest in singling out sex offenders through the 1,000-foot rule. Citizens arguably have just as much interest in knowing whether convicted drunken drivers are living close to where their children will be walking home from school. And some parents might be just as interested in a gun registry, which would reveal whether the parents of their children’s friends own firearms.
Instead of more arbitrary restrictions for sex offenders, Indiana should focus on better education and reporting of abusive behavior. Where appropriate, more treatment options should be provided to offenders. Ultimately, we must develop ways to keep our children safer without abrogating fundamental civil rights.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 17, 2008 11:53 AM
Posted to Indiana Law