BishopAccountability.org
	Instinctive, Ill-Advised Reinstating Work, Residency Rules on Sex Offenders Will Force Predators Underground By Maureen Downey Atlanta Journal-Constitution January 18, 2008 http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/17/offended_0118.html The sexual abuse of children provokes two responses: an instinctive, blindly emotional reaction of anger at the victimization of an innocent child, and a more rational reaction designed to prevent such heinous acts from happening in the future. In voting to reinstate blanket residency and work limits on all sex offenders, a legislative committee has succumbed entirely to the first response and ignored the second, more productive reaction. The results, if approved by the Legislature as a whole, would be counterproductive for children. Under previous Georgia law, one of the most restrictive in the country, all those convicted of sex-related offenses were treated as sexual predators. They were forbidden to live near parks, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums, school bus stops and community swimming pools. They also could not legally work near a child care facility, school or church. After those limits were struck down by the state Supreme Court in November, the Legislature was given a chance to revisit the state's approach. But House Bill 908 — approved by the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee on Wednesday — repeats mistakes of earlier laws and will leave many sex offenders homeless and unemployed, fueling the instability that increases the risk of repeat crimes. The House committee shrugged off the testimony of six legal and behavioral experts who warned that the draconian restrictions would cause offenders to go underground, drop out of treatment and stop registering their whereabouts with the state, the worst-case scenario for keeping kids safe. "The more stable the offender, the less likely they are to commit new crimes," researcher Kevin Baldwin said. "More than a score of states have tried residency restrictions, and there is still no proof they work," psychologist James E. Stark testified, adding that Georgia law already requires that sex offenders meet with probation officers, undergo home checks and polygraphs and get treatment. Nor was the committee fazed by the fundamental unfairness of a law that would subject someone convicted of consensual sex as a teenager to the same restrictions applied to a 35-year-old who preyed on 11-year-olds. For example, student Narada Williams, 21, cannot live in his college dorm because of a day-care center on his campus. Why? Because at age 17, Williams engaged in oral sex with a willing 15-year-old, which at the time was a felony under Georgia law, requiring that Williams register as a sex offender. The offense has since been reduced to a misdemeanor with no requirement to register, but the change was not retroactive and Williams still wears the sex-offender label. "It is a scarlet letter that follows him everywhere," says his father, Robert Williams. "I have always been raised to believe that molesting a child is worse than murdering someone. For such a young man to have that on his shoulders for an act with a peer is hard for me to digest. It seems like something out of a third world country."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.