Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.jpg)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > May > 24 > Entry
Sex offender law goes too far?
Let me start off by saying that, as the father of three young children, I am very much in favor of tougher laws for sex offenses against children.
Even so, what Wisconsin did yesterday gave me pause.
The state legislature there passed a low requiring all child sex offenders to wear global tracking devices for the rest of their lives. The devices send police a signal if the convict goes near a school, park or other child-heavy places and tampering with the device will be a felony. The offenders can appeal to be released from the device only after 20 years!
Wow. Two things made me wonder here. First, the majority of sex offenses do not begin at playgrounds, etc. Most involve adults and children that are known to them. I’m not sure if the device is something big and visible to others or more easy to conceal. But the point is, just keeping offenders away from parks may not prevent them from offending again.
But more concerning is just the concept of being tracked for life by the government after a convict has paid his or her debt to society and been released from jail or court supervision. I just don’t know. If it prevents other children from being victimized, that’s good. But I worry a bit about what comes next after this program. If lawmakers can track sex offenders, how soon before they want to track others, maybe even non-criminals, some day? It seems a little un-American.
So I can’t make up my mind whether I favor this tough new approach, or if it’s just too dangerous a precedent. Let us know what you think.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Young Children
Comments
By Ms. Cornelius
May 28, 2006 6:44 PM | Link to this
Okay. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. You wouldn’t need involuntary commitment laws and twenty years of wearing a low-jack if sentences for offenders reflected that we consider this kind of crime to be intolerable. Make the sentences longer, and you don’t have to be tempted to create draconian parole conditions. The damage created by sex offenders lasts a lifetime. So why do offenders only get probation or five years in prison?By Kate
May 24, 2006 2:50 PM | Link to this
In response to Ben - WOW! Now there’s a reality checkBy Ben
May 24, 2006 1:09 PM | Link to this
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. -Adolf Hitler in Mein KampfBy Oldprof
May 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
In the case of the minority of child molesters who DO pick up random children from parks and schoolgrounds, would you agree that monitoring is a good thing? Given, of course, that there is no known cure for sex offenders who prey on children. The problem occurs when we implement measures based on “policy” rather than judgment—similar to the “no tolerance” policies that lead to expulsion for elementary school children who say “bang” while pointing a french fry. In so many things, we’ve departed “to far” from good old 19th-century pragmatism; our elected officials are prone to act based on sentiment rather than proven results.By Kelly
May 24, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
too far, not to far