Iowa displays common sense with new sex offender law

Iowa was a leader in passing sex offender laws that restricted
where sexual offenders could and could not live. The result was
a situation where there were no places that were not restricted
and like Miami, Florida, people were living under bridge overpasses
and other less than desirable locales where police had difficulty in
tracking them.

The problem is that not all sex offenders are the same and not all
pose a major threat to society. The law was treating someone who
raped a 5-year old the same as someone who showed a pornographic
picture to a young teen-ager.

The law that Iowa passed, while not perfect, is greeted with applause
by police, victim groups, and even the ACLU. Iowa established three
tiers of sex offenders, those on the lowest level can live in most areas while
the "true sexual predator" is restricted to areas 2,000 feet away from schools,
playgrounds, day-care centers, etc. This is an even greater distance than
the Florida law that resulted in the homeless living under a causeway bridge
and brought the story to nationwide attention.

The original Iowa law and the one in Florida share a major flaw. By grouping
all offenders together (this includes the 17-year old who has consensual sex
with a 16-year old who has not reached the state's age of majority) along
with the rapist of a young child, you remove nearly any chance of
rehabilitation for the minor offender and increase the odds of recidivism a
great deal.

It is not easy for a legislature to pass laws that seem to the public because
of media headlines to be taking a soft stance on sex offenders. But we need
to look at this and other situations without tunnel vision. Putting the
17-year old described above on probation makes a great deal of sense,
but not incarcerating a child rapist should be grounds for immediate
impeachment or removal from the bench.

The public must look beyond the blazing headlines and consider what the
talking heads of both political persuasions are actually talking about. Then
and only after getting a balanced report from the right and the left can we
decide whether to support the action taken.

For the sake of ourselves and our nation, we must stop reacting to media
headlines when we have no facts and no knowledge.