Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Sexual offenders leave us in quandary

To their credit, council members expressed concern about the constitutionality of repunishing people who have done their time. Then they voted unanimously for the city attorney to explore the idea of banning sex offenders from living in Tampa.

By SUE CARLTON
Published January 28, 2007

Make no mistake about it: the Tampa City Council is absolutely against allowing sex offenders to lurk around children.

(Sounds good to me.)

So much against it that it's considering banning sex offenders from living in the city altogether.

(As in, kicking out an entire group of people who have already served their sentences? We can't do that, can we?)

Oh, so you're for child molesters?

At a recent meeting, City Council members talked about beefing up the rule that keeps sex offenders from living at least 1,000 feet from schools, day care centers and parks.

They wondered: how about 2,500 feet?

Hey, what about the whole city?

Predictably, when it comes to this hot button subject, the politicians had to state their positions against sex offenders for the record.

"Disgusting and despicable," they said. They mentioned a leper colony. Someone talked about loading them into a truck and dumping them somewhere.

Well, why not pander a little? No harm done when you're talking about a group of people generally considered more loathsome than something you step in by mistake. Hey, it's not like council members were out slashing homeless people's tents with box cutters or anything. Now that would sound bad.

To their credit, council members also expressed concern about the constitutionality of repunishing people who have done their time.

They wondered about the impact on their neighbors outside the city limits.

They said the new rule shouldn't apply to sex offenders already living here.

And they worried it might drive them underground and make it harder for authorities to track them.

Then they voted unanimously for the city attorney to explore the idea anyway.

Such citywide bans aren't unprecedented, by the way, just untested. Miami Beach and Dyersville, Iowa, passed similar laws in 2005.

Truth is, we already have sensible ways of keeping tabs on sex offenders.

By law, sex offenders and sexual predators in Florida have to tell authorities where they're living. The public gets to know, too, through Web sites and information like reverse 911 calls. I got one recently, a recorded voice telling me about a man who had moved into my neighborhood. These measures aren't foolproof, but they help.

At the meeting, City Attorney David Smith cautioned the council, "This is an emotionally charged, politically sensitive and legally complicated matter."

True enough. The subject is so flammable it's almost too much for a politician to handle. It's a no-win.

Who wants to risk being labeled pro-pervert, especially weeks before the next election?

Nobody wants to live next door to a convicted rapist. In the face of headlines about heinous crimes and damaged victims, only the most secure politician could argue that the man has paid his debt.

And suggesting the city attorney will surely recommend against this, given the constitutional and legal tangles it would entail?

Suggesting we might have more pressing city business to deal with?

More pressing than this? Forget it.

[Last modified January 28, 2007, 21:15:13]