Longview Weather
79°F
Severe
Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Editorial

Buffers don't fix problem with sex offenders

Sunday, August 24, 2008 1:04 AM PDT

Font Size:
 
 

Aug. 24 Daily News editorial

Three years ago, Washington lawmakers approved legislation prohibiting registered sex offenders from taking up residence within 880 feet of schools. More recently, state officials and University of Washington administrators have taken steps to keep sex offenders from taking up residence near UW’s Seattle campus.

With encouragement from Gov. Chris Gregoire, one Seattle landlord has booted 13 of the 25 paroled sex offenders living near the campus, according to Associated Press writer Whitney Malkin. And the state Department of Corrections now is making an effort not to place sex offenders near the UW campus.

It’s easy to understand and sympathize with the popular demand that known sex offenders be kept far from school children and young college students away from home for the first time. But the creation of buffer zones around schools and campuses offer no real protection and may be counterproductive.

When the state law creating the 880-foot offender-free zone around schools took effect in the summer of 2005, one member the state Legislature’s Sex Offender Management Joint Task Force worried that it would lead to a false sense of security. Sen. Debbie Regala of Tacoma, cochairwoman of the task force, called such buffer zones “almost a step back into that ignorance-is-bliss” mentality of the past. Even some supporters of the law conceded that offender-free zones may offer only an illusion of security.

Worse, buffer zones can work against efforts to keep track of paroled sex offenders. Bob Shilling, a nationally recognized authority on sex offenders interviewed by Associated Press writer Curt Woodward in December 2005, said establishing a buffer zone around schools is counterproductive. “It creates a lot more homeless sex offenders, which makes it a lot harder for us to keep track of them. They do not work,” Shilling said of the buffer zones. “In fact, it exacerbates the problem.”

State officials should rethink what they may be accomplishing with their efforts to push paroled sex offenders away from the UW Seattle campus. It’s unlikely that they’re creating a safer environment for UW students. They’re efforts certainly offer no benefit to students on other campuses. DOC officials are making no effort to keep paroled offenders from locating near Seattle’s other colleges and universities, which, according to Malkin include two private four-year universities with more sex offenders living nearby than at the UW campus.

Previous Next

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:50 AM:

" Republicans argued at the time that this was feel good, do nothing legislation. Liberals accused them of being soft on sex offenders. Well look now. The solution is simple and Republicans have always favored it: One strike and you're out. Oh wait can you hear the Liberals howl about that idea? The problem isn't the housing of the offenders. The problem is a judical system that allows them to return to society at all. Everytime we release one of these people, we have to worry that another Duncan has been turned loose on society. The Liberals believe in second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chances for people like this. I say that one Duncan is one Duncan too many. The only solution is to keep them all locked up forever. End of repition. End of Duncans ruining more lives with their evil. "

Old Charlie wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:06 AM:

" The best all around solution, is for those that commit forced rape, hang them and all others, put them on McNeil Island and forget them. "

Atrucker wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:13 PM:

" Hummm, Does that make the green river serial killer up for parole , sense all he did was kill prostitutes. He thought he was doing the right thing .
Or Ted Bundy was an okay guy , that should not have died . Yes this is extreme , but oh well.
There is a mind set inside these guys that very few people understand I sat beside the Bellvue Rapist , I can tell you no one would have thought he was capable of such crimes looking at him , and yet he was a predator .
His live style did not say he was into any thing like that .
This just says that at any given time we are capable of any thing . "

cahuita wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Studies show that sex offenders are not able to be rehabilitated and the recidivism rate for sex offenders is high than any other criminal. Why oh why are they ever let out knowing these statistics? "

celticsun wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Not true cahuita. Better double check your statistics. "

bert wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:16 AM:

" We should find an isolated island and put all of the violent offenders that can't be rehabilitated there and forget about them. Oh, wait, that has already been done. It is called Australia. "

DUH wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:36 AM:

" TDN Bad Boy... Oh wait can you hear the Liberals howl about that idea? You have called me a Liberal in many of your comments on many stories. How's this grab ya? I believe that when it comes to sex offenders, the only chance you get is the one you're born with. You screw that up and commit a sex crime of any kind... YOU'RE DONE! No second chance! Don't release them to any neighborhood where children are present. What? They'd have no place to go? TOO BAD! Release them to communities specially built for sex offenders and put a fence around it. What? We already have those? They're called prisons! Get the picture? Don't EVER let them out into society. They are not productive, can never be trusted, and will always be a danger to society. "

DUH wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Who lives next door to you? This may scare you... http://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/sheriff/rso/default.htm Click on the names in the column on the right side. You need adobe reader to view the files. "

informed wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:57 AM:

" yes, the stats are quite clear they are very low risk to reoffend sexually compared to other offenders. Rehab works for a lot of them. And as for locking them all up for 1st offense for the rest of their lives, we don't have the resources and you would have to build a ton of prisons and then fund the prisons. Not only would you scream "Not in my back yard" but you would complain about the huge tax bill, so now what? Oh and for executing them, that cost is even more than it costs to house them in prison. So it all comes down to $$$$$$ "

Jynx wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:25 AM:

" HOW does it cost more to execute them rather than to house them until old age?? Are we looking at the same calculations here? They need medical, food, shelter and how many times do they appeal which in itself costs money? You are living in a fantasy world. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:03 PM:

" It doesn't come down to $$$$$ to me. It comes down to where I want to see another Duncan put out of the streets again. I don't. Until you can tell me that you are 100 percent certain that an offender will not repeat, and will not raise the seriousness of the first offense, then I say get them out of society. There is no need to make innocent victims suffer just so one political party can practice social engineering. Practice it on another group not sex offenders. Here's one suggestion -- practice it on governors who campaign on no new taxes and then promptly raises the gas tax in her first 100 days of office. Maybe we can rehabilitate her, but I don't think releasing sex offenders is a very good idea. $$$$ are not the issue. "

DUH wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Allowing sex offenders to live in neighborhoods where children are present or schools are located is like having a recovering alcoholic sit at a bar and telling him he can't drink. Or giving a junkie a needle and telling him he can't use it. Temptation is a powerful thing and as soon as your turn your back they will jump at the chance. "

informed wrote on Aug 25, 2008 2:17 PM:

" To Jynx: Sure, without careful research it seems it would be cheeper to execute, but in actuality, it is not. Trust me, I've done extensive research on the subject and the cost of the automatic appeals process is huge compared to the other. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-death penalty, but I just think you should be informed.

As for Duh, it does give you a false sense of security saying that they can't live around kids. Do you think they don't then GO to the places kids are? Do you stay only in your little apartment, I think not? You go places too. Also, if you look at the research, you'll see a fairly good majority offend against family members and people they know (sick i know but true) as stranger-victim offenses are very rare, so these rules and registration laws really have no pertinence anyway. Because they don't protect against family members. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 25, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Re: Informed -- The reason the appeals process costs so much is because the Liberals have forced so many appeals into the process. Cut it down, make it specific, make it fast, and have an end to it. No firing five lawyers to drag out the process. No long delays of any kind from either side. That would make the death penalty cheaper. The Liberals know it so they won't accept it. I don't see Duh arguing for the release of sex offenders to family members custody. Seems to me Duh is for keeping them behind bars forever. I am for making the death penalty mandatory to some on first offense. Again, the hug-a-criminal type Liberals will never go for this. What we need is a good statewide initiative on this problem that elminates the Liberals in Olympia from having a say. We've done it smoking and other issues. Time to do it on this. Anyone who read the Duncan article last week and made it to the bottom saw that he was repeat criminal from our state who had been in out of the justice system. To me that says the justice system failed that little boy and his family. We should all be ashamed for letting that happen. Taking sex offenders completely out of society forever on a first offense is the best answer regardless of how the Liberals feel. "

DUH wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Talk about a false sense of security. Since a "fairly good majority" offend against family members do you not think that it could happen to you or your children? Ask yourself this question... Would you feel safe if there was a registered sex offender living next door to you and your children? No? Why not? He's not related to you. It's your "statistics" that give you the false sense of security. With your way of thinking, why not build an apartment complex to house only sex offenders right across the street from a school? Would you feel safe sending your children to that school? No? Why not? The offenders wouldn't be related to you. I don't give a flying flip about your "statistics" You say, "stranger-victim offenses are very rare" So I guess you can be the one to tell those victims that it just don't matter since they didn't know the one who raped or molested them. "

DUH wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Bad Boy... I am not against giving them all the death penalty but I don't think that it would ever happen. Life without possibility of parole is a more realistic possibility of getting passed. Either way they are off the streets. I do wish you luck in getting it going. Rest assured if the initiative was ever on a ballot I would definitely vote yes. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals