This story is a good example of how intentions that anyone would agree with, in this case keeping children safe from sexual predators, when mixed with ill-conceived policy, ultimately creates a situation that might be the complete opposite of the desired results. This story incites some important questions: What are the limits of punishment? What are the consequences of focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation? What is the difference between the perception of safety and the reality?
From the New York Times article:
"Nobody wants sex offenders in their area, and on its face, it makes sense that people wouldn't want them near day cares and schools," said Scott Matson, a research associate at the Center for Sex Offender Management, a nonprofit project financed by the federal Department of Justice. "But there are consequences of removing them."
While some of the Iowa's largest cities, like Des Moines, have become virtually off limits for those convicted of sex crimes involving children, the new rules have pushed many to live in groups away from their families, in places like the Ced-Rel, or the Red Carpet Inn in nearby Bouton, where nine offenders rent rooms.
Michele Costigan, whose driveway is right across Highway 30 from the Ced-Rel in this rural stretch just outside Cedar Rapids, said she had stopped leaving any of her four children at home alone, had told them to dial 911 if anyone they did not recognize pulled into the family driveway, and was considering moving.
"If the point of his law was to make us safer, we are not," Ms. Costigan said.
