Rachel (metamood) wrote in issaquah,
Rachel
metamood
issaquah

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Just Joined; Questions about Sex Offender issue

Hi! I'm new to this community. My name is Rachel and I live on Squak Mt. I've lived in Issaquah for 10 years. I love the city and the community.


I was reading in the Seattle Times today about how Issaquah wants to make and ordinance to ban level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any schools or daycares in the city. On Monday, at the next city council meeting, they will vote whether or not to pass this ordinance. I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from living in certain places. It infringes on their right to free movement.

What do you think? Any opinions?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 15 comments
a sex offender living that close to a school of daycare is like a drug addict living in a crack house. it's like that K.I.S.S. philosophy they use in AA, keep it simple, stupid. why would anyone make it any easier for a child molester to strike again? i would not want any sex offenders having easy access to my children. i see how it infringes on their rights, but after what they've, i think the childrens' rights to be safe is more important. the question is how far do we take it?
Thank you Jessica! I was going to respond with a similar analogy of a person on a diet who works in a candy store...

I think it's perfectly reasonable to restrict sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools/daycares and it is necessary to infringe on certain rights in cases such as these.
I understand your point and think it is very valid. It's definitely not a good idea to make it easier for sex offenders to repeat. I'm actually not entirely sure where the two sex offenders live, but I'm under the impression that it is at least half a mile to a mile from IVE. I guess it's one thing to work at the school, or live across the street, but I don't think that the sex offenders are so close that they would be exposed to any more children where they are as opposed to if they lived in any other area where there were families with children. That's a different issue though, I suppose.

I want to see our city's children kept safe, but I do not believe that the city should violate the constitutional rights of the sex offenders to do so. Then the question is, how do we keep our children safe while upholding the basic rights of the sex offenders? My suggestion there is to change the laws about the way we punish sex offenders, so that any proximity laws (dictating how far from schools you can live) affect all sex offenders, living everywhere, not just some of them living in certain cities. Basically, I believe that proximity laws should be part of the fundamental punishment given to sex offenders, not a "tacked on extra". It's not fair to them to have them serve jail time, go through treatment, make getting a job harder, and everything else like that and then saying "Well, actually you have to move now because you're within 850 feet of a local school."

Perhaps Washington State needs to look more closely at it's laws about sex offenders.
I agree...I was molested by my uncle when I was 10, and I wasn't the only one he molested. When he gets out of jail, he's going to be a level 5 sex offender. Why would people who do that...people who think it's OK to do that...why should they even HAVE the right to be that close to that many children? It's simple; they shouldn't.
You are absolutely right, igiveyoutake. Sex offendors shouldn't even have the right to live near children. All this talk about "protecting the constitutional right of sex offendors" is complete crap. The rights of innocent children are far more important.
But if we don't hold up the laws of the constitution, then what will we have? What lines will we determine are ok to cross and not ok to cross? When will those lines become so blurred that the constitution itself dissolves, along with the freedom it gives us in upholding our nation's democracy?
If we don't uphold the innocence of defenseless children, then what do we have?
I agree with the ordinance. The sex offender who moved here is my friends neighbor, and shes kind of freaked out by it. Its just not safe to have them living near children
I have a slightly different standpoint on this one I guess. I suppose that if we could just have the world work in the best way possible for everyone, than it certainly wouldn't be ideal for sex offenders to be located near large groups of children. That definately makes sense to me. The problem is that they, as citizens of the US, have a right to locate themselves wherever they want (for the most part). I'm not sure that the government should interfene here, as it seems to contradict this right. Complicated. I suppose I don't have a completely formulated opinion, but thats my two cents.
I believe as the law stands, felons have many of their rights stripped. They can't vote. In that sense, I'm not sure if it would be unconstitutional then.

As far as personal opinion, I really don't know how I feel about it. It would be nice if there was sure-fire way to test if they have been truly rehabilitated. But there isn't.
I think a childs right not to be sexually taken advantage of is more important than the rights of sex offenders.

And I agree with the first person who responded to this comment, why make it harder for sex offenders to resist their urges if they are trying?
I believe a city has the right to make that decision. If you don't like it, you don't have to live there, you know? Even if someone is rehabilitated, there are still consequences to actions. It doesn't matter how sorry you are for driving drunk, you still killed someone. It doesn't matter how sorry you are you touched that little girl, she will still have to live with it for the rest of her life. Yes, there are people that just made one stupid mistake. But the majority of sex offenders will repeat. For example, the brother and sister from Idaho. In alcoholic may be sober, but if you hand him a bottle of Jack on a REALLY bad day, chances are he'll hate himself later, but he'll still drink it.
I for one believe the community is well within it's rights, and support the decision. The Constitution makes no guarantee of the right to live where you want without restriction. The Supreme Court has passed decisions to uphold the local and state community's right to regulate housing yet the same court struck down the no guns within 1000 feet of a school. The catch 22 is the fact our Congress has passed the fair housing act which makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. So in reality all sex offenders in the greater Seattle area could join a class action lawsuit. For those of you that are old enough to remember some years ago when a class action lawsuit was brought against the residents of Queen Ann Hill that signed a petition to keep a homeless shelter from being built in their neighborhood. The residents lost... Precedence has been set in King County...
Phil from Lytle Texas...
Stick their nuts in the electric chair for a few seconds, that way they can live wherever the hell they please!
Its true.