Scarlet Letters and Distance Restrictions on Sex Offenders Won't Protect Children; ACLU of LA Opposes SB-164 

For immediate release April 6, 2004                                                  

BATON ROUGE – The ACLU of Louisiana opposes SB-164 (Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D- Abbeville), which prohibits certain persons from being physically present within 1000 feet of any place where children commonly gather.  Individuals who have served their sentence and been released from prison should be allowed to reasonably get on with their lives in the community.  The ACLU believes that SB-164 violates civil liberties and makes poor public policy.

A number of bills that apply only to sex offenders come before Louisiana lawmakers each session.  These laws promote hysteria and suspicion without any evidence of improving public safety.  Instead, branding individuals with a scarlet letter prevents them from finding stable residences, or worse drives them underground.  In February, a District Court in Iowa found laws restricting where sex offenders could reside unconstitutional, citing due process, ex post facto and self-incrimination.

SB-164 treats sex offenders like lepers.  Such persons already have difficulty getting employment and taking care of themselves.  Many homeless shelters refuse to accommodate them.  Such persons are denied much needed counseling and may end up on the street.  That puts them in violation of their conditions of release and likely lands them back in jail. 

SB-164 contradicts common sense.  What happens if such persons have to transfer buses at a stop within 1000 feet of a school, or their job is cleaning a building that contains a day care center?  The language of the bill prohibits physical presence within 1000 feet of, “any place where children commonly gather”.  This could include McDonald’s, the library or even a sporting event.  That’s absurd.

Individuals could break this law without even knowing it.  In Iowa, law enforcement criticized the rule as ineffective and a tremendous burden on financially strapped police departments.

There are three myths about sex offenders that the ACLU would like to call to the committee’s attention.  The first myth is that laws like SB-164 are a good use of police resources because sex offenders have extraordinarily high recidivism rates.  A November 2003 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (described by its authors as the largest study “ever conducted of convicted sex offenders following discharge from prison”) provides strong evidence that high recidivism among sex offenders is a fallacy.  The study found that only 5.3% of sex offenders released had been rearrested for a sex crime within three years.  In fact, sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense within three years.  This confirms a prior study by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives.

The second misconception deals with the widespread fear – which is surely spread by sex offender laws – that most kids victimized by sex offenders are snatched by strangers.  Of the 50,000 child victim cases the Bureau reviewed it its study, only 6.7% had been assaulted by a stranger, whereas the great majority (66%) had been victimized by a parent, stepparent, relative or family friend. 

The third myth is that laws like SB-164 work.  In 2002, the Minnesota legislature ordered the Department of Corrections to “address issues regarding residential locations” of sex offenders.  To their credit, the lawmakers in St. Paul decided to gather evidence about the issue before passing a law. The Minnesota study, released in January 2003, looked at high risk sex offenders who had recommitted sex crimes.  It found that there existed “no evidence that residential proximity to schools or parks affects the re-offense” of sex offenders.  In fact, government corrections officials stated point-blank that “blanket restrictions on residential locations” of high risk offenders “do not enhance community safety.” 

No one in their right mind, including civil libertarians, wants to make it easier for anyone to assault children.  We do want laws that are constitutionally sound, while keeping us both safe and free.  The ACLU urges the committee to act on reason, not emotion, and defer SB-164.