IA: Break up Iowa’s sex-offender clusters (Opinion)

Admin

Three previously convicted sex offenders living in a west Davenport mobile home park are heading back to prison for abusing more kids. Full Op-Ed Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The title is misleading. The opinion piece actually advocates REMOVING residency restrictions, so as to PREVENT clustering in the first place, which is an admirable position.

If you only read the headline without the article content, you would most likely conclude that the paper is advocating the CREATION of a NEW law that breaks up clusters in ADDITION to maintaining the residency restriction zones.

This sounds like an editorial mistake, or perhaps a disagreement, within the department.

0
Reply

Here we go again…one has to wonder if they(politicians, law enforcement, parole, etc) put several there when they obviously knew were likely to reoffend(those of us who have been in the system know we’ve come across a few like this, even if they are the extreme minority). By grouping the scumbags together they knew were a problem, they knew they could exploit it to get more laws passed.

0
Reply

From the article:
“But if you’re an impoverished parent with no computer and little rent money, your children can become victims awaiting perpetrators clustered together by state law.

For decades, Iowa law has prohibited some convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of most schools and child care businesses. But not all sex offenders. Those with existing residences near schools can stay after their conviction. If a school or day care opens near convicted sex offenders’ current homes, they can stay.

And no sex offender is restricted from living next to a public pool, playground, library, water park, fast-food restaurant or any of dozens of places where kids may congregate.

So this incomplete ban does little to distance sex offenders from kids. And it does plenty to concentrate sex offenders near poor children.”

It is clear this author believes all sex offenders pose a significant risk to children and seems to only fault the residency restrictions for not applying them to all the places were children exist — and for placing them near the computer deprived poor. He also believes the registry protects the public, if you have a computer to access it. Not sure about Iowa, but here even the poor have smart phones. Not a good argument.

0