home

ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance

by TChris

The ACLU of Indiana filed suit this week to block an Indianapolis ordinance that would prevent former sex offenders from traveling, living, or working within 1,000 feet of a park, playground, swimming pool, recreation center, sports field, or other designated areas where children might congregate.

Calling the ordinance passed in mid-May unconstitutionally vague, the group said it would make law-abiding citizens unwitting violators of the ordinance and hinder their ability to work, vote and worship.

The ordinance applies retroactively, punishing individuals who have long and untroubled residences near a prohibited area (nearly anyplace within city boundaries). The City makes an exception for ex-offenders who are accompanied by another adult, but people who have paid their debt to society shouldn't need an escort to travel to work or to exercise their right to vote.

Former offenders can violate the law unknowingly by driving down a street that passes within 999 feet of a park they can't see. While proponents of the law argue that the City won't enforce the law unreasonably, nothing would prevent an overzealous officer from arresting a former offender who strayed into the forbidden zone -- straying that would be virtually impossible to avoid.

The ordinance amounts to banishment. TalkLeft's opposition to banishment laws is explained here and here.

Strangely, Focus on the Family has no sympathy for the ACLU's argument that the ordinance would prohibit ex-offenders from attending church. One might expect Focus on the Family to be delighted when an ex-offender seeks strength and moral guidance in a house of worship. Not so. If the ACLU is against something, Focus on the Family is for it.

"The ACLU suddenly screaming about people's ability to get to church," [Rich Ackerman, president of the Pro-Family Law Center] said, "sounds a little suspect, to say the least."

Actually, the ACLU has a long history of supporting religious freedom (recent examples here and here). Its equal interest in enforcing the Establishment Clause might irk Focus on the Family, but it should applaud the ACLU's concern in assuring that offenders seeking redemption aren't arrested on their way to church. After all, evangelists contend that faith based programs deserve taxpayer support because they're effective in preventing recidivism.

< Aspen: NORML Comes to Town | Wen Ho Lee Settles Suit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    The ordinance applies retroactively Couple of questions: Does the city have the responsibility to build new schools around sex offenders' homes? If not, then what's to prevent them from purposely building schools, playgrounds, or a park (how vague is a "park"?) in such a manner to push out sex offenders from a neighborhood? Next: If the sex offender is forced to leave due to a new school or playground, doesn't that completely whack-out his house's value? Talk about an unwilling but motivated seller! It would seem the buyer could really screw the seller, knowing the seller has a mandated sell date and cannot bargain price... I'm not here to protect sex offenders, but nonetheless, it seems somewhat unfair.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    Let me get this straight. The former "sex offender", having served his debt to society, is further marginalized with geographical restrictions for the rest of their life? If we are to do that, then what, exactly, is the point of punishment in the first place? One might as well bypass jail. In fact, jail might actually negatively influence such a person anyway. Why are the "organized Christian religion groups" so lacking in intellectual capability?

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#3)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 08:09:02 PM EST
    Why edit out this important detail? That's a question begging question. Whether the crime involved children or not makes no difference to the opinion stated, thus it is unimportant here, even though it is very important during trial and sentencing.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#4)
    by demohypocrates on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 10:20:38 PM EST
    I agree with JRT. TCs' post is problematic. The law is about banning persons who committed offenses against children from attending places where children congregate. Can someone give me statistics to show that child rapists don't abuse children after they are released? Honest, I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that they continue to offend. Anyone with info?

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 06:43:41 AM EST
    The news story is incorrect. The ordinance does not limit itself to offenders against children, but you have to unravel the new laws to know that. As of July 1, a new state law will redefine "offenders against children" to include "sexually violent predators"--a term Indiana has in the past used to refer to those deemed, by clinical evaluation, to be suffering from a mental abnormality. However, also as of July 1, the state will redefine "sexually violent predator" as anyone convicted of a list of crimes, including crimes against adults. And it intends to apply that designation retroactively. So, as of July 1, a man convicted of assaulting an adult in 1969, and hasn't comitted another crime since, will become both a sexually violent predator and an offender against children. Under the city's ordinance, he will then be banned from existing within most of the city unless constantly accompanied by another adult. As for demo's question about recidivism, there is no single answer. But any search engine can bring you a wealth of studies that breaks down the rates by crime, clinical diagnosis, victim characteristics, number of years since offense, participation in treatment, and differing definitions of recidivism. Each of those conditions changes the answer.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 07:01:51 AM EST
    sorry, james dobson is a psychopath, why would anyone expect anything from him, or his organization that makes sense? while i certainly appreciate the city's concerns, do they plan to introduce one banning released murderers from being anywhere near people? it would only seem reasonable, if you follow their logic.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 08:46:40 AM EST
    I have a friend who works as a church administrator, and subscribes to a listserv for church admins. As I live in Tampa, and once considered attending Hyde Park Methodist Church, she shared with me a letter from that church posted on the listserv. Apparently, a police officer had visited the church showing fliers about registered sex offenders living in the area. A staff member recognized one of the pictures as being that of someone who had attended the church. Apparently, the minister and staff flew into a panic, and sent the person a letter informing him of this new knowledge, and pretty clearly dis-inviting him. Now there are reasonable steps that probably should be taken. If the person's crimes involved children, that person should not be allowed to get involved in the youth programs if they tried. But to basically dis-invite the person from attending worship services, was to me, the antithesis of Jesus' message. Not that this has stopped Dobson in the past. Not to get religious here, but I'm trying to make a point that religious folks (not Christian, there is a difference), love to get all wrapped around the spoke about this, just like a lot of the general population. Their message of forgiveness and redemption is, as so much of religion, selective to them. Dobson, et.al. can't be seen as offering that redemption to sex offenders now can they? They're not about being Christian, just like politicians, it's about influence and popularity. Gotta keep those contributions...ah, I mean cards and letters coming.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    Demohypocrates, passing within 1000 feet of a place is not "attending" that place.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    What about this?
    MITCHELL v. HARMONY, 54 U.S. 115 (1851) But we are clearly of opinion, that in all of these cases the danger must be immediate and impending; or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the means which the occasion calls for. It is impossible to define the particular circumstances of danger or necessity in which this power may be lawfully exercised. Every case must depend on its own circumstances. It is the emergency that gives the right, and the emergency must be shown to exist before the taking can be justified. [54 U.S. 115, 135] In deciding upon this necessity, however, the state of the facts, as they appeared to the officer at the time he acted, must govern the decision; for he must necessarily act upon the information of others as well as his own observation. And if, with such information as he had a right to rely upon, there is reasonable ground for believing that the peril is immediate and menacing, or the necessity urgent, he is justified in acting upon it; and the discovery afterwards that it was false or erroneous, will not make him a trespasser. But it is not sufficient to show that he exercised an honest judgment, and took the property to promote the public service; he must show by proof the nature and character of the emergency, such as he had reasonable grounds to believe it to be, and it is then for a jury to say, whether it was so pressing as not to admit of delay; and the occasion such, according to the information upon which he acted, that private rights must for the time give way to the common and public good.
    Of course, since then there was KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES (1944):
    Prejudice against immigrants from Asia had been longstanding on the West Coast when World War II broke out following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Within a few weeks the demand spread that Japanese Americans, both naturalized citizens as well as those born in the United States, any of whom might be "saboteurs" or "spies," be removed from the West Coast before the Japanese invaded. The fact that no proof existed that a single one of these people constituted a threat to the United States made no difference. Even the respected columnist Walter Lippmann informed his readers that "nobody's constitutional rights include the right to reside and do business on a battlefield. There is plenty of room elsewhere for him to exercise his rights." On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to designate parts of the country as "military areas" from which any and all persons might be excluded, and in which travel restrictions might be imposed. A few weeks later General John L. DeWitt, in charge of the Western Defense Command, designated the entire Pacific coast as a military area because of its susceptibility to attack. Curfews were established, and Japanese Americans were at first prohibited from leaving the area, and then from being in the area. The only way Japanese Americans could comply with these contradictory orders was to submit to evacuation to relocation centers in the interior.
    Source.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    Iowa has a 2,000' rule for sex offenders. The results have been so bad that even the prosecutors association has come out against the policy. One result is that sex offenders moved en masse from eastern IA to western IL.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 11:31:15 PM EST
    Fight for Justice, after the 3-strikes law passed in California, Pete Wison bragged about all the criminals moving out of state. Mighty neighborly, that.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 02:51:07 AM EST
    Well, since the majority of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by straight white men who are a relative or trusted family friend, I advocate not allowing straight white men to have children, or to be allowed anywhere near children. If the goal of idiot legislation like this is to reduce sex crimes against children, my proposal would virtually end it.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Johnny on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:25:22 AM EST
    Picking up your sarcasm JRT, thought the wingers loved profiling?

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:04:25 AM EST
    @demohypocrates You asked for recidivism info, here it is. The information provided is just that, FACTS, and should not be taken as somehow condoning or excusing any type of crime against anyone, ever. Research shows what is stated below, and ALL of the information below can be found at the SOhopeful Resource Library under Recidivism. This info is from government (US, Canada, UK) and other respected research professional's own concurring conclusions, not simply an assertion of opinion. First, it is important to understand that "sex offenders" are not a homogenous group. There are, believe it or not, people considered "sex offenders" for ridiculous stuff like: mooning, peeing on the side of the road (or fishing boat at 4 am), putting Neosporin on their child's underarm, photos of their *1 year-old INFANT* breastfeeding for their personal family photo album, bra-snapping, LITTLE kids consentually (and INNOCENTLY) playing "doctor", and so on. Yes, for real. -> Check and see how many little kids are on YOUR state's registry. KIDS are the fastest growing segment on the Sex Offender Registry! Then there are those who actually committed an offense. There are power rapists (adult victims or child victims) whose issues are not about sex, per se, but about power and control over another person, and anger. They tend to use threats, violence and force, and may kidnap. This group DOES have a rather high recidivism rate, partially because of the inappropriateness of their treatment. Due to the particular issues at play, it is not effective to send them to an SOTP (sex offender treatment program), and so their issues are not properly dealt with, and many do reoffend. There are those adults who offend teens (post-pubescent, i.e., fully physically developed and already sexually active). While this is illegal and improper, these do not usually use violence and are not an imminent threat to every woman and child. This group does not have a very high recidivism rate. This does include "statutory crimes" which are also called Romeo & Juliet crimes - he's older, she's younger (and consents, although her consent is not legally recognized). There are fixated pedophiles who have an almost exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. This group is prone to abusing outside of their family, forming relationships specifically for the purpose of gaining trust and access to a vulnerable youth. This group also has the most denial and deep-seated faulty thinking patterns - they have the hardest time coming to accept that they have actually hurt a child by their actions (they have successfully been able to rationalize that because they were not violent or forceful, it was a pleasant educational experience for the child, not abusive). It is for this reason that this group is considered the hardest to treat. -> This group is what people think of when they hear 'child molester' and members of this group are likely to have had multiple victims before they are caught. It is for this reason that they have a rather high reoffense rate (consider, too, that their multiple victims are also sometimes considered reoffenses, depending on the methodology of the study/report). It is vital to understand that fixated pedophiles comprise a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the whole. Intra-familial offenders are those who cross the line with a member of their family. These individuals usually offended in a moment of great stress and personal upheaval, and are not fixated, do not have an exclusive attraction or preference for minors (and may even dislike children in general). This group is the most amenable to treatment because they tend to be the most contrite and willing to admit the offense and actively participate in treatment. This group comprises THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF SEX OFFENDERS. They have the lowest rate of reoffense of all (3-10%). So, the smallest categories of sex offenders have higher reoffense rates than the largest categories do. Basically the sex offender policies are based on emotional reactions to rare but high-profile cases, targeting the needle but applied to the haystack. That is why they are totally ineffectve. There are much better, more effective, viable and fiscally responsible alternatives available. Find out more at SOhopeful International. You owe it to yourself to be informed.

    Re: ACLU-IN Challenges Banishment Ordinance (none / 0) (#15)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    I just wanted to point out a common misconception about the banishment laws that I have seen on this site: these laws apply to ALL sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they had a child victim.