No Go Zones
No Go Zones are a newer form of legislation that restrict not where sex offenders can live but where sex offenders can go.
On one hand they actually make more sense, because it doesn't matter where sex offenders sleep at night when children are asleep. What matters is where sex offenders go during the day when children are out.
On the other hand they are a completely unrealistic and unnecessary approach. Although it DOES matter where sex offenders go during the day while children are out, that doesn't mean that sex offenders are out for the sole purpose of harming a child. Just like everybody else, they have to report to work, they visit family and friends, they do shopping and banking just like anybody else and sometimes this means they have to pass by a NO GO zone. Passing through a NO Go zone and harming a child are two seperate issues.
What most people fail to realize is that many offenders are not on probation, meaning thay are also not on any form of GPS monitering. So unless you build booths that require showing identification prior to entering a NO Go Zone in front of all parks, schools or other listed places that children may congregate, there is no way to enforce this 100% of the time.
The best law enforcement can do is occassionally determine a few sex offenders were within a NO Go zone and if they aren't bothering a child that requires a bit of work. Why not let them concentrate on who is bothering a child rather than who is a sex offender but not bothering anybody? Probation can moniter this 100% of the time for those on probation with GPS monitering, but for the majority of the remaining offenders, picking out one or two does not mean other sex offenders did not enter the no go zone. It only means law enforcement didn't determine it happened.
Why should law enforcement spend such energy on such a useless tactic? Nobody wants anybody, offender or not, to have inappropriate contact with children. However, limiting this survelence to a few vagely defined NO Go Zones doesn't eliminate the possibly of this inappropriate contact being conducted elsewhere. While you're busy watching parks and schools, the next crime just may occur at a place not included in the NO GO zone restrictions, such as a grocery store, a movie theater or any one of a hundred other places.
No Go Zones are an attempt to make you feel safe when they actually do nothing to improve safety. When they convince you that now you're safe at such and such park because of the no go zone, they don't want you to think hard enough about how it's impossible to enforce so how does it make anyone safer? They don't want you to think hard enough about so my child is now safe at a park but what about when my child is at the movies, or a hundred other places?
They also don't improve safety when the facts scream loud and clear that the majority of offenses are not from strangers but well established family and or friends. It also does not adress the actual recidivism being low. This is not about sympathy for offenders it's about realistic statistics. Feel free to browse our advocay section for some of these specifics. It's true this is education that does support offender rights, but the point is we are supporting offenders who are no longer offending. We are not supporting any offender that does reoffend. We are getting the message out there that these silly laws don't prevent crimes, but they lessen the chances for success of offenders, because now an offender is arrested simply for walking by a park, not because they were harming anybody.
The proper strategy is not to worry where offenders go, but rather what they do. It's how every other crime is handled so why not stick to what seems to be working best for all other crimes? If somebody is having inappropriate conduct with a child, does it really matter if they are already an offender or not? Inappropriate conduct with a child is unacceptable whether it's from an already labled offender or not.
Inappropriate conduct with a child is also unacceptable regardless of where it happens. Why limit offenders from parks and schools, when it's just as easy for them to conduct that inappropriate behavior elsewhere?
So instead of watching where already labled offenders go, why not support the better solution of watching everybody while in public? No child should ever be in danger of anybody, and whether that behavior is from an already labled offender or not, and wherever the location may be happening at is not what matters. What matters is prevention of any such occurance. NO GO zones don't solve the problem, prevention is the only solution as is the case with all crime.