I didn't get nearly the kind of opposition that I had expected for this legislation. Nonetheless, it's my duty as a public servant to make a cogent case for it.
Few people like the idea of their children associating (or being in the proximity of) convicted sex offenders. That may be a given. However, what actually constitutes a sex offender?
Let's look at this tragic case in Oklahoma:
citationThere's an overwhelming amount of stigma that goes hand-in-hand with the label of "sex offender." While (thankfully) we've liberalized our sex laws to a degree where there may not be as many wrongly-convicted "sex-offenders", I still think that we should afford some more protection to this class of people than we currently do. Restrictions on sex-offender residencies make no sense, because is fifteen miles truly an inconquerable boundary to somebody who is "bound to offend" once more? Not to mention that such restrictions can make it much harder for convicted sex offenders to reenter the workforce.
Secondly, some are worried that it's dangerous for sex offenders to live in closer proximity to school areas because of their "high recidivism rate." However, Jacob Sullum at
Reason documents that such a meme may not be accurate:
citationI'm open to further liberalizing our laws, but I figure that this is a good start.