The Clampdown

The great state of Georgia has decided to make life tough for sex offenders -- very tough: "The roughly 10,000 sex offenders living in Georgia have been forbidden to live within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop. Taken together, the prohibitions place nearly all the homes in some counties off-limits -- amounting, in a practical sense, to banishment." According to the leader of the Georgia House, this isn't a real enforcement strategy, rather the idea "is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state."

The trouble, as Alex Tabarrok notes, is that lots of these people aren't dangers to anyone: "the list includes 'a 26-year-old woman who was caught engaging in oral sex when she was in high school, and a mother of five who was convicted of being a party to a crime of statutory rape because, her indictment alleged, she did not do enough to stop her 15-year-old daughter's sexual activity.'" Obviously, though, no politician wants the "soft on sex offenders" label on him, so nobody will stop this.

Comments

This post strikes me as related.

One of the surprising things that I discovered in my research is that cities, counties, and even most states can legally banish criminals from their borders. I say most states because, for example, the Georgia state constitution makes banishment illegal. Georgia judges, however, have found a way around the law they have imposed "158-county" banishment. (If you guessed that Georgia has 159 counties give yourself two points.)

Posted by Steve | November 22, 2006 10:46 AM

Yup...lost in the whole sex-offender hysteria is the distinction between sex offenders and violent sexual predators; people hear the former and think the latter.

Posted by Tom Hilton | November 22, 2006 11:08 AM

It's a form of social insanity, and, in terms of being insane, an extraordinarily effective one. Advertising in our society attempts to persuade each of us that we would have more sex if we just used their product. Most of us probably don't want to have more sex, so there is a large 'installed base' for a backlash that also taps a lot of other strong emotions.

Considering the number of developing problems for which America has made no preparation, it seems likely that social hysteria will rise to all-time highs. Think of how, after the use of the first atomic bombs, people suddenly began seeing flying saucers, and multiply that.

I suspect we would be lucky if the sex offender hysteria were the worst of the outbreaks, and doubt that it will be.

Posted by serial catowner | November 22, 2006 11:24 AM

One of the sex offenders subject to banishment is 100 years old. What sex crime can he now commit ... assault with a dead weapon?

Posted by Peter | November 22, 2006 11:42 AM

so when one of these displaced persons comes to Florida and commits mayhem on my child's person, can I sue the state of Georgia for having been an accessory? Or maybe just the leader of the Georgia House?

If they had not willfully and intentionally conspired to force the defendant to move to another state, this crime never would have happened.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 22, 2006 11:47 AM

One of the sex offenders subject to banishment is 100 years old. What sex crime can he now commit ... assault with a dead weapon?

Not to agree with Georgia's draconian and unconstitutional statute, but the premise that sex offenses require an erect penis to commit is bogus. Ask Abner Louima.

Posted by Rogers Cadenhead | November 22, 2006 12:18 PM

We've got the worst of both worlds: tawdry exhibitionism and narcissism in daily life and holier-than-heaven prudery in official life. Hey, it averages out to normal sexual attitudes!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 22, 2006 12:28 PM

Church? Which churches and whose religions? If I erect The Holy Temple of the Great Spaghetti Monster on a piece of property I've managed to zone properly for such usage suddenly 1000 feet in all directions is off limits? And when inevitably some judge rules my church is different or doesn't come under the law my church is therefore moot, invalid, a heretical religion? Every city in the country has strip malls with high vacancies renting space to every religion you can think of. I don't think eventual banishment to the one or two states not taking this course is a solution. And what do you want to bet in some southern backwater a mosque is excluded from this law and pedophiles are just okey-dokey living next door?

Posted by steve duncan | November 22, 2006 12:32 PM

serial catowner: Advertising in our society attempts to persuade each of us that we would have more sex if we just used their product. Most of us probably don't want to have more sex, so there is a large 'installed base' for a backlash

serial catowner is either very lucky or very odd.

Posted by ajay | November 22, 2006 12:36 PM

Oh, on banishment: illegal in Europe. You have the right to live where you want; you can neither be banished from one country (or part thereof) or restricted to one country (or part thereof) by force of law.

Criminals can vote, too.

Posted by ajay | November 22, 2006 12:39 PM

Obviously, not everyone who is labeled a sex offender should be so labeled. However, the remedy is not to be get soft on all sex offenders, including the serious sex offenders. The remedy is to have a more careful classification system.

I don't think that there is anything politically popular about applying these restrictions to the 26-year-old woman in question. Indeed, I think just the opposite. Thus, I think it is perfectly politically possible to come up with a regime where she and similarly situated individuals are not subject to such restrictions, while serious sex offenders are.

Posted by Ragerz | November 22, 2006 12:50 PM

We've got the worst of both worlds: tawdry exhibitionism and narcissism in daily life and holier-than-heaven prudery in official life. Hey, it averages out to normal sexual attitudes!

Well said!

Posted by Chilly | November 22, 2006 12:54 PM

It's a very good idea to prohibit sex offenders from living within 1000 feet of a school or a church since, as everyone knows, sex offenders are incapable of traveling more than 1000 feet from their home. Also, they can't travel over water -- at least not in their human form, though some are capable of transforming themselves into bats or other familiars in order to eat the souls of their victims.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 22, 2006 1:21 PM

I can't believe someone on this thread wondered about how this would affect a backwater mosque. In Georgia, there aren't a lot of backwater mosques.

Posted by Max | November 22, 2006 1:26 PM

I hope they wrote in a special exception for any returning National Guard memebers who sexually assaulted Muslim prisoners while overseas. As well as any officers who ordered them to do it, the civilian higher-ups who set the policy, etc.

By voting Bush back in after Abu Ghraib, voters sent a clear message about the need to exempt all-American, patriotic sexual offenses from punishment.

Posted by MQ | November 22, 2006 1:51 PM

No one has the guts to stand up against it (including me) but the "registered sex offender" hysteria really needs addressing. They are so easy to deamgogue, and since they are both unpopular & easy targets, politicians don't think twice about raising their profiles at these peoples's expense.

In all honesty, since the rates for reoffense aren't any greater than that for any other crime, we really ought to do away with the whole concept of "registered sex offender". Effectively, our society has judged that some 19 year old kid who had sex with a 14 year old girl, poses a greater danger to our society than say, someone who was arrested and served time for violent armed robbery. Once you serve your time, that should be it.

Posted by DRR | November 22, 2006 2:05 PM

In California it's now 2000 feet. Sex offenders pretty much have to move to retirement communities (without parks) now.

And ditto. Many of our "sex offenders" were men convicted of sodomy fifty years ago.

Posted by eyelessgame | November 22, 2006 2:19 PM

People living elsewhere should just ask themselves "Is this an exiled sex offender?" every time they meet or see someone originally from Georgia.

Like a lot of people, I already do that, but it's even more important now.

Posted by John Emerson | November 22, 2006 3:22 PM

max, contrary to what your unenlightened ass believes there are mosques, various temples from various asian religions and many other places of worship outside of mainstream religions to be found in every state of the union. Some of them are even near towns where nearly the entire population is comprised of a bunch of racist, xenophobic rednecks. It's called freedom of worship. I think the founders had something to do with it.

Posted by steve duncan | November 22, 2006 3:29 PM

so when one of these displaced persons comes to Florida and commits mayhem on my child's person, can I sue the state of Georgia for having been an accessory? Or maybe just the leader of the Georgia House?

If they had not willfully and intentionally conspired to force the defendant to move to another state, this crime never would have happened.

If you play it right, you can probably get them charged as "being a party to a crime of statutory rape" or somesuch and therefore subject to Georgia's new banishment laws.

They'll probably have to up and move the state capitol.

Posted by Dan | November 22, 2006 4:27 PM

It's a very good idea ...

This is excellent.

Posted by josephdietrich | November 23, 2006 1:38 AM