Safety vs. Rights

City Councilor Dean Tran is proposing a new regulation that would not allow a Level 2 or 3 sex offender to live within 1,000 feet of a school, library, park or day care in the city.

We understand the safety and protection value of the proposal, and like the fact that Tran is still providing more proactive, thought-provoking policy than the rest of the council combined, but we're really not sure about this proposal, for two reasons (UPDATE: Tran responds, informatively, in the first comment at the bottom of the post. It's a must read):

Like the ACLU, we're not sure how Constitutional this is. We're no experts, and we haven't sat down with a map to draw big circles around everything, but it would seem this would eliminate much of Fitchburg for sex offenders. Good for residents, probably, but there are some civil rights issues here that need a full airing.

Second, let's say a sex offender really wants to live in Fitchburg. Their job, family, friends are in the city. If you're taking away huge tracks of the city through this law, wouldn't that mean areas outside the exclusionary zone would see an increase in sex offenders living in their neighborhood? Should people move near schools or parks to ensure a lack of sex offenders? This might be an unintended consequence of the proposal.

Beyond those reasons, this proposal seems a little stereotypical. Not all sex offenders are child molesters. While we're splitting the hairs of heinous acts here, society tends to reserve top-shelf venom for child molesters and it's unfair to paint all sex offenders with that brush.

Finally, check this out from Councilor and representative wannabe Stephen DiNatale: "They're never going to be cured, but you hope to place controls in," he told the Sentinel. Really? They're "never going to be cured?" Couldn't one or two of "they" have made a bad mistake and not be a sicko? Especially the Level 2s, who are considered "moderate" risk, according to state law?

All that said, we're not opposed to Tran's proposal. We're not exactly for it either (yeah, we're taking a real tough stand here). We want to try it on a little bit and get some more details on the civil rights side. In the meantime, Tran should be cheered for continuing his work to make the city better.

For those that want to see it, here's the text of the proposal:

TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FITCHBURG


Ladies and
Gentlemen:


The undersigned Petition your Honorable Body
to:



Establish a Sex Offender Residency
Prohibition Ordinance and restrict any person categorized as level 2 and level 3
in the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board from having permanent or
temporary residence within 1000 feet of any public or non-public school,
daycare, library and park. Ordinance will be applicable to new offenders
moving in to the city and existing offenders relocating within the
city.

It is the interest of the city of Fitchburg to promote,
protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city
by creating certain areas around locations where children regularly congregate
in concentrated numbers where certain sex offenders and sexual predators are
prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent
residence.

- Permanent residency is to be defined as a place
where the person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more
consecutive days.

- Temporary residence is a place where a
person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more days in the aggregate during
any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place
where the person routinely abides, lodges, or resides for four or more
consecutive or non-consecutive days in any month and which is not the person's
permanent
residence.



_______________________________
Councillor-at-Large,
Dean A. Tran