Sex offender law missing important element
jon@dmcityview.com

Iowa will soon begin to enforce some of the toughest laws in the country to protect our children from sex offenders. From longer sentences for offenders to lifetime parole supervision, to electronic monitoring of pedophiles, lawmakers have decided to take a no-nonsense approach to dealing with these dregs of society. However, while proudly sticking out their chests while sticking it to sexual predators, did anyone stop to think about the future? About what happens when these individuals are done serving their lengthy prison sentences? If you look at House File 619, it appears not.

While HF 619 does provide millions of dollars to double prison terms in some sex crimes against children, makes some sex offenders ineligible for a reduction in prison time, requires DNA testing of all felons, and improves notification of crime victims, when an offender is released from prison, what it doesn't do much of is treat the offenders themselves.

And while I am certain that some of you reading this think I am being sympathetic to sex offenders, what I'm actually trying to be is optimistic regarding the future of my four-month-old daughter Sally. I want Sally to grow up in a safer Iowa, an Iowa where she can ride her bike the four blocks to school if she wants to.

And $5 million or $10 million or even $20 million in additional yearly funding to get tough on sex offenders does nothing to guarantee that happening. Yes, I understand there are no guarantees in life, but longer prison sentences or not, at some point, these individuals are going to be back on the streets, the same monsters they were when they went in because we are more interested in punishing them than helping them.

Matt McCoy, the state senator for my district, tells me that while a number of people agree that there is no such thing as a cured sex offender, we need to be figuring out a way to do it anyway because we sure are letting one hell of a lot of them out of prison.

"You can't look at the bill we passed and tell me it's not going to work," McCoy says. "But where we didn't get it quite right is when it comes to therapy for the offenders. We're tough, no doubt about it. But we're not as smart as we could be." McCoy says the state of Iowa needs to implement a program that calls for sexual predators to get "some serious one-on-one" with licensed therapists; and if, and only if, they make it through such a program, should they be released.

"Until then, everyone's at risk."

In the wake of the brutal rape and murder of Jetseta Gage, something drastic had to be done, something that would make legislators appear tough in the headlines, and that's exactly what happened. A broke state committed millions of dollars for next year, and, according to Gov. Tom Vilsack, "each year thereafter."

And I'm not knocking what's been done. Longer sentences with little wiggle room when it comes to parole send a serious message that the whip is being cracked, but McCoy is right, we could have been smarter. Because while electronic monitoring might make us feel better because we can keep tabs on these sex offenders, all it's really going to do is let us know who was in the area where the body was found. Some will say that electronic monitoring discourages sex offenders, but such sentiment means sexual offenders can be reasonable and ignore their urges - an impossibility without intense therapy.

However, therapy isn't a sexy enough idea for a legislative body that feels impotent if it is unable to address a crisis with big, bold initiatives. After all, Iowa voters don't want to hear about how sex offenders are going to hopefully get better while doing their time; they want to hear how sex offenders cannot live within a certain number of feet from their church.

"We're not very good at rooting out the problem," says state representative and gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon. "But we are good at offering up knee-jerk reactions, which is not a very productive way to create legislation. As usual, though, we're concerned more with the now than the future."

Fallon, like McCoy, thinks HF 619 is definitely tough, just not as smart as it could be, pointing out that we're more concerned with knowing where the monsters are (electronic monitoring) than doing all we can to try to turn the monsters back into men or women.

"We're taking it seriously, but our approach is flawed," he says. "These individuals are eventually going to be standing behind you at the grocery store or walking through your neighborhood or working near your children. Do you want that element of therapy brought into the equation, or was the 10-year sentence instead of the normal five years enough?"

The answer is obvious, and Fallon is correct: thoughtful legislation can provide significant results.

When Iowa's meth problem was spiraling out of control, our lawmakers identified the problem and attacked it with vigor by simply changing their usual reactive approach. Unfortunately, though, we cannot simply put our children behind the counter to keep them safe. HF 619 is a good start and will make a difference. Next time around, though, a little more in the way of practicality is in order. Not for the predators; for us. CV

Comment on this story | Return to top