Last weekend, while visiting my hometown of Green Bay, I noticed an interesting tidbit in the local paper: the City Council was debating adopting a local ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 1,500 to 2,000 feet of a school, day care facility, park, trail or place of worship. According to local reporter Chris Duffy, the low end of the ordinance would restrict offenders to barely a fifth of the city and the high end would virtually bar sex offenders from living anywhere within the city limits. I heard about these restrictions being put in place elsewhere, but the fact that my hometown was considering adopting them spurred me to look deeper into how local and state governments deal with the release of sex offenders. What I've learned has convinced me that there are fundamental problems with the current system that local governments are using to deal with this class of felons.

The basic system of tracking sex offenders is through a registration program. After conviction, sex offenders are registered in the program and then must notify authorities whenever they change addresses, jobs, phone numbers and other related information. An offender is placed on the list for life. While tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders may be desirable, there are two main problems with this process. Most obvious is that offenders may move without contacting authorities. The January 2007 Madison Police Department newsletter makes this point clear, stating, "Currently, there are thousands of Registered Sex Offenders who have failed to comply with the registration requirements." This means that although there is a system in place for tracking them, it doesn't necessarily work that well.

Another problem regards public access to the sex offender registry system. Wisconsin does not allow the general public to search the registry and identify sex offenders based solely on location. Instead, the Wisconsin registry requires a specific name. However, other states like Michigan allow searches based on city, and give pictures and addresses to go along with the results. I don't sympathize with those who have committed many of these crimes, but even felons have a right to have their privacy respected. Offenders can hardly be expected to ever transition back into society if their privacy is invaded by neighbors. Police departments and other governmental institutions have a legitimate case for tracking sex offenders, but allowing the general public to do so adds to the chance they will re-offend and contributes to the voyeuristic atmosphere that the erosion of privacy in modern society has created.

Now, consider the possibility of zoning where these offenders live. At first, it seems like a great idea. Who doesn't want to look like they're being tough on crime? That stance has always been a surefire way to pump up a politician's image in American politics, and many cities have passed ordinances similar to the one taking shape in Green Bay. Looking past the get-tough vision reveals a problem with this strategy. As more cities adopt prohibitions like this, more convicted sex offenders will be pushed to outlying areas. It forces a smaller number of communities to deal with sex offenders and concentrates them — hardly the ideal solution. Furthermore, I have no doubt in my mind that these zoning regulations would not stop a determined offender from committing another crime. It takes all of a minute to drive half a mile along a residential street, hardly a deterrent to staying away from schools or other similar places.

If society's justice system chooses to release sex offenders from prison, they need to have a chance to build a new life. If these felons end up stigmatized for life because their neighbors know what they did, it can only have a negative effect on their chances of committing another crime in the future. Doing away with open access to sex offender registries and zoning is not being soft on crime. Instead, it's a logical and reasonable response to an overzealous and overplayed issue. Why are justice systems and populations obsessed with sex offenders? After all, why not add murderers and drug dealers to a registry? They are plenty dangerous. So are drunk drivers. Should we zone all of these people out of cities? Where does this stop? Hopefully in the near future there will be court challenges to these measures that might reverse them. Otherwise, our society risks sliding further down the slope of segregation and division.

Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.