| Issue #45, February 16, 2007 |
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, SEX OFFENDERS FOR LIFE
By Sabrina C. Mashburn
On February 27, 2005, nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped from her Florida home, raped repeatedly, and murdered. As with most rape cases, Jessica’s murderer was not a stranger. He was her neighbor, convicted sex offender John Couey. Couey had previously served his full prison sentence and had registered his address with the local authorities as per Megan’s Law stipulations, which require sex offenders to make their presence known to schools, churches and the authorities in a community. And so, largely as a result of this, Florida, and then California, last year enacted what was perhaps the most stringent program to control sex offenders within their state lines. The new law requires all sex offenders released from prison after the date the law was enacted to wear an electronic tracking device for life, lengthened sentences for child molesters currently in prison, and prohibits them from living near playgrounds and schools when released. Across the country, similar laws, most with less stringent parameters, were passed one by one.
In Suffolk County, a milder version of Jessica’s Law was passed, requiring all convicted sex offenders to live more than 2,000 feet from schools, playgrounds, churches and daycare centers. When three-time sex offender and child molester Duane P. Moore purchased a home adjacent to a daycare center in the Hillcrest section of Southampton in December of 2006, Suffolk County’s version of Jessica’s Law had been in effect since February of 2006. Before moving into his home, Moore met with Southampton Village Police Sergeant Herman Lamison who said, at the time of the meeting, he was unaware of the new limits on where sex offenders were allowed to reside. Though he was meeting with a Level 3 sex offender, described as an offender with the highest risk of relapse, Sgt. Lamison did not make himself aware of the Suffolk County law that had been enacted with overwhelming community support ten months prior. If he had done so, he would have known a Level 3 sex offender is not supposed to move into a neighborhood where children’s facilities are within 2,000 feet of the home. The Sergeant himself owns several homes in the area.
Duane Moore’s psychologist describes him as “a man who has been fully rehabilitated through the penal system [who] has turned his life around completely.” However, his neighbors are not comfortable with having even a rehabilitated sex offender living near their children. And after a town meeting last week, it was decided that Mr. Moore would have to relocate, in accordance with the law, to a residence more than 2,000 feet from a school, playground or daycare center. The 2,000-foot radius rule has been contested by sex offenders nationwide, as areas with high population densities, such as cities and suburbs, have become practically off-limits since there are so many schools and playgrounds. On Long Island, this stipulation has translated into the formation of particular towns full of sex offenders, as these towns are some of the only places that satisfy the 2,000-foot radius requirement. In the town of Coram/Gordon Heights alone, there are between 11 and 39 registered sex offenders living within one square mile. In one neighborhood in Freeport, there are 21 registered sex offenders also living within one mile of each other. The town of Hempstead houses 27 registered sex offenders. Most of these offenders are listed as Level 2 and Level 3 offenders, the most potentially dangerous categories, just like Mr. Moore. With the high density of childcare facilities on Long Island, it seems almost inevitable that those communities without childcare facilities would become host to those people who are not allowed to live anywhere else.
Although Jessica’s Law will inevitably save the lives of children like Jessica, situations such as Mr. Moore’s, and those of the offenders living in Hempstead and Freeport, expose some major weaknesses of both Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law. Because Jessica’s Law is only applicable to sex offenders who were released from prison after the law was enacted, a Level 3 sex offender could live within 2,000 feet of any establishment he wished without having to move, even though his probability of relapse is the same as those released after the date the law was passed. Also, Jessica was not abducted from a playground or a school — she was abducted from her own home. And Jessica’s murderer had registered his residence with the police. They knew where he lived, but there is no way that they could have known what went on in that house before it was too late. So the fact remains that, no matter how many people know about the whereabouts of a sex offender, there is no way to control their behavior while they are living in a community.
Perhaps it is the justice system that should come under scrutiny. If these people are so dangerous to society that they are not allowed to live in certain parts of it, have they really been rehabilitated? If a judge feels that someone has the “highest risk of relapse” should they be allowed to live unsupervised in any community? Even a tracking device that ensures they do not change residences without notifying the police cannot protect children in their immediate neighborhood. If a Level 3 sex offender is so dangerous, maybe they should be kept behind bars until they are deemed to be harmless. If they are truly of no threat to anyone, they should be allowed to integrate into society without restriction. But how can anyone decide with certainty? And what then becomes of civil rights?
Mr. Moore’s case has stirred the complex competing sentiments of those wanting to uphold his civil rights and those who want to protect their teenaged daughters from a criminal who raped and assaulted a teenaged girl. No matter where Duane Moore moves, he will be a Level 3 sex offender whom the courts have proclaimed is rehabilitated and fit to be a part of society. But with so many stipulations as to where he is allowed to settle, is he really free? And with the stigma and the reality of his Level 3 classification, should he be allowed to live near any teenagers at all?
 |
