Nevada joins 27 states and hundreds of cities that have, in the last seven years, crafted laws targeting where sex offenders can live, work and recreate, how often they must notify authorities (Nevada requires annual verification of whereabouts), what jobs they can hold and the like. Recently, the trend among states is to enact even more punitive measures, restricting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, playgrounds or churches.
(It's not all tougher measures. A move afoot in Johnson County, Iowa, seeks to repeal restrictive residency requirements. Democratic Oklahoma Rep. Lucky Lamons, a former cop, wants to relax his state's 2,000-foot rule, telling USA Today, "We need to focus on people we're afraid of, not mad at.") The problem with these residency rules isn't necessarily the rules themselves, but that they're generally hit-and-miss. Studies show they've worked in some states (Colorado) and not in others (Arkansas).
Which is why the recent closure of two North Las Vegas group homes for sex offenders may be a victory for the neighbors—by incorporating as nonprofits, the group homes circumvented the need for a business license and approval by the state Department of Health and Human Services—but does little to forward dialogue on this issue.
Argue for looser restrictions and you risk being branded an enabler, particularly if a sex offender gets out and re-offends. Everyone wants to protect children. But stump for bringing the hammer down even more—SB 232 would increase from 20-25 years to 20-35 years the sentence for sex offenses committed on minors under 16; Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, wants the sex offenders to surrender the aliases and the Internet service provider they use—and rights activists could step in.
So where are sex offenders supposed to live? Titus failed to respond to a media request.
Some variation of the answer should involve:
Research: Nevada should fund a study on the recidivism rates, comparing data from years back on sex crimes committed in or near the vicinity of arcades, movie theaters and schools, with a recent five-year period and basing legislation on evidence, not emotion.
Statutes: As an LA Times op-ed put it, "possession of child pornography is categorically different from a sexual assault. So is exhibitionism." One portion of SB 232, if enacted, wouldn't allow a sex offense to be pleaded down to a charge not requiring sex-offender registration. Should a Peeping Tom be branded for life? Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, suggested the residency rules be applied only to the worst, or Tier 3, offenders.
Rehabilitation: Research shows that 90 percent of sex offenders get released back into the community, so while they're incarcerated, they should be receiving more counseling or behavior modification.
Transition: Concentrating services for the homeless, as in Downtown's corridor, has had its benefits, mainly in centralizing services. Everyone knows where to go to get help. Sex offenders might benefit from a similar setup.
Housing: If not group homes in or near residential neighborhoods, then what about a transitional facility similar to Casa Grande for Tier 3 offenders? The released would have to work—which could force the state to increase vocational opportunities for prisoners and work with employers willing to take a chance on sex offenders, while simultaneously giving ex-felons employment. Sure, they'd have freedom, but it wouldn't be unchecked freedom.