Tweet
ACLU fights child molester 'banishment'
A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday pits the need to protect children from sexual predators versus sex offenders' rights to move freely in society after serving their sentences.
The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit challenging a new city ordinance that fines child molesters caught near city playgrounds or other gathering spots for children.
Calling the ordinance passed in mid-May unconstitutionally vague, the group said it would make law-abiding citizens unwitting violators of the ordinance and hinder their ability to work, vote and worship.
The ordinance prohibits sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around. One exception to the ban is if the offender is accompanied by an adult with no history of sex crimes.
Anyone who violates the ordinance commits an infraction punishable by progressive fines: $600 for the first violation, $1,000 for the second and $2,500 for subsequent violations within the same year.
The ordinance goes beyond a bill passed this session by the Indiana General Assembly. That law bars sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public park, school or youth programs center.
Supporters of the local measure say it is necessary to safeguard society's most vulnerable.
"You see all the stories almost every day about a child falling victim to a molester," Democratic City-County Councilman Vernon Brown said. He said this was one of the few things the council could do to save at least one child "from that horror."
According to Doug Gosser, of the Indiana Sheriff's Association, between 6,000 and 7,000 people are on the Indiana Sheriff's Association's Sex Offender Registry. He said the registry database does not break down how many of the offenders abused children.
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.
Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."
The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance.
There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.
Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says.
Falk said that even the ordinance's exemption -- lifting the restrictions if the former offender is accompanied by an adult with no record of sex crimes -- is problematic.
Falk said the term "accompanied" is not defined in the ordinance. "If you're within five feet, if you're within 10 feet, if you go with someone and they have to go to the bathroom, do you have to go to the bathroom with them?" he asked.
Democratic Councilman Greg Bowes, one of two council members who opposed the ordinance, also questions the practicality of enforcing the law and thinks it does little to protect children.
Many child molesters abuse children in their families or other children they know -- not strangers, he said.
Though it's every parent's worst nightmare, "we don't have that much trouble of people grabbing children out of parks."
A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday pits the need to protect children from sexual predators versus sex offenders' rights to move freely in society after serving their sentences.
The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit challenging a new city ordinance that fines child molesters caught near city playgrounds or other gathering spots for children.
Calling the ordinance passed in mid-May unconstitutionally vague, the group said it would make law-abiding citizens unwitting violators of the ordinance and hinder their ability to work, vote and worship.
The ordinance prohibits sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around. One exception to the ban is if the offender is accompanied by an adult with no history of sex crimes.
Anyone who violates the ordinance commits an infraction punishable by progressive fines: $600 for the first violation, $1,000 for the second and $2,500 for subsequent violations within the same year.
The ordinance goes beyond a bill passed this session by the Indiana General Assembly. That law bars sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public park, school or youth programs center.
Supporters of the local measure say it is necessary to safeguard society's most vulnerable.
"You see all the stories almost every day about a child falling victim to a molester," Democratic City-County Councilman Vernon Brown said. He said this was one of the few things the council could do to save at least one child "from that horror."
According to Doug Gosser, of the Indiana Sheriff's Association, between 6,000 and 7,000 people are on the Indiana Sheriff's Association's Sex Offender Registry. He said the registry database does not break down how many of the offenders abused children.
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.
Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."
The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance.
There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.
Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says.
Falk said that even the ordinance's exemption -- lifting the restrictions if the former offender is accompanied by an adult with no record of sex crimes -- is problematic.
Falk said the term "accompanied" is not defined in the ordinance. "If you're within five feet, if you're within 10 feet, if you go with someone and they have to go to the bathroom, do you have to go to the bathroom with them?" he asked.
Democratic Councilman Greg Bowes, one of two council members who opposed the ordinance, also questions the practicality of enforcing the law and thinks it does little to protect children.
Many child molesters abuse children in their families or other children they know -- not strangers, he said.
Though it's every parent's worst nightmare, "we don't have that much trouble of people grabbing children out of parks."
Comment