Why a No vote
Thought I should make a quick post on why I cast a “No” vote on SF340 – the sex offender bill.
For starters, it is mis-labeled. That’s not the reason, but it’s worth noting. The press and the Democrats keep calling it the Adam Walsh Act. Well, it’s the “almost Adam Walsh Act.” The federal AWA requires that Tier I sex offenders register for 15 years, Tier II for 25 years and Tier III for life. The reason this point is worth a “NO” vote is this bill does NOT do that. Instead Iowa falls well short of those requirements. So, as our neighboring states adopt the AWA, Iowa will have more lax standards – making it more likely the offenders will choose to live here than in those states. People argue that our 2,000-foot rule is making offenders move to someplace that doesn’t have one; I think that logic applies here as well.
Next up, while there are many good points of the bill that I would have liked to support, like the “safe zones” – there were other problems. Electronic monitoring for instance. Today, the worst offenders (sexually violent and pedophiles) shall wear the electronic monitoring bracelets. They shall. It is not optional, there is no discretion. Under this bill it’s a budget decision and at the discretion of the Department of Corrections. Sorry, I am not going to put a price tag on keeping kids safe – not when we are wasting money buying bug shields for a bunch of new state cars. That’s strike two.
Strike three is the rush to get rid of the 2,000-foot rule while we are fixing its biggest shortcoming – the definition of residence. We’ve made mistakes in the past by rushing to judgment; I think this is another instance. I’d have preferred to see how effective safe zones are before scrapping the 2,000-foot rule.
The following list of people are not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school, daycare, etc.. If Governor Culver signs SF340, they will be able to move in.
o Lascivious acts with a child (molesters)
o Assault with intent to commit sexual abuse
o Those who solicit sexual activity from a child
o Those who film children in the nude
o Those who entice away a minor
As I explained on the floor, the decision the House made was to allow a convicted sex offender to move in between my home and my daughter’s school, and now we may not monitor them any more.
In my book, three strikes and your out. The supporters of the bill had good intentions, but on balance there are too many negatives – and negatives that could have been addressed in the Paulsen amendment but were rejected. For that reason, I felt I had no choice but to cast a “no” vote. We can, and should have done better.
|