Englewood’s sex-offender law is too restrictive
Englewood’s attempt to virtually outlaw the ability of registered sex offenders to live within its borders suffered a welldeserved rebuke three years ago when a federal judge overturned the ordinance because it was so restrictive.
As Judge R. Brooke Jackson rightly observed, “Few sex offenders are incarcerated for life. Most will at some point return to the community, and there must be a place for them to live.”
Unfortunately, Judge Jackson’s opinion was not the last word in the case, which was eventually dismissed after a complex series of rulings. But now three other sex offenders have launched a fresh lawsuit against Englewood in federal court over its zoning rules that effectively banish them from living within the city despite having served their sentences. And while some of the lawsuit’s arguments differ from the previous case, the overall challenge is no less persuasive.
“Englewood has singled out sex offenders for banishment, and allows convicted and paroled murderers, people convicted of child abuse and neglect, arsonists, drug dealers, burglars, robbers, extortionists, habitual criminals and other violent felons to reside wherever they want to … ,” the lawsuit says, arguing that the overall recidivism rate for all criminals is far higher than for sex offenders in treatment.
In the interest of public safety, cities should be able to impose reasonable restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live, especially those deemed sexually violent predators. But when regulations rule out 99 percent of a jurisdiction for sex offenders, as they do in Englewood, they become the equivalent of an outright ban.
If one city can ban sex offenders, of course, then any city can — and many will. That’s simply not tenable, as it would force an entire class of former offenders into an illegal and perhaps semi-nomadic existence. At its logical extreme, it would force many to leave the region, which no doubt would provoke its own chain reaction.
When Colorado releases sex offenders from prison, they need to be able to reintegrate into the community — often of course with appropriate supervision. But their chances of doing so are greatly curtailed if they can’t even locate a proper place to call home near a network of support.
Even reasonable restrictions shouldn’t be totally inflexible. Cities should provide the opportunity for individual offenders to seek exceptions to rules if they can make a good case they deserve the break, along the lines of what Commerce City enacted two years ago. After all, as the plaintiffs against Englewood point out in their lawsuit, “Even if a sex offender complies with residential restrictions, he has no control over whether a third party may open a daycare center, recreation center or swimming pools.”
Englewood is a fine city, but it is not so special that it can be allowed to push registered sex offenders into other communities. Its ultrarestrictive rules should go.