Sex offender residency laws are worthy of review

WE have long noted the need to review Oklahoma’s laws regarding where sex offenders may live. The latest example justifying reconsideration is this: State politicians have made it illegal for convicted sex offenders to live nearly anywhere in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, yet one sex offender was still able to move next door to a former victim.

Harold Dwayne English was convicted of molesting his niece when she was 7. Yet after his release from prison, English eventually moved next door to the girl, who is now 21. She responded by meeting with police, advocacy groups and lawmakers. Legislators say they will introduce a bill next year to make a reoccurrence of this event illegal. The bill is likely to fly through without opposition, and should.

Oklahoma isn’t alone. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 other states don’t have a specific prohibition on convicted sex offenders living near victims. Only Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Tennessee and West Virginia have such laws in place. They bar offenders from living anywhere within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of their victims.

For the most part, such laws haven’t been enacted because no one believed an offender would move next to a victim after serving a prison sentence. The Oklahoma case is one of the only known cases nationwide.

Ironically, this controversy arose despite the fact Oklahoma is known for having numerous housing restrictions in place for sex offenders, so many in fact that critics question if the laws are counterproductive.

In 2006, after a law took effect that barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a playground, park or licensed day care facility, it was estimated that they could legally live in just 16 percent of the Oklahoma City area, and much of that area was land surrounding the airport or other industrial areas without residential housing. In Tulsa, just 8 percent of the community was not within proximity to a playground, park or day care. In the aftermath of that law, it was estimated that roughly 200 offenders stopped registering their residence with the state. Of 5,225 registered sex offenders living in Oklahoma at that time, the number unaccounted for surged from 769 offenders to 964.

An effective policy should not only reduce the opportunity for sex offenders to live near potential victims in theory, but also in practice. When policy changes unintentionally result in hundreds of sex offenders walking the streets without police knowledge of their whereabouts, the policy isn’t increasing public safety. It’s making things worse.

Last year we wrote, “Criminal justice policies can’t follow paths that rely on good intentions rather than pragmatism. They must confront a problem with solutions that serve society and don’t create other problems.” That holds true today.

The problem in Oklahoma is that lawmakers have legislated based on broad hypotheticals that didn’t take into account the need for specific victim protection. It makes sense to bar sex offenders from living near their victims and retraumatizing them. It doesn’t make sense to enact policies that inadvertently increase the likelihood a sex offender can move next door (to someone who isn’t a former victim) without the neighbors having a clue.