Victim's Rights, Offender's Rights, And Residency

Backstory

So, a few months ago, we found out that a Oklahoma sex offender was living... right next door to the woman he molested when she was a child. Now, Oklahoma is about to enact a new law prohibiting sex offenders from being or living within 1,000 feet of their victim. At face value, this seems wise. When you dig deeper into the story and into the topic as a whole, it is not that simple.

Why Is It Not Simple?

When we hear the word, "sex offender," we immediately think of a child molester or a rapist. However, the term is not that simple by itself. It also refers to those convicted of kidnapping charges and first-degree murder, as well as teenagers sexting pictures of themselves to other teenagers... and Romeo-Juliet situations where one consenting partner or the other is underage and the parents do not like the situation. The term "sex offender" encompasses many crimes, both major and minor, some that involve victims and some that do not.

My "area of expertise" is child sexual abuse- child molestation, which is an admittedly serious crime. However, the situations do not fit the stereotype: A middle-age man molesting a stranger child after kidnapping them. About half of sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by juveniles- other children who are older. I covered the topic of juvenile sex offenders during my analysis of the Moore Center Symposium this year. So keeping "sex offenders" away from their "victims" also means keeping friends away from younger friends, siblings apart, and family members living under two different roofs.

There is therapy specifically designed for three goals: Accountability for the perpetrator, healing for the victim, and reunification for both parties. This therapy is called "reunification therapy," and is only used if all parties involved consent. This therapy is very valuable for victims, for offenders, and for communities. It is unclear how often this is used, but roughly 30% of sexual abuse cases involve family-on-family perpetrators and victims.

Why Do We Need To Pause?

We must pause to consider the ramifications of creating more onerous requirements on sexual offenders, not only because the issue is not simple, but because of the facts: Most sexual offenders never commit another sexual crime, and most sexual abusers never reoffend once caught. While the concerns of victims are certainly not trivial, there are already systems in place to keep offenders who are causing trouble for their victims away from them. Namely, restraining orders and charges of stalking and harassment.

What Happens Now?

Because the coverage that has already swept the nation, and the appalled but uninformed reactions of many people, the proposed law will almost certainly pass, to the dismay of other advocacy groups. I agree in part: We need laws that are based in fact and effective at eliminating crime, not laws that claim to do just that, but cause more burdens on all parties involved.

This law has the capacity to not only prevent offenders from living in certain areas, it has the capacity to tear families and friends apart. While this law may pass, we must pause in the aftermath to evaluate just what kind of chaos this law is causing once it is implemented, and figure out better alternatives that give weight not only to existing victims, but solutions that are effective in preventing victims from those who have never committed a crime.