A Stitch in Haste

An update about a dubious maneuver by the mayor of Miami Beach, Florida:

The city on Wednesday all but banned child molesters from moving to Miami Beach, adopting an ordinance barring them from living within 2,500 feet of schools, school bus stops, day care centers, parks or playgrounds.
...
But it is expected to keep any new offenders from moving here because the city — a long, narrow, 7.1-square-mile island — has 21 parks and six public schools, meaning almost any home falls within the restricted area.
...
Fourteen states, including Florida, have buffer zones that prohibit sex offenders from living near where children congregate. Most of these set the boundary at 1,000 to 2,000 feet. The mayor of Miami Beach decided to press for a stricter ordinance after realizing that Florida law imposed only a 1,000-foot limit.

As I blogged previously on the redlining tactic:

The right to live where one chooses should be deemed a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment, similar to the right to travel freely within the country. That would mean that any law attempting to infringe freedom of residency would be subject to strict scrutiny (i.e., "narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest"). Such a broad residency ban as the Miami Beach redlining scheme would never survive a strict scrutiny challenge.

Prohibiting sex offenders from working near children seems reasonable, as does prohibiting them from caring for other people's children. But to erect a wall around an entire town with a giant "Keep Out" sign goes too far. Just because we want to protect our children doesn't mean we can stop protecting basic American freedoms in the process.

It seems to me that although the concept of redlining child molesters might be facially valid, a scheme that is so expansive as to effectively exclude the entire locality is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied.

We'll have to see whether there are any lawsuits challenging the ordinance.

UPDATE: New York State --

Global positioning systems would track sex offenders around the clock, under a measure approved yesterday by Senate Republicans.

Sen. John Bonacic (R-Orange County) said it doesn't make sense that Martha Stewart -- who doesn't pose a public safety threat -- is subjected to electronic monitoring while perverts roam free near schools and daycare centers.

"They're dangerous with a high rate of recidivism," Bonacic said. "They commit assault, rapes and murder of children and mainly women."
...
"This is life and it's death," said [State Senate majority leader Joseph] Bruno, referring to sexual predators as "psychos."

Sex offenders are being tracked in at least 33 states, experts said.

Some hasty stitches:

--Martha Stewart wears an electronic bracelet because she is still serving part of her sentence. For sex offenders, the monitoring lasts long after they've "done their time" and can last their whole lives.

--If sex offenders are "dangerous with a high rate of recidivism" and commit "assault, rapes and murder of children and mainly women," then why let them out of prison in the first place? After all, one of the main purposes of criminal law is to "protect society," no?

--By the same token, if sex offenders are "psychos," then why aren't they in mental hospitals rather than in the criminal justice system?

--Finally, if the threat is to "mainly women," does that mean that sex offenders are overwhelmingly heterosexual? Go figure.