A Stitch in Haste

To review: The purported justification for sex offender registries is that sex offenders, and especially child molesters, have very high, or at least relatively high, recidivism rates that make them perpetual threats to the community and especially to children.

Perhaps, but what does that have to do with weatherstripping?

Raymond Houston, 45, of Cocoa, [a convicted sex offender] who is disabled and living on a fixed income, meets all of the requirements for [Brevard County, Florida's] Weatherization Program, a federally funded energy-conservation effort.

But Brevard officials added a prerequisite that prohibits Houston and other felons from participating. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit in Orlando, say that policy violates federal law.

Brevard leaders, however, refused to back down.

"We only have so much money to go around, maybe $10,000 or $20,000," Brevard County Commission Chairman Ron Pritchard said. "The list of applicants far exceeds the amount of money, and I'm not about to use scarce resources on somebody who was convicted of such a heinous crime.''

First, a required disclaimer. Of course a libertarian would oppose any program that subsidize weatherstripping, which is not a public good, generates no legitimate externalities and can therefore be a strictly private market. This is the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling with "Warm" in bold italic.

Having said that, given that the government is going to subsidize weatherstripping for the poor, what does ex-convict status have to do with it, even for sex offenses? How does singling out these economically disadvantaged individuals dovetail with the recidivism argument that started the whole sex offender mania?

Or is it not about recidivism at all, but just another opportunity to degrade the New Others? Because in factional politics, there must always be Others, preferably Others who can be easily marginalized and -- if possible -- demonized (see, e.g., gays).

And by the way, I have no doubt that Brevard County has no qualm about collecting taxes from heinous Mr. Houston. Just about handing it back to him when he qualifies.

Remind me again who's being heinous?

---

As for the legality, it's a simple question with a not so simple answer. This policy is "discrimination" in the strictly neutral, clinical denotation of the word. Similarly situated people are being treated dissimilarly. However, since "convicted sex offender" is not a "suspect classification" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (even gays are not afforded that luxury), such discrimination is permissible if the government can show that the discrimination is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." Usually rational basis review means an automatic win for the government, but I wonder if this policy is so unapologetic in its animus toward a disfavored group that a court would strike it down. I of course would strike it down.

That's my ruling -- any dissents?

(Via CrimProf Blog.)