Comments not so one-sided as Dallas considers Sex Offender restrictions.

A few years ago, when a city publicly announced it was considering banning “sex offenders” from a buffer zone around schools, parks, etc. the public was universally on board.

Things have apparently changed in the past few years, as more people are becoming informed and citizens see how ineffective and problematic these restrictions have become in neighboring cities.

This weekend; the Dallas News invited people to share their opinions on the issue. The article can be found here: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/white-rock-east-dallas/headlines/20140817-sounding-off-east-dallas-readers-weigh-in-on-boundaries-for-sex-offenders.ece

Contrary to my expectations; the comments were not entirely supportive of the measure. In fact, the more informed and reasoned comments cited statistics that have been largely left out from past debates. It seems facts are beginning to come into play as opposed to just emotion.

Here are some excerpts of just some of the more reasoned comments:

Allen DeSalme, East Dallas: … it would serve us to know which offenders are dangerous to children and which are not.

Barbara King, East Dallas: … not all sex offenders are pedophiles. It’s a “feel-good” initiative. It will probably add a couple of positions in the parole department, but it won’t change anything.

Swan Thompson, East Dallas: No, our sex offender laws should be revised to make better sense. Currently, a 16-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old can be placed on the sex offender list without distinction from a 40-year-old serial rapist. The only information the public sees is the posting that a “sex offender lives in your neighborhood.” This policy is dangerous and irresponsible. Limited, misleading information can incite violence when none is warranted. As a mother, I insist that lawmakers correct this situation and create legislation based on logic rather than emotion.

Victor Aves, Lowest Greenville: …buffer zone will not prevent a predator from crossing it any more than a lock on a fence or window will keep out a would-be burglar.

Kevin Buchanan, Dallas: Don’t enact laws without a way to fund them.

Suzanne Wills, White Rock Hills: The American way is punish first and ask questions later. Sex offenders already face myriad requirements and restrictions. There are many questions that should be asked before more are added. Have any children been harmed by sex offenders living within the proposed buffer zones? How many? During what period of time? If children would be made safer by this ordinance, we should do it. If the goal is just to pile on, we should not.

Ellen Childress, Far East Dallas: I will admit my ignorance. I really thought Dallas had buffer zones around schools, parks, etc. However, according to what I have read, this question has more moving parts than a locomotive and I do not have the answers. I do have a couple of opinions. One is that the phrase “sex offender” covers too many different kinds of crime and lack of judgment. The other is that no people who have served their time and/or who are on active probation or parole should be deprived of jobs and dwellings, because that deprivation will only lead to joblessness, homelessness, hopelessness and more crime. And somehow, there will have to be a difference between a 21-year-old male with a 16-year-old girlfriend and a 40-year-old person who stalks, photographs or attacks a 9-year-old. In other words, statutory rape should not be lumped in with pedophilia, which generally targets prepubescent children. We would need to know if the current monitoring systems work for parolees and probationers, and the citizens might want to tone down their hysteria and look more closely at the facts of this kind of crime. A lot of it is within the family. A child in this city may stand a greater chance of being mauled by a stray dog than assaulted by a pedophile in his neighborhood. Just as there are different levels of crime, there are also different levels of alarm which should direct the levels of response. A careful, in-depth study needs to be conducted.

Mary Weir, White Rock: The Dallas City Council can sit around and vote until they are blue in the face about safety zones and buffers to keep children safe from predators, but if child predators want to get to a child, trust me, they will. Besides, it is a known fact that most sexual predators know their targets as they are usually trusted family members or neighbors. And I will be a monkey’s uncle if all sexual predators are registered and the exact number is 3,300.

MaryBeth McMillon, White Rock Forest: The creation of buffer zones around child-friendly areas in Dallas might score some PR points for the city, but would do little to protect our children and could negatively affect some neighborhoods. The zones would not create impenetrable safety bubbles. They would merely prevent sex offenders, many of whom have never committed a crime against a child, from residing near parks and schools. A sex offender who wanted to scope out a school or park would still be able to do so. And, given the number of schools and parks in the city, the few neighborhoods that lie outside of the buffer zones would be stigmatized as havens for registered sex offenders.