The current issue of the Northern Kentucky University Law Review features an article by former Dean and Professor of Law, Henry Stephens, Jr., titled, “The Convicted Child Sex Offender Nearby: Does Private Nuisance Provide A Remedy For Neighbors?“.

The article discusses the damages suffered by neighbors of sex offenders and explores the principal of “private nuisance” as a potential remedy.

Professor Stephens describes the following scenario affecting the neighbor or a sex offender, “…you decide to have a family cookout for friends with games for the children. Several of your invited friends call to regretfully express concern over their children playing outdoors close to a convicted sex offender. You have the same experience with friends several weeks later when their children are invited to your child’s birthday party. In fact, a number of your friends have said that they have concerns about their children being at your house under any circumstances. Your children have inquired why their friends won’t come to their house. Distraught and anxious, your sleep is disturbed by the current situation and you begin to worry whether you will have difficulty selling your home given its proximity to the offender. The first thing you do is to “Google” the problem. You discover research studies that have shown that an affected property owner may suffer a diminution in value of anywhere between 9% and 20% when the property is ultimately sold.”

This is a real concern! If you consider there are eight hundred thousand registrants living in the United States and each has multiple neighbors, it’s a problem that impacts millions across the country and costs tens of millions of dollars in property value.

But the article raises an interesting point; “whether the harm suffered by her client is the putative defendant’s child pornography activity itself, or is it rather the legalized societal stigma placed upon the defendant by the judicial system after the offending conduct has occurred and been adjudicated?” In other words; is the sex offender the one causing the harm to the homeowner or is it the State that saddles him with an involuntary scarlet letter that is leading to the loss? In fact, “the harms to neighboring properties… occur only because of the widespread saturation of publicity the government has chosen to employ to notify the public of the potential dangers posed by convicted sex offenders.”

While Professor Stephens’ article raises an interesting question, we do not support his conclusion and his article is full of misinformation and incorrect statistics about recidivism rates.

The concern, however, is to what extent can individuals or entities now claim damages because of “sex offender stigma” and how far back in the chain of fallen dominoes can you look when assigning blame?