Civil Rights
Indiana, like most states, long ago recognized that people who commit a sex offense have a propensity to do so again. After being convicted, serving his or her sentence, an offender has “paid their debt to society” and feels justified in being free from further limitation on his or her life. Balancing the need to protect citizens, especially children, from future harm posed by sexual predators, and the civil rights of ex-offenders creates serious issues in our society. Indiana, again like most states, requires people convicted of certain sexually related offenses to register with the county where they reside and where they regularly work. This registry is made available to the public, providing the public with the ex-offender’s name, age, physical description, street address, what they were convicted of and maybe even a photo.
The registration requirement generally stops 10 years after release from incarceration. However, in some circumstances, the registration is for life (”traditional” child molesting (the offender was 18 years of age or older against a victim who was less than 12 years old at the time of the crime), offenses where the victim was seriously injured or killed, and 2 time offenders). So for some offenders, the crime becomes a permanent brand they will wear to their graves.
This requirement has been upheld by the courts against challenges that it imposes an additional penalty on an offender (who may have been convicted long before the registry was created) (In re G.B., App.1999, 709 N.E.2d 352, Spencer v. O’Connor, App.1999, 707 N.E.2d 1039), and constitutional challenges that registration impairs the basic constitutional rights granted to every member of society (Anthis v. State, App.2000, 731 N.E.2d 446).
Some feel that the state has gone too far with the registry, that subjecting someone to a lifetime label as a sex offender fails to give them an opportunity for redemption and rehabilitation. Others feel that the registry does not go far enough, and the enforcement of its terms is too lax. Many would like to see sex offenders limited in where they can live and go after their release. While the terms of probation and parole for sex offenders will typically contain such bans, once the period of supervision terminates, those restrictions are gone. Efforts to impose additional restrictions on sex offenders run into constitutional challenges and have netted mixed results.
The Lafayette Journal & Courier carries a story today about an sexual offender who has been banned by the City from being on the premises of public schools or parks. The offender (the story states that the paper decided to leave his name off, so it is not generally know which of the 113 registered sex offenders living in Lafayette the case involves), filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on public parks. The district court upheld the ban as a reasonable protective measure, but a panel of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago reversed this finding, and the City has asked the entire court to review this decision. The judges heard oral argument in January, so a decision should come down soon. The Journal & Courier notes:
The move by city and school officials to ban John Doe from Lafayette parks and school property was prompted by an anonymous tip to law enforcement in 2000.
The source told police about disclosures John Doe made during a sex offender group therapy session. In that session, John Doe admitted he went to Murdock Park, watched some children in their early teens playing ball and had sexual fantasies about them. He left the park without approaching the children or having any contact with them, according to court records and John Doe’s own account given to the Journal and Courier.
In February 2000, the parks department and the Lafayette School Corp. sent separate letters to John Doe informing him he would no longer be allowed in parks or on school property.
John Doe, who once played softball with a group of Lafayette attorneys in the city park softball league and worked for a while at the Shadeland Recreation Center, is a former high school athlete who enjoys basketball, softball and other outdoor recreational activities. He wants to be able to use the parks.
In the lawsuit filed that November, Falk argued that Lafayette’s parks ban violates John Doe’s civil rights by discriminating against him merely because of his thoughts.
He has not challenged the school property ban, according to Falk, because schools are not a place where the public generally is welcome.
Sharp ruled in September 2001 that the city’s order banning John Doe from the parks was justified because of the compelling public interest in protecting children.
On appeal, however, the three-judge 7th Circuit panel found that John Doe had been punished merely because he had considered committing a crime, a violation of the freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment.
