There’s still time
Opinion – Special Edition
By Bob Robinson
Sept. 19, 2010
Saturday was not a good day.
I saw the news early that morning when I checked the Advocate’s eNewsletter from the night before.
The ad hoc committee, at its Friday morning meeting, said it was going to recommend to the Greenville City Council that it expand Greenville’s sex offender buffer zone from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet.
Not only that, the committee listed more than 15 areas that the buffer zone will impact, including all schools, preschools, day care centers, city parks, athletic fields and the library. The article didn’t say if these were expanded areas… but really, the Annie Oakley Park downtown?
Correct me if I’m wrong but the last time I saw children playing around that memorial was… well, never!
Then they said something that confused me. Sex offenders are not allowed to live within these zones, but they are free to enter them at any time.
I assume they weren’t referring to entering some “protected” areas, such as schools, preschools and daycare centers. But can sex offenders go to a local football or softball game? Can they take a walk through the park? Can they check out a book at the library?
It should be noted that if passed, this ordinance would make it impossible for a convicted sex offender to live legally in just about any part of the city. Note I said “legally.”
I’m going to climb out on a limb and suggest that according to this recommendation it seems to be okay to come in and shop (if they have any money), make use of some public services (not sure which ones) and work (if they can find a job), but then they have to leave town.
Sex offenders currently living in Greenville will be “grandfathered.” As long as they don’t move, they’re okay. If they choose to move it will have to be out of town.
If I understand the procedures correctly, the ad hoc committee is going to write a report. It will either be unanimous (among the three committee members – Roy Harrison, Todd Oliver and Kathleen Floyd), or there will be a majority report and a minority report. The report(s) will probably go to Council Tuesday. If that happens, and Council chooses to act, then an ordinance upon which Council can vote will be drafted.
Once that has been done, Council can reject it, pass the first reading, or pass it as an emergency, waiving the usual three readings.
After which John Graham has said he will file suit.
The action by the committee on Friday was a topic of discussion Saturday. It had strong support but it also had strong misgivings.
Questions were raised about people who built or own homes outside the current zone who might have a relative about to be released and needs to stay with them… now it would be illegal. No answer to that.
But there were two statements in the story that resonated: Graham’s over how the city treats its weakest members and Oliver’s response that the children are its weakest members.
And therein lies my dilemma.
I have not changed my perspective that predators should be drawn and quartered. They have no business living if they prey upon children and vulnerable women. If our society can’t justify that particular punishment (probably a good thing), then there’s the dark hole where they should remain for the rest of their sorry lives.
However our legal system doesn’t work that way. It puts a label on all sex offenders, whether the crime was a 19-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old or the predator who gets national media attention for a heinous crime. Then, at some point, all are released on an unsuspecting society.
While I agree with Graham that it’s better to have released offenders under some form of restriction and mentorship, and there’s precedent for counties working together, I still have strong reservations about having so many together in a small community setting.
Then there’s the conflicting opinion over the impact of “stranger danger” zoning when so many offenses are family-related, many of which never make it into the legal system. I don’t believe it solves the problem… it simply makes a “statement.”
Meghan and Adam Walsh are federal laws, further complicated by a huge set of bureaucratic state guidelines. This local ordinance would go far beyond state or federal intent.
Can it be supported if challenged? I don’t know, but the media circus that would result would put our city between a rock and a hard spot. The Associated Press has already expressed an interest in it. Graham thinks the ACLU will back him. If true, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
There has to be a better solution that still protects our kids.
There’s still time and it’s not yet a done deal. I hope our city officials – and John Graham – use it wisely.
That’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Bob Robinson is the retired editor of The Daily Advocate, Greenville, Ohio. If you wish to receive a daily notification of his comments, opinions and reports, send your email address to: opinionsbybob@gmail.com. Feel free to express your views.
2 comments:
By now, we all know some facts regarding Good Samaritan, Inc. John Graham is contracted to provide a temporary residence for individuals recently released from prison. However, the growing concerns are the shift in nature of the program, without the notification of, let alone buy in, from the community as well as the continued expansion of the program, allowing it to take up more and more of our community.
Since opening his program, Mr. Graham has essentially shut himself off from the public after the initial strong negative response he received. His site references many articles that describe the nature of the program, along with success stories and accounts of the original debate on this subject. The articles appear to end around 2004.
While browsing these articles, we found the earliest one from the Dayton Daily News most peculiar. In it, while defending his intention to open the first home, it is stated that “no one convicted of a murder, sex crime or arson is considered for Koinonia House placement.” While these offenders may not live in the Koinonia house today, I believe it is incredibly fair to say that this is misleading to the community he claims to rely on to help these individuals back on their feet. If it is true that the goal of Good Samaritan Inc. is “to involve local citizens in the rehabilitative process while clearly communicating community expectations,” why has this approach not been practiced? What exactly are our expectations? Based on the actions of the program, the expectation is to sit back and stay out of the way, while the program expands in the name of religious work.
In the past there have been 4 registered offenders living at 323 E Main St. which includes at least 1 that is confirmed as a tier III offender with a previous charge of Gross Sexual Imposition with a victim under the age of 13. At 116 Ludlow, there has been over the past three months 4 registered offenders, including 2 Tier III offenders, one who committed gross sexual imposition, as well as kidnapping a minor to engage in sexual activity. This along with a tier II offender and another who has multiple offenses is a huge change from the intention described to the community in the past.
This shift in scope of the project is alarming. How quickly we have moved from no individuals convicted of sexual crimes to seemingly serving exclusively individuals convicted of sex crimes.
In addition to this, 451 E 3rd St is the Fitzpatrick House. This is another noble endeavor to provide a temporary residence to the homeless. This cause is good and is not under attack by any of the organized groups looking into this issue. There are, however, concerns about the way this is being operated.
While the Fitzpatrick House is labeled as a homeless shelter for “women and families” (according to the website), there was also a registered offender living there. In fact, the offender in question was a tier III offender who has convictions of abduction, rape and domestic violence. While it is important for this individual to be able to reclaim their life, it seems reckless to place this individual in a home where women and families are taken in and cared for. How do you explain that circumstance to the mother who is desperate for a place to sleep?
While the intentions of John Graham and Good Samaritan, Inc. are sound and great, we take great exception to the methods with which the program is implemented. He has described one thing and enacted another. He has continued to acquire properties and grow his enterprise, compromising his original mission in the process. It is naïve to believe he is not profiting from this endeavor, but profiting while dividing the community with half-truths and continuing to expand his operation in a way that directly contradicts his vision statement demands some answers.
Submitted to me by a reader and published with his permission:
As usual we are making a 2000 page document that tries to cover every contingency while it never addresses the real aim. (Health care reform anyone!) The goal has to be to protect our children and the society from these low lives.
a) Train our children never to speak to strangers.
b) Hang pictures and descriptions of the local sex offenders in sensitive areas where both the children and adults can see them and take the necessary precautions.
c) Take a proactive stand to educate all citizens to understand the penalty for sexual offenses.
Remember an ounce of prevention etc.
Cem Gokcen
Greenville.
Post a Comment