IOWA SEX OFFENDER LAW
Does NOT Distinguish Sex Abuse
From Consenting Sex Between Two
Teens. Life Sentence For Both.
Law also mandates a life sentence
for any store employee who
fails to check a porn buyer's ID.

      A man and a woman convicted of having consenting sex without being married are publicly beaten with 100 lashes from a leather strap. An 18 year old convicted of having consenting sex with someone who is a couple of years younger than himself is banished from living in virtually all cities and towns for the rest of his life. Did both happen under the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, or did one occur in the State of Iowa? It may be hard to tell. 
       The whipping was, of course, carried out by the Taliban of Afghanistan. But the banishment is currently being enforced in Iowa. In November 2005, the US Supreme Court refused to review Iowa's sex offender residency law. This means that, at least for the near future, the law stands. The Iowa sex offender residency law says that anyone who has ever been convicted of a sex offense against someone under the age of 18 cannot live within 2000 feet of a day care center, licensed in home day care provider, or school. This literally means that those who have ever been convicted of these offenses cannot live at all within most Iowa cities. They usually must move to a rural area to comply with the law. If they don't comply, they are subject to arrest and jail time. This banishment applies for the rest of their lives, even if the original conviction was for a misdemeanor. Some with past convictions have literally become homeless or are in jail simply because no housing that complies with the Iowa residency law is available or affordable to them.
         Most importantly, the Iowa sex offender residency law does not distinguish sex abuse from consenting sex between two teens who are only a couple of years in age apart. One of the affected persons who challenged the law was convicted in a different state, when he was 18, for having consenting sex with a 15 year old. Because there is only a 3 year age difference, this is not even illegal in Iowa. However, some states have stricter laws that do make this illegal. Iowa law applies the banishment to people with any out of state convictions even when the activity they were convicted for would have been perfectly legal in Iowa. Therefore, the lifetime banishment does apply to this person. In a few states, it is even technically illegal for an 18 year old to have consenting sex with a 17 year old.  If someone is convicted of this in one of those states, the Iowa banishment also applies to that person for life.
(See www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/10108prs20030625.html?ht=  and  Quad-City Times, 2/15/2003, online.)
         Obviously it is not sex abuse when the two teens are close in age and the sex is consensual. Yet the Iowa Taliban (also known as the Iowa Legislature) and the law's author (State Legislator Jerry Behn) have imposed the same life sentence for these cases as for sex abuse. 
        The Iowa 2000 foot residency law also applies for life to store employees who are convicted of selling porn to a person under 18. If a store employee simply fails to check the ID of a 17 year old who attempts to buy porn, that employee can be banished from most Iowa cities for life. Of course this is not meant to argue that stores should be allowed to sell porn to people under 18, but such a severe sentence for the mistake of failing to check an ID cannot possibly be justified. (See Iowa code 692A.1, 692A.1(5), 692A.1(5j), 692A.1(5k),  692A.1(7), 692A.1(7b), and 692A.2A See also 728.1-728.4 Iowa codes are online at www.legis.state.ia.us/IowaLaw.html )
       These sex offender residency restrictions are spreading. Politicians don't vote against these laws for fear they will be labeled as unsympathetic for victims of sex abuse. If laws just like Iowa's spread throughout other states and the courts don't declare them unconstitutional, people who had consenting sex when they were teens and store employees who failed to check an ID may not be able to live in any city in the country for the rest of their lives. The entire US will become not much different than Afghanistan under Taliban rule. If you live in Iowa, write your governor and your State Legislators and let them know that you oppose this Taliban law. (Legislator contact info is here, governor contact info is here.)

What about real sex offenders?
Does the Iowa sex offender residency law
protect kids from them?

        Although a completely different issue, another question is raised. Does the Iowa sex offender residency law offer any significant protection when it is applied to real sex offenders who have sexually abused kids? No it does not. Approximately 70-90% of child sex abuse victims were abused by someone they know, at least as many as 43% were abused by relatives. Since one need not live anywhere near a school or daycare center to molest a kid they already know, up to 90% of the time the law has no chance of protecting anyone. Sgt. Bryce Schmidt, who has the job of monitoring those on the sex offender registry in Iowa's Scott County, stated, "If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.” Obviously the author of Iowa's sex offender residency law, State Senator Jerry Behn, doesn't bother to become informed on subjects he writes laws about. He is just ignorant.
          The Iowa residency law has also packed sex offenders into rural and semi-rural trailer parks and motels simply because no other housing that complies with the law is available or affordable to these offenders. Other sex offenders have been forced to live in their cars at rest areas and truck stops. Is anyone made any safer by filling these places with sex offenders? Of course not. When packed into these places, sex offenders are more likely to be encountered by the public than if the offenders had their own residences scattered throughout the city.

The Iowa sex offender residency law
makes kids LESS safe, sex abuse MORE traumatic,
and prosecution of offenders MORE difficult. 

      Even Iowa prosecutors oppose the law. They note that research has found residency laws for sex offenders do nothing to prevent future sex crimes against kids. Additionally, Iowa prosecutors state that:

         "The drastic reduction in the availability of appropriate housing, along with the forced removal of many offenders from established residences, is contrary to well-established principles of treatment and rehabilitation of sex offenders. Efforts to rehabilitate offenders and to minimize the rate of reoffending are much more successful when offenders are employed, have family and community connections, and have a stable residence. These goals are severely impaired by the residency restriction, compromising the safety of children by obstructing the use of the best known corrections practices." (Iowa County Attorneys Association, Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions In Iowa, 2/14/2006.)

        "Many prosecutors have observed that the numerous negative consequences of the lifetime residency restriction has caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess after disclosure of the offense by the child. In addition, there are more refusals by defendants charged with sex offenses to enter into plea agreements. Plea agreements are necessary in many cases involving child victims in order to protect the children from the trauma of the trial process. This unforeseen result seriously jeopardizes the welfare of child victims and decreases the number of convictions of sex offenders to accurate charges. Consequently, many offenders will not be made fully accountable for their acts and will not be required to complete appropriate treatment or other rehabilitative measures that would enhance the safety of children. Similar unintended negative effects often accompany well-intended efforts to increase prison sentences with mandatory provisions." (Iowa County Attorneys Association, Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions In Iowa, 2/14/2006.)

This is a very important point. During a sex abuse trial, the defense attorney will cross-examine the kid and question the kid's honesty, memory, and motives. This will be more traumatic to the young victim. When the accused is guilty, it is best if a trial can be avoided by having the guilty person confess and plead guilty rather than put the kid through a trial. The Iowa lifetime residency law makes it less likely that an offender will confess or agree to plead guilty.
         Most child sex abuse victims were abused by family, friends of the family, or trusted adults. Because of this, victim advocates and treatment providers believe that mandatory sentences that are very harsh can discourage the victim's family from reporting the crime in the first place. Although the family wants to protect the kid, they also may not want a family member or friend to receive such a severe sentence. (Omaha World Herald, 7/16/2006.)
         The Iowa 2000 foot sex offender residency law does much more harm than good. Support for this law is based on the myth that those who molest kids are usually strangers, and that these strangers often murder or abduct their victims. The truth is, only a small minority of pedophiles seek out strangers, and cases of child sex abuse that involve murder or abduction are rare. Child molesters are almost always known, trusted adults who are allowed access to the kid. This access is something residency restrictions cannot prevent.
       This, of course, is not meant to defend the crimes of child molesters. Obviously those who sexually abuse kids should be criminally prosecuted. But support for extreme laws is based on emotion, and emotion has no intelligence.