Many cities have enacted ordinances that would ban registered sex offenders (RSOs) from living within a certain distance from schools, parks, and youth activity areas. The common distance is 1000 feet but some are less and some are more.
 
Council member Barbara Chick asked that Garland consider such an ordinance. Police Chief Mitch Bates presented a draft ordinance at the recent Council Work Session, offered pertinent background, and answered questions.
 
Council reviewed maps that indicated which areas would prohibit an RSO from living within 1000, 1500, and 2000 feet of the protected areas. It was obvious that at 1000 feet, much of the city would be excluded, maybe even half or more. The allowed areas for residency would be dramatically reduced at 1500 feet and allowed areas would be practically eliminated at 2000 feet. Not allowing any areas is not an option because total elimination would be illegal.
 
Initial thoughts probably favor such an ordinance because I'm sure everyone wants to protect our children. However, there are two sides to every coin.
 
While we can exercise some control over where an RSO lives, we can't restrict where they are allowed to go. The court and probation system can, but not the City.
 
There was discussion of driving individuals underground where we had less of an idea of their whereabouts and activities. The more restrictive the ordinance, the greater the chances that would happen.
 
While the ordinance contemplates protecting the area around schools, it would be virtually impossible to protect home schools. In fact, it might do the opposite. Consider the following:
 
Most of us have seen video recently where a young girl was abducted at a mall and we have heard stories of strangers taking children through their bedroom windows. In the first example, a lot of people were in the area and that is the type of area such an ordinance may help protect. In the second, such ordinances would concentrate the number of RSOs in the allowed areas—areas with families and children.
 
We would protect the areas where youth congregate but perhaps put at greater risk those areas where children live. We would protect the areas where we generally have adult supervision and probably put at greater risk our neighborhoods where there might be less adults watching.
 
I always try to not simply follow my first emotional response but to examine both sides of the coin. Too often laws are created that have much greater consequence than the authors intended. Too often those laws have a greater negative affect than the problem they hoped to address. The deliberation process of creating legislation, sometimes painful, is to shine the light on both sides of that coin.
 
The Council has asked for additional data, particularly in the maps created that show what would be allowed areas and prohibited areas. Also, this is an issue that will most likely be addressed during the Legislative Session that starts January 9. A Council consensus felt it prudent to gather additional information and to see what new law, if any, emerges from the Legislature.
 
[Return to Website]