Preventive Law - prevents nothing

Preventive law tries to keep crimes from happening. For those in favor of such laws, it makes them feel like they are taking a stand. That's exactly what they are doing. It's a type of stand - political posturing.

Unfortunately, laws designed to prevent crime often simply erode our individual liberties, and they aren't really effective at all in preventing the crimes that many thought they would.

They're only effective in torquing off Libertarians like me who believe in effective laws, not political posturing.

A Pedophile Prevention Law

According to a Wyoming Family Coalition questionnaire for the 2008 campaign, 48 out of 49 respondents were in favor of a law that prohibits a known pedophile from entering places frequented by children (someone less than 21 years of age). This is a type of law designed to prevent repeat offenses by pedophiles, but it makes no sense.

Let's look at how Clair Schwan, the lone candidate that opposed such legislation, views this type of preventive law.

First let's look at the definition of a "known pedophile"? Is that someone that is likely to commit a repeat offense? If so, then why are they being released in the first place? Isn't keeping the creep behind bars a much better and easier solution?

Second, how do we make certain that pedophiles stay out of these areas? Do we use a monitoring system? If so, then that doesn't keep them out of the area, it simply tells us when they've gone into the area. So, it doesn't prevent another offense.

Also, isn't all this monitoring stuff just a bit too much like Big Brother or the nanny state gone wild? To be effective, we'd need three people per pedophile just to maintain 24 hour monitoring.

If they are so untrustworthy, then why don't we just keep them penned up? In that case, we don't have to worry where they go, because they won't ever have access to children.

Places Frequented by Children

Also, what places are frequented by children? There aren't many places in a community of families that children don't frequent. Children frequent places like:

• the public library
• retail stores
• ice cream parlors
• grocery stores
• sporting events
• ice skating rinks
• miniature golf
• churches
• restaurants
• hospitals
• the shopping mall
• pet shops
• movie theaters
• apartment buildings
• book stores
• sidewalks
• parks

The list is huge since a child is 20 years of age or younger.

The constitution of the State of Wyoming says that our correctional system needs to focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. Okay, but isn't the potential list of prohibited places in such a preventive law just another form of ever lasting punishment? It looks unconstitutional right from the start.

Also, who is to say what places children frequent? Clearly schools, playgrounds and day care centers are places that children frequent because they are places designed for children. But there are many other places too.

Who decides what other places are off limits? Subjective is a very mild word for that kind of decision-making. Moreover, it focuses on trying to prevent the wrong thing - entering a place where children might frequent.

The Real Problem

Let's admit that entering a place isn't the problem. The behavior of a pedophile with children is the problem, and such a preventive law no more stops child molestation than a stop sign stops a car.

This is tantamount to creating a "pedophile free zone" in many undefined places. It will work as well as all those "gun free zones" we are so familiar with.

I've never heard of a preventive law that restricts convicted car thieves from entering car lots, parking lots and parking structures. And, why not? If we think such a law would prevent child molestation by pedophiles, then why wouldn't we think the same kind of silly law would prevent known car thieves from stealing cars?

• Are men convicted of rape forbidden to enter places frequented by women? No.
• Are convicted animal abusers forbidden to enter pet shops and animal shelters? No.
• Are convicted arsonists forbidden to go near a gas station or a pack of matches? No.

So, how is such a preventive law consistent with how we address other criminal activities? It isn't.

Or, is consistency not important when it comes to law? I think it's just as important as logic and reason, which unfortunately is often missing as well.

Let's look at another element of this proposed legislation - the whole idea of a "known pedophile". Does the term "known" mean convicted? If so, then what about the ones that aren't known to others, but are still pedophiles? They know of their improper interests in children.

Shouldn't our law address them as well? It should if our intention is to protect children from molestation.

So, a preventive law such as this would be kind of like telling someone: "If you know you're a pedophile, even though you've never been convicted, you have to stay out of these places too. It's the same restrictions that apply to the pedophiles that we know about, okay?" It doesn't make sense. It looks like bad law right from the start.

Criminal Justice and Common Sense

A court should determine the terms of an individual's release based on recommendations from the parole board. And, if the individual isn't paroled, but has served the entire sentence, then why should we impose further punishment? If they have served the time and their rights are reinstated, then isn't such a preventive law simply an infringement on their civil liberties?

If a pedophile is going to re-offend, what difference will it make to them whether one place or another is forbidden? Children can be found just about anywhere, and if pedophiles want to get a hold of a child, then no law restricting entering a particular location is going to stop them (just like the stop sign analogy).

Our focus should be on behavior, not trying to restrict places that offenders can go in hopes of preventing these creeps from committing another crime against children. If they are going to commit another offense, they'll find a way, no matter the location. And, no matter what "stop signs" or other "pedophile free zones" we expect them to comply with.

"Gun free zones" don't work. We've seen that plainly. "Pedophile free zones" won't work either. This type of preventive law is simply posturing.

I know we all want to "do something" about the crimes against children, and a preventive law like this is doing something, but it isn't doing anything that will be effective, unless posturing is thought to be effective.

Preventive law is very similar to hate crime legislation - it creates special categories of victims and provides more justice for some, and less for the rest of us. Creating special classes of people is not just, and therefore it isn't the libertarian way.

Done with Preventive Law, take me back to Clair Schwan