Sex Offender Zoning Laws Are Necessary
Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst, NJ Family Policy Council

On December 22, a county ordinance that barred sex offenders from living near schools or playgrounds was overturned by Atlantic-Cape May Assignment Judge Valerie Armstrong who ruled that it is somehow pre-empted by Megan’s Law.  The striking down of this Lower Township sexual predator zoning ordinance marks the first time a judge in our state has ruled against such a law.  The ordinance is similar to more than 45 others enacted over the past two years in other municipalities throughout New Jersey where citizens want to better protect children in their community from sexual predators. 

This ruling not only strikes down a law preventing the tier 1 (lower risk) offender in the case from living in close proximity to strong temptation such as schools and playgrounds, it also allows even tier 3 (high risk) offenders to live near innocent groups of children as well.  Instead, courts should be upholding laws that send a stronger message to predators that there will be long-term consequences when they decide to prey on children. 

With the weekly stream of pedophilia incidents reported in our newspapers, parents obviously see a need for laws that are more concerned with the safety of their children rather than the freedom of sexual predators to choose housing wherever they desire.  In fact, just seven days after this ruling voiding the zoning law, a male adult sexual predator entered Westfield High School and allegedly fondled a 14-yr-old boy in the bathroom.  Current laws do not do enough to protect children, and citizens are disillusioned with the fact that so many sexual predators are back out on the streets instead of safely behind bars.  In addition while Megan’s Law is a step in the right direction, it is sadly not as effective in practice as it should be.  In December 2006 the Associated Press reported that there are nearly 11,000 registered sex offenders in the state, of which only about 2,000 are imprisoned.  Of the remaining 8,803, many are not considered likely to commit another crime so less than one-fourth of their names, addresses and photos [on average] are posted for public viewing on www.njsp.org. 

The ACLU’s claim that these ordinances conflict with Megan’s Law is highly debatable, and therefore towns must be prepared to defend these ordinances.  Megan’s Law does state that one cannot deny sex offenders housing.  Yet, most of these town ordinances do not deny them a place to live, they simply keep them from living too close to temptation: schools or playgrounds where there would always be children near them.  Just as a parole officer would not condone an alcoholic on probation renting an apartment over a bar or liquor store, towns should have the authority to impose restrictions preventing sexual predators from living within close proximity of large groups of children.  Although Megan’s Law also provides that sex offenders live only live in residences approved by their parole officer – that alone is not a guarantee that they will not live near schools or playgrounds – just as it is not a guarantee that judges will always issue sentences that will keep pedophiles behind bars.

As with any crime, there can be consequences to criminal actions even after one has served time.  For example, there is currently a law in NJ that places restrictions on those
who have been repeatedly convicted of drunk driving. Although they are a free member of society and free to drive, they are not free to drive drunk.  The state can place a mandatory ignition interlock device on their car which requires the individual to breathe into a breathalyzer, and the engine will only start if they are not intoxicated.  This is a further restriction placed on individuals based on their previous crimes, in order to better protect innocent citizens.   There is no reason why similar restrictions can not be placed on sexual predators, as there are plenty of other options open for them to find housing.   

Township officials who are standing up for their ordinances are to be commended because they take seriously their duty to protect the law abiding citizens of their communities and their children, and municipalities have the right under our constitution to govern their towns as they see fit.  It is not fair to ask law abiding citizens and children to bear the burden for those who may seek to harm them.

back to Editorials