Sex Offenders Argumentative Essay

Englewood’s attempt to virtually outlaw the ability of registered sex offenders to live within its borders suffered a well-deserved rebuke three years ago when a federal judge overturned the ordinance because it was so restrictive.

As Judge R. Brooke Jackson rightly observed, “Few sex offenders are incarcerated for life. Most will at some point return to the community, and there must be a place for them to live.”

Unfortunately, Judge Jackson’s opinion was not the last word in the case, which was eventually dismissed after a complex series of rulings. But now three other sex offenders have launched a fresh lawsuit against Englewood in federal court over its zoning rules that effectively banish them from living within the city despite having served their sentences. And while some of the lawsuit’s arguments differ from the previous case, the overall challenge is no less persuasive.

In the interest of public safety, cities should be able to impose reasonable restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live, especially those deemed sexually violent predators. But when regulations rule out 99 percent of a jurisdiction for sex offenders, as they do in Englewood, they become the equivalent of an outright ban.

If one city can ban sex offenders, of course, then any city can — and many will. That’s simply not tenable, as it would force an entire class of former offenders into an illegal and perhaps semi-nomadic existence. At its logical extreme, it would force many to leave the region, which no doubt would provoke its own chain