Imagine you achieve the American dream. You live in a white house with a white picket fence on a beautiful street lined with trees. You have two cars, you and your spouse have decent jobs and your children go to school down the street. Your neighbors are your friends and your neighborhood is so safe that you don’t lock your doors at night.

Perhaps this situation is extreme, but imagine if you attained one of these elements when you have a family someday — if you don’t already have one. How would you react if one of your neighbors committed a sex crime against your child? And how would you react if you weren’t aware that your neighbor was a convicted sex offender?

Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a ruling against a convicted sex offender who claimed that the state’s sex offender registry unfairly added punishment on top of the penalty he had already received for the crime.

The sex offender, Randall Pickens, who was convicted of sexual assault against a minor, committed the crime in July 1994, before the sex offender registry was created, but was sentenced in December 1995, after the law was put into effect.

Pickens’s plea to the court was to exclude his name from the registry because of an unjustified, intensified penalty. However, the trial judge refused and ordered that Pickens’s name remain on the list. The judge’s reasoning was to protect the public, not to punish offenders.

In the state of Iowa, a sex offender is someone convicted of a sex crime against a minor or a sexually violent crime against anyone. Currently, about 1,500 people are on the state’s sex offender registry and entries are mandated by the court or by law enforcement officials. Entries stay on the list for ten years and sex offenders who move must report a new address.

The Iowa law gives access to the list to law enforcement and state agencies running confidential, background checks. However, sheriffs can release the information to anyone suspecting a sex offender if the request includes a name and an address.

While Pickens may be trying to rebuild his life, most sex offenders strike more than once. Pickens’s argument that the registry infringes on his rights is one-sided. It is apparent that a sex offender is not all that concerned with the rights and feelings of others — the innocent, the victims. Otherwise, there would not have been a crime committed. Why should the law protect someone who infringes on the rights and freedoms of others?

All criminals or the accused have rights embedded into the Bill of Rights. Such rights include the right to an attorney, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, Miranda rights, rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair and speedy trial, as well as the right to appeal a conviction. However, once a conviction is handed down, the criminal loses some rights, such as the right to vote.

Along with legality comes public stigma. Because we live in a country that allows court records and government documents to be open to the public, we have a right to know what is going on in our communities … and when our communities may be threatened.

When someone gets a speeding ticket or is pulled over for drunk driving, in most communities, everyone knows because they read about it in the newspaper. We have that right. And because a sex offender is defined as someone who commits a sex crime against a minor or a violent sex crime against anybody, we should know when these people move into our communities.

In the Pickens’ case, Justice J.L. Larson said the registry is an “unpleasant consequence of the offense.”

With each decision we make, we face the possibility of making the wrong decision. Thus, we must face the consequences. Obviously, Pickens and other sex offenders have made the wrong decisions and must face the consequences, including public scorn.

Pickens also claimed that the registry intensified his penalty. Although sex offenders may have completed their sentences, their names are on the registry. But for the victims and the victims’ families, the pain doesn’t end with the offender’s sentence. The pain doesn’t end with a snap of the fingers. The criminal’s record shouldn’t be cleared.

Take Annie Githens, the Urbandale middle school teacher, for example. Githens admitted to having a sexual affair with a 14-year-old student. While she may or may not necessarily be classified as a sex offender, her record will be cleared if she completes her probation successfully. She is finishing sex-offender and alcoholism treatment.

Polk County District Judge Ray Fenton said Githens does not pose a threat to society. In addition, the judge pointed out that Githens has been punished severely by society. The former schoolteacher cannot get a job, has lost her marriage and “the respect of friends and people in the community.”

Any schoolteacher having sex with a student as well as any other sex offender should lose respect of friends and the community. When the trust you have in someone is violated, you tend to put up your defenses. Because Githens violated this trust, the community’s defense of loss of respect has been directed toward Githens.

“I don’t think people can begin to understand the repercussions of being a convicted felon,” Githen’s lawyer, Maggi Moss, said.

But can a convicted sex offender understand the repercussions of being a victim or a member of a victim’s family?

---

Erin Payne is a junior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids.