Friday, September 17, 2010

Greenville ad hoc committee meets again; Graham states intention to file lawsuit

The Greenville ad hoc committee met again today to discuss possible expansion of the zone in which convicted sex offenders can not reside. Many citizens spoke during the open session. Before the council members spoke, Mayor Mike Bowers gave a long statement. He alluded to the possibility that an agreement could still be reached, but it would require an agreement that no sex offenders or violent criminals be housed by the Good Samaritan Home. Bowers also questioned John Graham's often-repeated statement that the community is safer with the program.

During the meeting, the three council members on the committee seemed unanimous in their intention to recommend a new City zone of 1,500 feet. The zone would also expand upon state law to include parks. Each of the board members commented in one manner or another that it was a greater duty to protect the children of the community than protecting the interests of convicted sex offenders. At the end of the meeting, Councilman Todd Oliver expressed his frustration at being invited to a Good Samaritan Home board meeting only to have the board attempt to negotiate with him.

John Graham read from a prepared statement during the public input portion of the meeting. The text of his lengthy statement is below the jump.

Graham's statement:

I am again here today because I believe strongly that we are at a critical turning point in our community for two very important reasons — and it hinges directly on this issue of extending the buffer zone and effectively banning all sex offenders from living within the city limits.

First, my board and I believe strongly that we cannot, as a moral society, ban someone from our community simply because of a sin they may have committed at one time in their past. We recognize that the safety of our community is actually enhanced by helping someone find ajob and find a stable place to live, regardless of what crime they may have committed. We recognize that the community is far safer when someone who has committed a crime in his past — even a heinous crime — is allowed to become a tax payer instead of a tax burden. All the research data is very clear on this subject that residency restrictions simply do not work.

That was the hard lesson learned in Iowa and Georgia when both states, responding to political pressure, in an emotional rush to judgment, extended their buffer zones to 2,000 feet, only to rescind it four years later when reason finally prevailed. Ironically it was not the service providers, such as Good Samaritan Home, who pushed to have the extension removed, but law enforcement associations such as the Iowa Police Chiefs and Attorneys General, who recognized that the law actually made their communities less safe. They learned that the frenzied atmosphere of misinformation and fear may make good headlines, but the end result is always a bad law that is, at best, unenforceable, and at worst, contrary to public safety, as this ordinance surely will be. The issue, therefore, is not will we have sex offenders in our community or not have sex offenders? Rather the issue is will we have supervised sex offenders in our community or unsupervised sex offenders who are forced to live underground, without registration, without neighborhood notification, and without the support services they need to overcome their past and be safe members of the community? We cannot simply legislate away the issue. All the research shows clearly that the community is much safer when we deal with it as we are trying to do with
our program.

The second, and perhaps more critical reason why this ordinance has put our community at a crossroads, is economics. If approved, my board and I believe this will codify our community as a place that denies a second chance to those who have paid their debt to society. Our community will be known as a place where fear, willful misinformation and even hatred from a handful of very vocal critics can become the law of the land. And that, I believe, is not a place that will attract economic development and critically needed jobs that we all want so desperately for our community.

The reason I am here today is not to ask you to support our work. Our safety record speaks for itself. Rather I am here today to ask how you want our community to be viewed by the rest of the state and even the nation. Are we a community that denies a second chance — denies the foundational right to simply live in this community — to someone who has paid his debt to society? Pope John Paul II has rightly said that "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members." And this ordinance is how we will surely be judged.

I am well aware that there has been a great deal of pressure placed on this committee from the community regarding this issue. And I am well aware how tempting it is to give into this pressure. But too often the community sees only the immediate, and is unwilling or unable to see the long term consequences of this decision. A public rush to judgment more often than not leads to the abyss, and that, I believe, is where this ordinance will take us.

Therefore, let me reiterate what Dr. King said to other politicians before you when facing pressure from their communities to rush to judgment with a bad law. He said, Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.

I trust that your faith will guide you to make a decision that is not be based on safety, politics nor popularity, but on the innate morality of simply doing the right thing regardless of the short term consequences.

That said, should this ordinance become law, my board and I feel very strongly that we cannot, in clear conscience, let it go uncontested. Although we do so with a very heavy heart, we will have no choice but to file suit in federal court to defend the foundational right to a second chance for those who have paid their debt to society. It is our sincere hope that reason will rule over fear regarding this issue and you will vote to reject this ordinance as presented.

Thank you.
Dr. John Graham

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */