This issue was in the news around here when a year or so ago the City of Green Bay enacted laws that, in effect, barred convicted sex offenders from living in Green Bay.  That's a little over-simplifying, but after you eliminate all housing that is within the limits around a school or playground or daycare center and so on, there is precious little real estate left.  Hence, no room for offenders; and so, they should live somewhere else - which is to say, not in my backyard, thank you.

             There was considerable discussion over the restriction proposal, pro and con.  An advisory committee was formed to study it for the council and after reviewing all the available data on the issue - and there is a good deal - the committee recommended for good reason that the council NOT enact restrictions.  Reason, of course, is not always the deciding factor when it comes to politics, especially when there is a lot of emotion, especially fear, involved.  So setting its own advisory committee's well-reasoned recommendations, the council voted FOR restrictions.

            Note:   This issue, you need to know, is NOT being addressed by our City Council here in Oshkosh.  No one to my knowledge is trying to enact such laws here - at the moment, at least.  It could come up at any time, but don't misunderstand me - there is no proposal before us.  Yet.

            The idea behind these laws is simple and admirable too: Protecting children is a good thing to do.  Absolutely.  Where are these children often found? In schools, on playgrounds, at child care centers.  So let's not allow known offenders live near those schools and playgrounds, lessening the chance they will be in contact with kids.  Sounds reasonable on the face of it, doesn't it?

            What I'd like to do today is approach the question from two perspectives.  First from a purely ?secular,' that is, non-religious point of view.  Set aside anything of mercy or justice, forgiveness or redemption, loving kindness or reconciliation, compassion, love - forgetting those ideals we Christians and other religions too say we want to live by.   From a purely pragmatic point of view, let's ask, "Do these restricted residency laws protected our children?"  Do they work?  And then after that using that perspective let's ask what those great religious values might be applied.  To put it colloquially, "What would Jesus do?"

            First, then, from a pragmatic point of view what effect has these laws had on stopping repeat offenders?  I have a number of articles and websites that you can look at later if you'd like to go into the issue in depth. I am indebted to Nichole Hall of our church who has for a number of years worked in the Department of Corrections as a Sex Offender Registration Specialist.  She is certainly an expert on this whole question, and has pointed me to a number of excellent, contemporary resources, some of which you'll find in the narthex.  There is no time to go into any detail of the various studies that have been done by such groups as the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the National Association to End Sexual Violence, the Center for Sex Offender Management, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation (another group working to stop sexual violence against children), and others.  And just three months ago Dr. Anna Salter, who has written three books on sex offenders and victims, and is a nationally recognized authority on such matters, gave a report in Madison to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics, in which she summarized what we know has been the effect of residency restriction laws these past 10, even 20 years.  That paper is out there as well.

            All of these groups and people who have studied these laws conclude the following. 

            First, there is no demonstrable connection between an offender living near a school or daycare center, and so on, and an increased likelihood of re-offending.  One study written just last year concludes that "Thus far there is no empirically established link between where convicted sex offenders live and whether or not they reoffend." [http://www.csom.org/ref/ResidenceRestrictions.pdf   J.S. Levenson, the ATAS Forum.]

            Second, there IS good evidence that residency restriction laws contribute significantly to disruption and instability in the lives of offenders.  Forced relocation, often away from family and other support systems, introduces instability, even to the extent of homelessness. There is no doubt that instability and lack of support significantly increases the likelihood of re-offending.  And so our children not more safe, but less.

            Third, restricted residency laws have encouraged offenders to disappear from the tracking system.  Not able to openly, legally live in an area, say, near family or friends or jobs, the offender may choose to live there anyway, but not openly.  In Iowa where these laws were enacted in 2005 the rate of non-compliance, that is, the number of offenders not conforming to reporting requirements, has doubled.  Restricted residency laws have thus served to drive offenders underground.  And that too makes our children less safe.

            Fourth, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has concluded that these laws provide for us a certain "comfort factor" - we think that we're doing something to protect children - BUT in fact we have not.  That give us a false sense of security - we think there are no offenders in our neighborhood - there are laws against it, after all - and so we can afford to be less attentive, less protective. [National Association to End Sexual Violence]  And so again we have not made our children more safe, but less.

            Lastly, everyone working in the field will tell you that the vast majority of sex offenders against children are not the stranger living down the block, but someone the child already knows.

            Simple pragmatic reasoning based on study after study and supported by agency after agency who should know tells us that restricted residency laws not only fail to protect children the way we had hoped, but have in fact made them less safe.

            But now lets throw into the mix some questions of faith.  And let us begin with where we just left off, namely, with the use of careful, sound reason.  People of faith believe that our ability to think, to reason, to look at every side of an issue and to come to a reasonable conclusion based on factual data - we think that reasoning ability is a gift of God.  And gifts from God are to be used.  In fact we might go so far as to say that God is not pleased, maybe even surprised if God can be surprised when we creatures don't use the minds that the Creator has given us.   So let us as believers in God use the reason God has given us when we make our public policy.

            But let's go on from there.  Sometimes in the debate over these laws against sex offenders one wonders if the proponents are not only concerned about protecting children but also about further punishing the offenders.  As awful their crimes are, these offenders have paid the price society has assigned them, in the form of prison time.  Their debt has been paid, according to our law.  Shall we punish them further?

            Blessed are the merciful, said Jesus.  It's not blessed are the punitive. No, it's blessed are the merciful!  You who are able to forgive, says Jesus, who instead of choosing vengeance, choose blessing - even for your enemy, mind you; you who can be merciful to even the worst offender, you, says Jesus are the truly blessed of this world.  For you, says Jesus are walking in the way of God, the way of mercy.  Somewhere in the discussion of this issue the ideal of mercy must come in.

            Author and scholar of world religions Karen Armstrong says that where the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all come together is in the word "compassion."  We are to be people of compassion, we who would walk the way of Jesus.  "Compassion" means to feel with, to join in with, to take on the sufferings of another.  While we are a people who use our heads, our reason, we are also commanded to allow our hearts to feel the suffering of another. The suffering of the victims surely - to see that they receive all that the healing arts can offer them, all the protection we can give them.

            And one of those means of protection would be to offer compassionate care for the offender, so as to lessen the chance of reoffending.  The goal of public policy should be to restore offenders to become stable, productive members of our society.  The goal of faithful people making public policy should be to offer compassion, even healing and surely active support to the offender.  Why?  So that they will be less likely to harm another child.  And because Jesus commands us to love, to forgive, to restore, to be gracious.

            Note what I'm NOT saying.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't punish people who have perpetrated heinous crimes against children.  Some people because of the nature of their crime for the sake of society and for their own sake need incarceration, need to be removed from society for a time.  The point of that incarceration should always be to restore the offender to society - just how you do that is full of questions and debate and I have no expertise in any of that.  And that's not the subject today.

            What I AM saying is that once an individual is back in the community it is for our own good, our children's good, and the good of the offender that we act compassionately toward even the offender. 

            Which brings me to those words of Jesus, and to the end of my thoughts this morning.  The way of mercy toward those who sin against us - and an assault of a child is a sin against us all - having compassion toward those who have so callously and violently harmed the innocent . . . that way of mercy, that feeling of compassion toward the offender is not the way of the world.  The world - and by that I mean prevailing attitude, expected responses of society, the way most people react, and our institutions too - the world cries for vengeance, not mercy.  The world punishes without thought of restoration.  The world says that violence, be it toward body or spirit, that violence that will keep us safe!  That world doesn't want to hear of mercy, or compassion.

            And so Jesus warns us that talk of mercy and compassion - even appeal to reason - will sometimes, maybe most times not be welcomed in this world. When our fears rule us as they often do, when our fears rule, talk of mercy and compassion and reason too are going to be met with disbelief, with disdain, with rejection. Don't expect, says Jesus, to meet a better fate than your Teacher, than your Master.  His message of love, of inclusion of all, of mercy over law, compassion toward "the last, the lost and the least" earned him some serious and formidable enemies.  It will for us too, he says.

            Standing for what you are convinced is right and moral and good like Jesus may win you respect from some, but opposition too.  Standing on principle - even well-reasoned principle isn't what we voters are always looking for, is it.  Get real, says Jesus.  My way is not the easy way, the way for most, the way of those who wield power in this world.  Expect my way to be along unpopular paths.  If you're going with me, he tells his disciples then and now, it will be rough going.

If residency restriction laws are proposed in Oshkosh, and you dare to question their effectiveness, and especially if you say anything that sounds like you're having compassion for offenders, expect to be unpopular - maybe even within your household. 

            For mercy is seldom pronounced "blessed" in this world.  Grace toward the sinner, toward the enemy, is seldom popular.   And so we need the reminder that the bell choir will be bringing us in their anthem, Amazing Grace.  It reminds us that we too stand in need of mercy, that we too need forgiveness.  It tells us that it is only by God's surprising, unbounded, amazing grace that we can live.