February 11, 2009 5:14 PM

Do Sex Offender Laws Really Work?

By
Caitlin A. Johnson
(CBS)  A jury is set to hear closing arguments in the trial of John Couey, a convicted sex offender charged with murdering 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. Stories like hers have inspired cities and states around the country to pass laws restricting where sex offenders live.

These laws are designed to keep the estimated 600,000 sex offenders in the United States away from children. But Ohio mother Margie Slagle is one of a growing group of critics who say these laws unfairly lump lesser offenders in with the worst criminals — and that they may actually be backfiring.

Slagle was 40 and a divorced mother of three and when she decided to go to law school. Her first case as a law student shocked her: She defended a sex offender.

"As a mom, I was terrified of sex offenders — to me, (that) means child molesters," she told Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith.

But the biggest surprise came after Slagle met 33-year-old Dion Burge, a registered sex offender — and found herself vigorously taking up his cause.

"He was not a child molester," Slagle said. "He had consensual sex with a woman who was not old enough to consent — and that was a crime."

But what Slagle calls a "woman" was a teenage girl nearly a decade younger than Burge. The girl was living by herself, and Burge says he thought she was 18. He pleaded guilty to corruption of a minor and served a year in prison. He registers every year as a sex offender. It was his only offense.

"He's a great father," Slagle said. "He loves children. It's ridiculous to lump him in with as a child molester and as a threat to the community."

Only about 10 percent of abused children are targeted by strangers, and some critics say too many resources go into worrying about strangers when more of the focus should be on preventing abuse from people kids know. Critics fear that as more and more communities enact these laws, offenders will tire of moving and end up not registering at all.

Since Burge's conviction nine years ago, new sex offender laws were written prohibiting him from living within 1,000 feet of school property. Burge has moved three times — away from his own children

"It's been a nightmare for him; he's already been forced to leave the kids," Slagle said. "He's been taking care of the kids while his wife works third shift."

"It just didn't seem fair to make them move for something I did, basically. before they were even born, and I didn't want to uproot them," Burge said.

Now the sheriff's office wants him to move again because he's within 1,000 feet of a football field that's owned by a school.

"I thought it was a mistake, honestly, because I've lived here all this time and I've never heard of this," Burge said.

The 1,000-foot distance is measured as the crow flies. But there is a river in between and Burge would have to walk nearly 3,000 feet to get to the field. Slagle is fighting the crow fly measurement in court.

"I was confused. Why are they making this person move?" Slagle said.

For prosecutor Gary Nasal, the reasons are clear:

"Certainly he is a sexually oriented offender, and certainly, I would classify him as a child molester," Nasal said. "He did, in fact, groom this child and pursue her."

Nasal says the river is immaterial.

"You can't expect the legislature or the police for that matter to calculate and compensate for every manmade and geographic anomaly that may appear in the way," he said.

But for Slagle the question became not whether the offender is dangerous, but whether the residential restrictions actually protect children?

"The law doesn't prevent anyone from going to the school and sitting in front of a school all day, Slagle said." It just prevents people, offenders, from sleeping within 1,000 feet of the school."

Nancy Sabin of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which fights child exploitation, said research shows laws that restrict where sex offenders can live are "pretty ineffective."

In fact, 15 states are struggling with residency restrictions. In states like Iowa, many fear sex offenders are going underground.

"They've actually had less compliance on the sexual offender registry," Sabin said. "They've got sex offenders living in the cars on highway number signs along the freeway, so their compliance is poor, their supervision has deteriorated. There's a lot of downsides."

But parents tend to agree with the law, which will make it difficult to change.

"I definitely think that they have to move 'em away from schools and protect the children as much as they can," father Don Hubbard said.

Slagle will continue to fight against these laws and for a man she says she'd trust with her own children.

"Hopefully we can help him and make this end," she said, "so he can go on and live his life."

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 27 Comments
by hermit22 March 9, 2007 10:28 AM EST
jolsonbear, don't embarrass your great grandparents with their exceptional and FINE 79 year marriage by comparing them to lowlifes who just practice their wares on underage girls.
Reply to this comment
by hermit22 March 9, 2007 10:20 AM EST
student Margie Slagle is a complete idiot.

what is it, 73% of the African American babies born are illigitamit and she is trying to insure there will be more of them suffering thru that?

if these clods don't remember marching down the aisle with the woman they don't need to think they are entitled to get into bed with her.

drag out the statutory rape laws and use them!

Reply to this comment
by christianbr1 March 8, 2007 6:16 PM EST
I am first of all amazed at the special treatment that most *** offenders receive but also the slant that the media puts on these stories. I work at a federal correctional prison complex that houses over 4000 inmates. Only a small % of the inmates are *** offenders. The majority are on drug related charges. The *** offenders who are primarily white men only receive around 3 yrs and probation, as opposed to an average of 10-15yrs for drugs and rightfully so. I don't justify their wrongdoing. It amazes me that when reporting the story a black man is shown when they represent the minority when it comes to *** offenders. When listing statistics on *** offenders, generally young men perhaps 19 or so who engage in *** with a 13-16 yr old, are lumped with the(primarily white men) senators, doctors, lawyers, business professionals. This is a play on the mind set of society. Bottom line is that too many important people(who are probably uncaught *** offenders) have jobs in the judicial system and help keep their co-workers and others from serving long sentences. No wonder the % of white men compared to black men in prison is so lop-sided.
Reply to this comment
by jolsonbear March 8, 2007 6:09 PM EST
When my great grandfather was 22, he took $40 and two goats to his neighbors house and offered them to her father as dowery in exchange for my great grandmothers hand in marriage. She was 15 and her father (my great great grandfather) noted that it was "about time" as he feared she was about to become an old maid. My great grandfather died in 1972 just a few days before their 79th anniversary. If these events happened today there would be one man in jail as a *** offender, one man in jail for child abuse and one girl in a state home.
Reply to this comment
by jebby_one March 8, 2007 1:31 PM EST
all good reasons why we don't want our universal healthcare with the government metering out healthcare services.

Why can't a crime be just a crime? turning *** offenders into a special class of monsters only inhibits the process of healing from the crimes and hampers our abilities to move on with lives.

If every *** offender in America was outed then one in eight Americans would be in jail and another 2 in eight Americans would be living on a Freeway island, 1,000 feet from everything.

MOST cases of *** abuse are committed by family members. They don't get reported because victims don't want to see GrandPa's or Uncle Ted's picture splashed on the nightly TV news and they don't want to responsible for sending GrandPa or uncle Ted to jail for 100 years. And, they surely don't want to look forward to all the not-so-do-gooders proclaiming that the poor child has been ruined forever and will likely also grow up to be a child molester.


Reply to this comment
by dkangel1260 March 8, 2007 11:13 AM EST
tell the bunsford family gose out to then .my daughter knew their daughter and would love it when she would come into the waffle house where she worked at the time.
now as for him gettin death or life in preson. well i think he should get life so that he can suffer like he made her suffer. also when the inmates find out what he is there for they will take care of him and make him suffer just like he made jessica. and then when they get tired of it he will be a dead man cause one of them that has nuthin to loose will kill him.
Reply to this comment
by dkangel1260 March 8, 2007 11:08 AM EST
i think killin him is to good for him . i think he should be im preson for life cause when the inmates find out what he is there fort they will take care of him and when they have their fun with him they will kill him at least the one that has nuthin to live for cause he is there for life anyway. i hope u will let the family of jessie lunfort that my heart gose out to them. and also let them know that my daughter knew their daughter cause she works at waffle house and would love it when ever jessie would come in there when she was at work.
Reply to this comment
by knyghtwolf March 8, 2007 7:36 AM EST
A few years ago, I had a guy in one of my college classes who had a brother that got married at 20 to his girlfriend who was 16 just two days before she was 17. The girl had her mother and father's consent because both families knew that they were going to be married since they had been dating since kids and grew up together as families. In their apartment complex, there was an incident that required the police to do an apartment search. When they got to my friends brother's apartment, they asked if they were okay, and did they notice anything unusual, the reply was no. One police officer asked if they were married and they replied yes. Upon showing the license, all legal and good, the police officer STILL insisted on pressing charges against my friends brother for having *** with a minor!!! The officer arrested him & booked him. It cost him about $7500.00 in lawyer fees and expences to get it dropped & he almost had to plea no contest & get labeled but the Supreme Court of Texass dismissed it & threw it out because he and his wife were legally married with family consent. This is why I spell Texass the way I do, also in honor of ole' dubya.
Reply to this comment
by yhendrex March 8, 2007 5:26 AM EST
Something has to be done to catorgorize sexual offender crimes and reviewing of punishment where it would fit the crime. My 20 yr old son & GF filmed her friends having consensual *** & went on website that stated "we buy wierd, bazzare videos, paying up to $800". It was a sting. Emails from cop bascially convinced him to trade tapes for other porn. Son not aware kiddy porn. Not aware of ages of people he taped. Arrested for sexual exploitation of children. Because of probation technicalities, now serving 2 yr prison sentense. Life is ruined.
Laws are in place for people who hurt children - and should be in place. But young adults making wrong choices are labeled as monsters for the rest of their lives, paying emotionally & financially,not to mention how the families have suffered. Lawmakers - take heed. Something needs to be done!
Reply to this comment
by xfredmenzies March 8, 2007 4:55 AM EST
Well done, mjv2944, you have the reading comprehension skills of a piece of toast!
Reply to this comment
See all 27 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook