http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_...wKKR0XApE2s0NUE
In California, there is a law that prohibits ALL sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or a place where children gather. What is happening though is that sex offenders who have served their time in prison and have landed honest jobs after their prison terms have found themselves homeless because of a lack of available housing. This is a serious issue because homeless sex offenders are harder for the state to track, and then there is the issue of people being punished after they have served out their sentences.

The intent of the law is good. After all, nobody wants a violent predator standing outside a school waiting to abduct a child. But we also have to recognize that not all sex offenders are standing behind a tree waiting to jump out at a child. And then there is the issue of responsibility on the parents and teachers. At school, the teachers are responsible for supervising the children and when the children walk home, they're told to walk with friends and not walk home by themselves. I simply just don't think the Orweillian model with criminals is the only way to protect society.

So, the questions for debate are
Is the law necessary for ALL sex offenders, or should it only be used for the worst offenders?
Is it OK for the state to impose homelessness on ALL sex offenders or does it violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

Is the law necessary for ALL sex offenders, or should it only be used for the worst offenders?

I have never been in favor of imposing any sort of blanket restriction on the vague term "sex offender." Some people who fall into that category have never endangered a child in any way We should also be aware that sex crimes vary enormously, from exposing oneself to an adult (an offense, certainly, but not a crime of violence) to raping a child. Doesn't it make sense to treat such criminals differently?

I would also say that measures which make it virtually impossible for these people to live anywhere do more harm than good. As the linked article says, this merely drives them underground and out on the street, where it is more difficult to monitor them.

Those individuals who are genuinely dangerous to others should be given very long prison sentences, or, when appropriate, mandatory institutionalization in mental hospitals. Those who are not should be treated like other criminals who have served their sentences.

Is it OK for the state to impose homelessness on ALL sex offenders or does it violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

Hmmm. I'm not sure if this is really a Constitutional issue, as much as just a case of a bad law.