John Joseph O'Boyle should be pleased. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to hear a challenge to the states' ability to maintain sex-offender lists.

If the high court strikes down the laws, Colorado will suffer. But life will be easier for rapists like O'Boyle.

O'Boyle is a 42-year-old Longmont man who was released from prison last Wednesday. He had been in prison since July 22, 1987, for committing two counts of sexual assault on a child and one count of sexual assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

On Wednesday, O'Boyle was released in Longmont, where he committed these crimes. He is not on parole or probation, according to Heidi Hayes, spokesperson for the state Department of Corrections. He was simply discharged and is now free.

By law, he must perform only one function: He must register as a sex offender within 24 hours of his release. He registered at 8:30 a.m. on Friday.

In September 1986, O'Boyle was working as a janitor for the Boulder Valley School District. At that time, he was already on probation for committing sexual assault on a child, an offense for which he had served 90 days in jail.

On the fateful day, he trapped a female family member and a friend in his Longmont home. He brandished a pocket knife and threatened to hit the girls. He raped them repeatedly. The girls escaped by ripping open the drapes, startling O'Boyle enough that he released them.

Should O'Boyle be required to register as a sex offender? The attorney general of Colorado believes he should. The Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union argues that he and his ilk should be forced to register only if a court determines they are still dangerous.

A federal judge struck down Connecticut's sex offender registry last year, finding that it violated the constitutional rights of past offenders who are forced to register without getting a chance to prove they are no longer dangerous. A federal court of appeals concurred.

The Colorado attorney general has joined law-enforcement officials from 22 other states in supporting Connecticut and its sex-offender registry. Colorado's law resembles Connecticut's.

Those challenging the sex-offender registries argue that maintaining such lists without hearings on the offenders' danger to society violates the constitutional prohibition against taking "life, liberty or property without due process of law."

This logic is flawed. The list takes no life, liberty or property from anyone.

A sex-offender list is nothing more than a convenient compilation of public records, which everyone is entitled to see. If any citizen — for any reason — wants to know who among the populace has been convicted of a heinous crime, she has that right. A rapist's alleged rehabilitation doesn't diminish that right in the least.

Certainly, sex offenders don't like to advertise the fact that they've preyed upon innocent souls. But their aversion to candor should not dictate public policy, especially one that can help keep more people from becoming prey.

Reach Clint Talbott at (303) 473-1367 or talbottc@thedailycamera.com.

May 28, 2002

E-mail this story to a friend | Printer-friendly version