A judge ruled that the registered sex offender and pedophile should be allowed to work at the carnival because there are no laws in place regarding restrictions on where sex offenders can work (however, many places in the US have laws governing where sex offenders are allowed to reside). The carnival had refused to allow the man to work because of his criminal history, but because they were not lawfully entitled to do that, they were violating the man's right to free speech.
Your thoughts on loopholes in the system? Should there be restrictions on where sex offenders can work? Would you buy balloon animals from him? Is his work "free" speech or is it speech than can endanger other people (which is not usually protected as closely).
------------------ Don't be coward like shrimp, be brave like PRAWN!
Posts: 12677 | From: Los Angeles, CA ... somewhere off the 10 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
To my recollection, there used to be VERY strong laws disallowing convicted child molestors from being able to get employ with any child contact.
So, I'm confused.
(And confused about how this relates to freedom of speech, I must say. I also just want once more to put out a reminder that "pedophile" is not the correct terminology for a convincted sex offender who has sexually aassaulted children. "Child molestor" is. A pedophilie iis simply someone who is attracted to pre-pubescents or similar themes. It is not a term to describe any action, only the attraction, and it is not illegal or criminal to have that attraction.)
The implication I got from the article was that he was not actually employed by the park but was "busking", and that the park wanted to ban him from doing this. Posts: 6944 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miz Scarlet: To my recollection, there used to be VERY strong laws disallowing convicted child molestors from being able to get employ with any child contact.
She's right, ladies and gentlemen. This is a state loophole which basically leaves out public parks in a long litany of places registered sex offenders cannot be. Every state has their own method of dealing with sex offenders, and some (like California) put limits in place that prohibit sex offenders from being in public parks or other "places where children are likely to congregate." New York doesn't include public spaces on their list of prohibited plates, and so this gentleman gets to slide right on in, rainbow-wig and all.
Civil libertarians have taken some states to court, deeming that public spaces cannot be ruled "off-limits" to certain groups of people by virtue of their "public" nature. It is sort of a quandary in that regard, and states have to tread very carefully when they impose limits on the freedoms of citizens who are not in jail. One argument I read from one of the states was that sex offender status is a "form of house arrest." As such, it would be legal to impose restrictions on those sex registrants which could include limits on public places they'd be allowed to visit. It's an interesting theory that I think may hold water, but I have not yet heard the final word about the outcome of that case.
There are some ways when I think the State of California gets things right, and its sex offender limitations are some of those ways. There are blanket limits given to all child molestors that include not going near their victims, registering with their local police agency within 5 days of their birthday every year, and notifying authorities if they move or spend time on a college campus. Anything above and beyond that restriction (including banning the offender from visiting public parks) gets assigned based on the nature of the offender's crime. So for example, you may see a violent child rapist be prohibited outright from visiting any area where children are likely to be present, while someone convicted on a lesser charge of possession of child pornography might not have that limit imposed. Seems pretty decent to me.
I know illonois *i think it is* has some of the strictist sex offender laws in the country. As for this being a danger.... well put it this way if people know about it they just won't go to the carnival. Lack of profits will causes his dismissal anyway.
Posts: 17 | From: baltimore,md,usa | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mistressmegan: I know illonois *i think it is* has some of the strictist sex offender laws in the country...
I - L - L - I - N - O - I - S state law is no stricter than any other nation in terms of its requirements for sex offenders. In fact, fairly recently a victims' rights organization faulted that state for having sex crimes laws that were seen as too lax. Having read the State of Illinois' Penal Code, I don't share that view. But I would definitely dispute the notion that they have one of the "strictest sex offender laws in the country." It's very nice that you "think it is," but in the future you may want to consider holding off on posting information here that you're not certain of.
I live in Texas and you are able to look online where registered sex offenders reside, and something that I found quite disturbing was that there were around 3 or 4 living in roughly a mile radius of a high school and elementary school near by. One actually live across the street. In my opinion, this should not be allowed. I am definately in favor of tighter restrictions where sex offenders should be able to reside and obtain jobs.
Posts: 87 | From: TX | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm personally find it more equally that people can just look that stuff up. I definately think that there should be limits on where sex-offenders can work, but I'm not sure these public registers are a good idea. Firstly, these people have already been sentenced, and been punished. These registers mean they could be further punished by members of the public, and there could be some cases of vigilante "justice", It could also give people a false sense of security when they find a person is not on this register. That only proves that they are not convicted offenders, not that they are not offenders.
Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think sometimes it can get out of hand. I read in a magazine once about this kid getting caught experimenting with a girl and now for the rest of his life he has to have a sign posted in his front yard saying he's a sex offender... he was like 8 years old.
But for the most part, this is all done for safety. I don't really have a problem with it if it saves lives from being ruined/ended. I definitely don't have a problem with child molesters being kept from jobs involving children.
The Court VS. Ethics Justice will never follow ethics. No matter how hard the government tries to impose restriction on certain crimes (as in this case, the return of a sex offender to work in a public environment), the principle on which this country is based, also known as the Constitution, limit the range on which the authorities operate. People abuse of their right of speech and of their freedom, which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in order to transgress the law. A pedophile looking for child pornography on the internet is, yes, using his right in a perverted, but amazingly legal way, however, he’s also depriving those poor kids from their right to privacy, indirectly causing moral and physical abuse by augmenting the demand of pornographic material. Therefore, a court shouldn’t rule against the people’s will to deny the job to a pedophile, because it would be unconstitutional, since in the eyes of the public he’s not only a sex offender, but also an outcast of society that should be banned from the community due to his perversity. Posts: 6 | From: los angeles, ca | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.