quote:Six Flags added wording on the back of season passes to all 30 of its U.S. amusement parks this year stating that it reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone convicted of a sex crime.
The amusement park said it does not actually plan to run background checks on everyone entering the park, but visitors seen acting inappropriately could be subjected to a check and thrown out.
In 2000, a 19-year-old ride operator at Great America in Gurnee was sentenced to four years in prison for molesting three girls while strapping them into Yogi Bear's Yahoo River boat ride. The arrest spurred a lawsuit that resulted in $1.4 million payments to two of the victims.
Amusement parks have long reserved the right to throw out anyone misbehaving. But Six Flags is the first chain of U.S. amusement parks to specifically state on its tickets that sex offenders can be denied entry or removed, said Beth Robertson, a spokeswoman for the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Personally, I think any privately owned business has the right to refuse service to whomever and it's up to the consumer to boycott what they see as unfair treatment. I'm in favor of barring sex offenders from theme parks if they can spot them. But I think people who disagree with me should be free to not patronize those parks and encourage others to do likewise.
I haven't been to Magic Mountain in a few years, but I have a season pass to Disneyland. As far as I know, there's no sex offender ban at that park.
What to do with sex offenders after they have served their time remains a problem. I would think that normal restrictions against innapropriate behavior by park visitors would be sufficient. The Great America case is different in that the offences were not perpetrated by a paying customer but by a paid employee of the company. But the United States being a litiginous society, perhaps Six Flags' lawyers reccommended the anti sex offender phrase.
But what if grocery stores denied admittance to released sex offenders? What if utility companies denied telephone, electricity, water and sanitation to released sex offenders?
I admit, I don't know the answer to this.
------------------ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
I think this case w/ Six Flags would be much less controversial than say, a grocery store deciding to deny sex offenders access, mainly because you are going to have a larger percentage of young children in an amusment park than you are in a grocery store.
However, I am w/ Bobo on what to do w/ sex offenders once they are released from prison. It's my personal belief that anyone who takes sexual advantage of an innocent child should never be allowed to see the sun again (again, very personal, and I reserve the right since I was molested by an uncle several times). It bothers me that after a few yrs in prison these people are pretty much free to walk, depending on the case...
quote:Originally posted by JamsessionVT: [B]It's my personal belief that anyone who takes sexual advantage of an innocent child should never be allowed to see the sun again [B]
I may be wrong, but I don't think "someone who takes advantage of an innocent child" is the exact definition of a sex offender. For example, in my state (I think) two fifteen year olds having sex with each other and then getting caught would become sex offenders. Actually, by Michigan law, anyone, adult or not, who practices sodomy can earn the same title.
My point is that, while I definitely would be more comfortable not having the taking-advantage-of-an-innocent-child type sex offenders near children, I don't think it's fair to force the sodomy-or-underage-sex type sex offenders out of a fun time.
Of course, my facts could be wrong and I might've gone on that rant for nothing.
I agree with ladystardust. There are getting to be more and more cases (especially in my area, it seems) of girls who have consensual sex with a guy, go home and think about it, and then cry rape. Should these men be punished further?
------------------ "Talking about music is like talking about sex. Can you describe it?" -Bruce Springsteen
Actually, ladystardust was talking about cases where nobody's alleging that the sex was nonconsensual, as far as I can see. Which is different from what you're talking about.
quote:Should these men be punished further?
If they're found guilty and convicted of rape, then yes, they should certainly be punished.
I don't know where your claims about girls routinely "crying rape" after consensual sex comes from, but the only research I know about indicates that the rate of false accusations of rape is no higher that the rate of false accusations of other crimes.
And typically, false accusations occur when the person making the allegation is mentally disturbed or would be in serious trouble if they were revealed to have had consensual sex.
But the idea that girls commonly go round thinking, "Hey, I had bad consensual sex! I know, I'll claim I was raped, and then I can go through a police examination, be interrogated, have a lawyer try to rip me to shreds on the witness stand, and the case'll probably get thrown out anyway! Now that sounds like fun!" .... no. I'm not buying it. The evidence says that women are reluctant enough to report real rapes and sexual assaults.
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.