KEEPING SEX OFFENDERS AWAY FROM ... SCHOOLS / PLAYGROUNDS /

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a1e5f6c261e12300ef.html


According the the Atlanta Journal, sex offenders are prohibited from living, working, or loitering within 1000' of child care facilities, schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, bus stops... and other locations children congregate.

[Merlin]

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a1e5f6c261e12300ef.html


According the the Atlanta Journal, sex offenders are prohibited from living, working, or loitering within 1000' of child care facilities, schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, bus stops... and other locations children congregate.

If a registered sex offender goes to mass on Sunday is he loitering within 1,000 feet of a church?

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a1e5f6c261e12300ef.html


According the the Atlanta Journal, sex offenders are prohibited from living, working, or loitering within 1000' of child care facilities, schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, bus stops... and other locations children congregate.

If a registered sex offender goes to mass on Sunday is he loitering within 1,000 feet of a church?

I doubt they would enforce that one as long as he left after the services were done and didnt hang around.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a1e5f6c261e12300ef.html


According the the Atlanta Journal, sex offenders are prohibited from living, working, or loitering within 1000' of child care facilities, schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, bus stops... and other locations children congregate.

If a registered sex offender goes to mass on Sunday is he loitering within 1,000 feet of a church?

I doubt they would enforce that one as long as he left after the services were done and didnt hang around.

So it would be ok for him to join services but not ok to hang around after everyone went home? :?:

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_44a1e5f6c261e12300ef.html


According the the Atlanta Journal, sex offenders are prohibited from living, working, or loitering within 1000' of child care facilities, schools, parks, playgrounds, churches, bus stops... and other locations children congregate.

If a registered sex offender goes to mass on Sunday is he loitering within 1,000 feet of a church?

I doubt they would enforce that one as long as he left after the services were done and didnt hang around.

So it would be ok for him to join services but not ok to hang around after everyone went home? :?:

My guess is that is how they would interpret the loitering part of the law....with regards to churches a sex offender might attend. I could see the paper running a story that a sex offender is at the church and then the members aslking if he would loeave because others will if he doesnt. Just the times we are in now.

[Merlin]

My guess is that is how they would interpret the loitering part of the law....with regards to churches a sex offender might attend. I could see the paper running a story that a sex offender is at the church and then the members aslking if he would loeave because others will if he doesnt. Just the times we are in now.

I hear ya. Now think about how ineffective this is. If the point was to keep child molesters away from children then why tell them to leave after the service when the children have gone home with their parents?

I'd be curious in knowing how the churches really feel about this. How many christians do we have in Georgia believe in forgiveness for everyone except people on the sex offender registry? Don't know how many of you went to church today......but, in my church we talked about Jesus, God, unconditional love, forgiveness, healing, etc.....never a word about excluding sex offenders, drug addicts, blacks, jews or any other group. Forgiveness is the last chapter of healing. If we continue to spread hate and lack of tolerance we'll never get a handle on the sexual abuse issue. I am not suggesting we eliminate consequences.....just the hatred.

To Forgive, they say is divine; however, to forget what someone has done can have very negative consequences, and in the case of sex offenders is just down right stupid. "Buffer zones" may not be the answer, but at least there is an effort being made to keep kids safe. Parental responsibility is also a big key, by keeping an eye on your kids and knowing where they are and who they are with. However, it seems as though many people on here post about how bad it is to make and enforce rules that negatively affect a sex offender. What is the big difference in a city or state making a 1000 ft rule or 2500 ft rule, and a residential community that sets certain rules that govern what you can and can't do there as a resident? Everyone has rules and restrictions to go by, and you either accept them and remain there or move. But obviously sex offenders don't have much of a moral compass and may need to have different and more restrictive rules than others. They made a choice that will affect someone else, possibly for the rest of their life. Is it so wrong that the consequences of their actions continue to haunt them? 8) :?:

To Forgive, they say is divine; however, to forget what someone has done can have very negative consequences, and in the case of sex offenders is just down right stupid. "Buffer zones" may not be the answer, but at least there is an effort being made to keep kids safe. Parental responsibility is also a big key, by keeping an eye on your kids and knowing where they are and who they are with. However, it seems as though many people on here post about how bad it is to make and enforce rules that negatively affect a sex offender. What is the big difference in a city or state making a 1000 ft rule or 2500 ft rule, and a residential community that sets certain rules that govern what you can and can't do there as a resident? Everyone has rules and restrictions to go by, and you either accept them and remain there or move. But obviously sex offenders don't have much of a moral compass and may need to have different and more restrictive rules than others. They made a choice that will affect someone else, possibly for the rest of their life. Is it so wrong that the consequences of their actions continue to haunt them? 8) :?:


the problem is that it is unconstitiutional to make a law to punish someone retroactively! look at what california did when they passed the so called megan's law they made it retroactive to 1944....now i ask you if somebody hasnt' done a thing since 1944 just what kind of threat do you think they are? which is what the ExSex Offenders complain about....as for the other what right gives you the power to punish the husband/wife and children of a ExSex Offender they have never been charged or tried or convicted of anything....who made you god that you can order them to move within 72hrs or go to jail!....

I have seen no rules in Florida making anything retroactive. The new rules that I have seen start from a date certain, and basically "grandfather" people in that currently live inside the new zone limits. It just means that you can't move in there now, and if you move out, you can't move back. You say punishment, I say preventitive measure. 8)

I have seen no rules in Florida making anything retroactive. The new rules that I have seen start from a date certain, and basically "grandfather" people in that currently live inside the new zone limits. It just means that you can't move in there now, and if you move out, you can't move back. You say punishment, I say preventitive measure. 8)

it is still a retroactive punishment if it applies to someone for a past crime...and if they didn't have a crystal ball and foresee this bit of stupidity and get a 1,000 year lease as soon as their lease is up they have to get out! therefore it is retroactive! because it peanalizes somebody for something they did in the past! that is the definition of retroactive...look it up!

To Forgive, they say is divine; however, to forget what someone has done can have very negative consequences, and in the case of sex offenders is just down right stupid. "Buffer zones" may not be the answer, but at least there is an effort being made to keep kids safe. Parental responsibility is also a big key, by keeping an eye on your kids and knowing where they are and who they are with. However, it seems as though many people on here post about how bad it is to make and enforce rules that negatively affect a sex offender. What is the big difference in a city or state making a 1000 ft rule or 2500 ft rule, and a residential community that sets certain rules that govern what you can and can't do there as a resident? Everyone has rules and restrictions to go by, and you either accept them and remain there or move. But obviously sex offenders don't have much of a moral compass and may need to have different and more restrictive rules than others. They made a choice that will affect someone else, possibly for the rest of their life. Is it so wrong that the consequences of their actions continue to haunt them? 8) :?:


the problem is that it is unconstitiutional to make a law to punish someone retroactively! look at what california did when they passed the so called megan's law they made it retroactive to 1944....now i ask you if somebody hasnt' done a thing since 1944 just what kind of threat do you think they are? which is what the ExSex Offenders complain about....as for the other what right gives you the power to punish the husband/wife and children of a ExSex Offender they have never been charged or tried or convicted of anything....who made you god that you can order them to move within 72hrs or go to jail!....

Ex Post Facto - plain and simple. An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

i agree sex offenders need to comply with the laws of Florida, or any local law imposed. i do, however, have a disagree with the Department enhancing the court order without due process. Is this too liberal? perhaps to some but it is the law.

This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

i agree sex offenders need to comply with the laws of Florida, or any local law imposed. i do, however, have a disagree with the Department enhancing the court order without due process. Is this too liberal? perhaps to some but it is the law.

i dont' think anyone has a problem with a law that restricts individuals who's crime involves children from working with children or around children...unfortunately now days the majority of people on the megan's law registrys crimes had little to do with actual children!....as for the crack about complying with current law....that's the problem..you can't make a deal with an individual to take a plea which is basically a contract between the state and the accused and then decades later come back and change it!....that is illegal...and will eventually bite the state in the ass...as 90% of all convictions in this country now are plea bargins...i don't think we have the courts or resources to take them all to trial!.... and since they now get a life sentence after the fact...there is no reason not to take it all the way....

Part of the plea and the order is to abide by the Laws of the State of Florida. If they should happen to change, then oops, still need to comply. Never seen any deal that says you only have to abide by the current laws for the rest of your life. Seems as though alot of bs is on here about the "rights of the sex offender", what about the victim? Any thoughts on their rights? Do you think that perhaps that 10 year old boy or 13 year old girl had their rights trampled on by these individuals for which you show the utmost concern for? The State is not going back and changing any deals that were made, only enhancing current laws. It is not like they are going back and saying, "hey, we changed our minds. we've now decided to drop you off in the Everglades with some food and a stick for the next year. Have fun." It is just simply saying if you move from where you currently live, you must abide by the current rules. If that bothers them, I'm really not going to lose any sleep over it. 8)

[quote="Conservative Guest":39co3yqh]This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

i agree sex offenders need to comply with the laws of Florida, or any local law imposed. i do, however, have a disagree with the Department enhancing the court order without due process. Is this too liberal? perhaps to some but it is the law.

i dont' think anyone has a problem with a law that restricts individuals who's crime involves children from working with children or around children...unfortunately now days the majority of people on the megan's law registrys crimes had little to do with actual children!....as for the crack about complying with current law....that's the problem..you can't make a deal with an individual to take a plea which is basically a contract between the state and the accused and then decades later come back and change it!....that is illegal...and will eventually bite the state in the ass...as 90% of all convictions in this country now are plea bargins...i don't think we have the courts or resources to take them all to trial!.... and since they now get a life sentence after the fact...there is no reason not to take it all the way....[/quote:39co3yqh]

where are you? Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults. Are you a registered sex offender??

[quote="Conservative Guest":31q6gmgv]This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

i agree sex offenders need to comply with the laws of Florida, or any local law imposed. i do, however, have a disagree with the Department enhancing the court order without due process. Is this too liberal? perhaps to some but it is the law.

i dont' think anyone has a problem with a law that restricts individuals who's crime involves children from working with children or around children...unfortunately now days the majority of people on the megan's law registrys crimes had little to do with actual children!....as for the crack about complying with current law....that's the problem..you can't make a deal with an individual to take a plea which is basically a contract between the state and the accused and then decades later come back and change it!....that is illegal...and will eventually bite the state in the ass...as 90% of all convictions in this country now are plea bargins...i don't think we have the courts or resources to take them all to trial!.... and since they now get a life sentence after the fact...there is no reason not to take it all the way....

where are you? Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults. Are you a registered sex offender??[/quote:31q6gmgv]


i am in the florida panhandle! as for the crack that if they don't comply with the current law the state will provide a location that is outside the range of the 2,500 ft radius....better watch out i know one of the local prisons is about 3 blocks from one of the local high schools! does this mean the prison has to be moved? as for "are you a registered sex offender???" just becase i think something is wrong and illegal doesn't mean i am or am not one of the people i think is being treated unfairly!.

[quote="Conservative Guest":1usr0i6j]This Str8tshooter makes some good points, but seems there are some serious bleeding heart liberals on here. But basically my opinion is that it sucks to be a sex offender then don't it. Like other have said they committed an offense that will follow them the rest of their life. They can either comply with the current rules and regulations, or the state will provide them a place to stay that is guaranteed not to be within 2500 feet of a school, playground or places where children congregate. They made a choice not they have another one. But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money. Or maybe DCF should soften their guidelines and let child abusers work in daycares? Maybe it is true that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. :shock:

i agree sex offenders need to comply with the laws of Florida, or any local law imposed. i do, however, have a disagree with the Department enhancing the court order without due process. Is this too liberal? perhaps to some but it is the law.

i dont' think anyone has a problem with a law that restricts individuals who's crime involves children from working with children or around children...unfortunately now days the majority of people on the megan's law registrys crimes had little to do with actual children!....as for the crack about complying with current law....that's the problem..you can't make a deal with an individual to take a plea which is basically a contract between the state and the accused and then decades later come back and change it!....that is illegal...and will eventually bite the state in the ass...as 90% of all convictions in this country now are plea bargins...i don't think we have the courts or resources to take them all to trial!.... and since they now get a life sentence after the fact...there is no reason not to take it all the way....

where are you? Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults. Are you a registered sex offender??[/quote:1usr0i6j]


i am in the florida panhandle! as for the crack that if they don't comply with the current law the state will provide a location that is outside the range of the 2,500 ft radius....better watch out i know one of the local prisons is about 3 blocks from one of the local high schools! does this mean the prison has to be moved? as for "are you a registered sex offender???" just becase i think something is wrong and illegal doesn't mean i am or am not one of the people i think is being treated unfairly!.

contact your local sheriff office and advise them of any problems and compliants. the sheriff office will address and investigate any compliants you have ref sex offenders and they can address any violations of the law including vop's. my sheriffs office has been real great and proactivei this sort of stuff. also contact the florida sheriff association for any further info.

contact your local sheriff office and advise them of any problems and compliants. the sheriff office will address and investigate any compliants you have ref sex offenders and they can address any violations of the law including vop's. my sheriffs office has been real great and proactivei this sort of stuff. also contact the florida sheriff association for any further info.

stop smoking crack! The sheriff's office has nothing, i repeat, NOTHING to do with answering/addressing questions about VOP's.

I really wish you would stop posting on this board. You are an idiot, and ypu bring up pointless bullshit!

Didn't make a crack about the 2500 ft. rule, simply pointed out a cold, hard fact. There may be prisons located close to some schools in some parts of the State, but generally the big fences and razor-wire keep them inside. Not to mention the CO's with the firearms. Seems as though you are a little touchy on the subject. Must hit close to home for some reason with you. Guess you probably didn't like my Everglades idea either, huh? Oh well. 8)

[mystikwarrior]

But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with sex offenders with child victims working with children either.
But I don't see any laws banning thieves from living within 1,000 feet of any place that has money. I don't see DUI offenders being banned from living near any place selling alcohol. Drug dealers are subjected to an enhanced sentence for selling within 1,000 feet of a school but when they get out they're free to live right across the street if they want to.

[mystikwarrior]

what about the victim?
What about them? Do you think it helps the victim get along better if 2,000 miles away her father the abuser is getting bounced from one park bench to the next?

Do you think that perhaps that 10 year old boy or 13 year old girl had their rights trampled on by these individuals for which you show the utmost concern for?
What of John Doe in Lee County who fondled his daughter? She and her mother still live with him with court and therapist approval and they are slowing working their way back to being the loving and trusting family they once were. What about HER rights? You apparently don't care about her rights, because anything that happens to him also happens to her.

[mystikwarrior]

Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults.
Where's he????
Heck, where are YOU???
Only 40 cases? I thought that wasn't even possible in today's DOC.

Lewd & Lascivious offenses tend to exceed Sexual Battery offenses 3-2 statewide in receiving probation sentences. The same holds true for prison sentences. So your caseload should reflect the same ratio. And with 7,400 people on probation for sex offenses statewide, your 40 is hardly a valid representative sample.

Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults.
Where's he????
Heck, where are YOU???
Only 40 cases? I thought that wasn't even possible in today's DOC.

Lewd & Lascivious offenses tend to exceed Sexual Battery offenses 3-2 statewide in receiving probation sentences. The same holds true for prison sentences. So your caseload should reflect the same ratio. And with 7,400 people on probation for sex offenses statewide, your 40 is hardly a valid representative sample.

You must not be an officer if you didn't know Florida Statutes say Sex Offender Officers should be limited to 40 cases, due to increased requirements on those cases. I always took you for an offender anyway. 8)

[What of John Doe in Lee County who fondled his daughter? She and her mother still live with him with court and therapist approval and they are slowing working their way back to being the loving and trusting family they once were. What about HER rights? You apparently don't care about her rights, because anythng that happens to him also happens to her.]

What about him, he should have to follow the same rules as every other sex offender. Hopefully the counseling works and he never ever does it again. The likelihood of that occuring is probably not real high, so I would feel better if he could not see a primary school or kindergarten from his front porch. And how do you know that the little girl still wants to be there? Did she tell you she did? HMM. Does this issue hit close to home with you or something?

As far as restrictions on other types of offenders, maybe the severity of the offense plays a role in the general publics perception of safety. Also, if lawmakers did make laws that made drug dealers move or wouldn't let a drunk live by a bar, that would just give you something else to whine about. I guess the translation for mystikwarrior, is "PANSY". 8)

Of the 40 cases I supervise only 2 sex offenders are on supervision for crimes against adults.
Where's he????
Heck, where are YOU???
Only 40 cases? I thought that wasn't even possible in today's DOC.

Lewd & Lascivious offenses tend to exceed Sexual Battery offenses 3-2 statewide in receiving probation sentences. The same holds true for prison sentences. So your caseload should reflect the same ratio. And with 7,400 people on probation for sex offenses statewide, your 40 is hardly a valid representative sample.

well that's too bad. the numbers are correct, whether ot not it represents a vaild sample of your so called PWN's.

[mystikwarrior]

You must not be an officer if you didn't know Florida Statutes say Sex Offender Officers should be limited to 40 cases
Don't be so sure. Sorry you can't see sarcasm when it slaps you in the face. This forum is full of officers claiming they are being given more cases than the law allows and all manner of 'interpretation' is going on to circumvent those case limits. I was merely making fun of it.
Go suck on another prune. You're no fun

[mystikwarrior]

Did she tell you she did?
Nope. Did she tell you she didn't?
That's what I thought. You totally avoid the question. What about her rights? Her right to be with her father? Her right to live as close to the school or the park as any other kid? You're the one who brought up 'victim's rights'. So there you are. What about her rights?

maybe the severity of the offense plays a role in the general publics perception of safety
You are absolutely right there. Sexual 'abuse' involving a 40 year-old cop pretending to be a 13 year-old girl lasts a lifetime. Death on the other hand is not that severe. It only happens once and then the victim never thinks about it again. So silly of me to think that murder was more severe than a chat sting or owning a 30 year-old nudist magazine.

Sorry about your porno books, mystikwarrior. I know it probably took you a long time to get that collection. Also if a 40 year old is chatting with someone he thinks is 13 and is planning a sexual encounter, then as you can see on Dateline, there is a good chance that they will show up. And you can say it is role playing if that makes you feel better about it, but it is still wrong. Guess some folks on the other posts are right about your little self righteous attitude. Personally, I don't care if you agree with me or not. And to quote DX, if you're not down with that, then I got two words for ya, " ". On second thought, I don't want to make an offer that you might accept. 8)

You must not be an officer if you didn't know Florida Statutes say Sex Offender Officers should be limited to 40 cases
Don't be so sure. Sorry you can't see sarcasm when it slaps you in the face. This forum is full of officers claiming they are being given more cases than the law allows and all manner of 'interpretation' is going on to circumvent those case limits. I was merely making fun of it.
Go suck on another prune. You're no fun

Your comments are not written sarcastically.

[mystikwarrior]

Your comments are not written sarcastically.

I rest my case :D
Sorry you can't see sarcasm when it slaps you in the face.

But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with sex offenders with child victims working with children either.
But I don't see any laws banning thieves from living within 1,000 feet of any place that has money. I don't see DUI offenders being banned from living near any place selling alcohol. Drug dealers are subjected to an enhanced sentence for selling within 1,000 feet of a school but when they get out they're free to live right across the street if they want to.

When those other offenses rise to the level of shocking the moral majority, laws my be passed to reflect the same type of restrictions. We, as a society ,have an obligation to protect the children from the SO. Why give the SO the oppurtunity or temptation to reoffend. They do not need to work around children. Many do not reoffend while on supervision and my not reoffend (hopefullynot) after supervision. Probation officers do not make the rules we just enfroce them. The peolpe and the legeslative branch makes the laws, address it with them.

But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with sex offenders with child victims working with children either.
But I don't see any laws banning thieves from living within 1,000 feet of any place that has money. I don't see DUI offenders being banned from living near any place selling alcohol. Drug dealers are subjected to an enhanced sentence for selling within 1,000 feet of a school but when they get out they're free to live right across the street if they want to.

When those other offenses rise to the level of shocking the moral majority, laws my be passed to reflect the same type of restrictions. We, as a society ,have an obligation to protect the children from the SO. Why give the SO the oppurtunity or temptation to reoffend. They do not need to work around children. Many do not reoffend while on supervision and my not reoffend (hopefullynot) after supervision. Probation officers do not make the rules we just enfroce them. The peolpe and the legeslative branch makes the laws, address it with them.


seeing as the excuse for passing megan's law and the 1,000's of laws based on it including the residence/work restrictions are "TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN" i don't see how letting DUI drives kill hundreds if not more children every year not shocking!..not to mention the ones killed when they get between drug dealers fighting over their turf! you could probably add up all the children ever killed since they coined the label "sex offender" and the number of children wouldn't be a percentage point of the number killed by DUI drivers and drug dealers last year! not to mention all those ones killed over domestic disputes!...so don't try and feed anyone that drivel about shocking the moral majority....as for the statement many do not reoffend all the studies put out by the US DOJ for the last 10 years say the majority DON'T REOFFEND!

But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with sex offenders with child victims working with children either.
But I don't see any laws banning thieves from living within 1,000 feet of any place that has money. I don't see DUI offenders being banned from living near any place selling alcohol. Drug dealers are subjected to an enhanced sentence for selling within 1,000 feet of a school but when they get out they're free to live right across the street if they want to.

When those other offenses rise to the level of shocking the moral majority, laws my be passed to reflect the same type of restrictions. We, as a society ,have an obligation to protect the children from the SO. Why give the SO the oppurtunity or temptation to reoffend. They do not need to work around children. Many do not reoffend while on supervision and my not reoffend (hopefullynot) after supervision. Probation officers do not make the rules we just enfroce them. The peolpe and the legeslative branch makes the laws, address it with them.


seeing as the excuse for passing megan's law and the 1,000's of laws based on it including the residence/work restrictions are "TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN" i don't see how letting DUI drives kill hundreds if not more children every year not shocking!..not to mention the ones killed when they get between drug dealers fighting over their turf! you could probably add up all the children ever killed since they coined the label "sex offender" and the number of children wouldn't be a percentage point of the number killed by DUI drivers and drug dealers last year! not to mention all those ones killed over domestic disputes!...so don't try and feed anyone that drivel about shocking the moral majority....as for the statement many do not reoffend all the studies put out by the US DOJ for the last 10 years say the majority DON'T REOFFEND!

:lol: lets outlaw motor vehicles then since 3,500 people roughly die each month in the U.S. from accidents - this surely makes motor vehicles more of a danger to society than sex offenders. Get a life Worried Citizen. Your arguments are lame.

[mystikwarrior]

Your arguments are lame.
Not lame. Just scary. Too true for you to be willing to accept them.
The number one cause of the sex offender hysteria is fear of self. In the face of overwhelming evidence that parents themselves are the single largest group of molesters, what parent can look in the mirror? Far easier to bury that and lash out at the stranger down the street.
Florida blew up over Carlie Brucia. David Onstott murdered a young girl (no sex offense though) and the flames were fanned. And then of course there's John Couey.
Three tragedies. To this day Florida can't forget them.
What it has no problem forgetting is that in 2004 there were 111 kids murdered. Nearly a third of them by their biological mother (37). Another 26 by their fathers and a further 11 in which both mother and father participated. The state calls these 'death by abuse'. Personally I consider beaning a 4 year-old in the head with a baseball bat something a little more severe. Murder.
Think the state is 'protecting' these kids? Doesn't look like it from the kid's point of view.
Kids need protection from being abused in any manner. That of course means the primary effort needs to be placed on the where and who of the abuse. That starts in the home and with the parents. But as long as parents can vote, no politician will have the balls to stand up and say so.

A problem exists (with the 1k w/in a bus stop) in that we're virtually banishing sex offenders to rural areas, where bus stops (and children)are less numerous but law enforcement coverage is sparce(think where most these heinous child crimes took place). Rural America will eventually catch on. While no child is guaranteed complete safety from these predators, it seems in the worst cases, there were issues with parental supervision. Would the 1k rule have prevented any of them? The laws can only do so much, so they should prioritize, addressing issues like REAL minimum mandatories (10-20-life for sex crimes?). JLA grades all "sex offenders" the same : those w under-age girlfriends, those convicted of misdemeanor prostitution 20 years ago, and the pedophile (who now lives in the country) cruising elementary school playgrounds.

[Merlin]

A problem exists (with the 1k w/in a bus stop) in that we're virtually banishing sex offenders to rural areas, where bus stops (and children)are less numerous but law enforcement coverage is sparce(think where most these heinous child crimes took place). Rural America will eventually catch on. While no child is guaranteed complete safety from these predators, it seems in the worst cases, there were issues with parental supervision. Would the 1k rule have prevented any of them? The laws can only do so much, so they should prioritize, addressing issues like REAL minimum mandatories (10-20-life for sex crimes?). JLA grades all "sex offenders" the same : those w under-age girlfriends, those convicted of misdemeanor prostitution 20 years ago, and the pedophile (who now lives in the country) cruising elementary school playgrounds.

I hear ya. Although I've never been a big fan of sex offender risk class systems (levels 1,2&3) like they have in other states, I believe the only way now to worm out of the hysteria and return to rational thinking is to start breaking down the sex criminals into categories. We as a government agency have a responsibility to educate the public in my opinion. We need to help the public identify the really BAD guys......we also should have a system in place that allows for a certain amount of forgiveness or a second chance for the low risk offenders. If we aren't going to lock up every single sex offender for life they will be in our communities. If they are in the community we need to classify them as human beings and treat them as such.....just my 2 cents.

But I guess some of you probably think it is wrong that people who steal have trouble getting jobs that involve handling money.
I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with sex offenders with child victims working with children either.
But I don't see any laws banning thieves from living within 1,000 feet of any place that has money. I don't see DUI offenders being banned from living near any place selling alcohol. Drug dealers are subjected to an enhanced sentence for selling within 1,000 feet of a school but when they get out they're free to live right across the street if they want to.

When those other offenses rise to the level of shocking the moral majority, laws my be passed to reflect the same type of restrictions. We, as a society ,have an obligation to protect the children from the SO. Why give the SO the oppurtunity or temptation to reoffend. They do not need to work around children. Many do not reoffend while on supervision and my not reoffend (hopefullynot) after supervision. Probation officers do not make the rules we just enfroce them. The peolpe and the legeslative branch makes the laws, address it with them.


seeing as the excuse for passing megan's law and the 1,000's of laws based on it including the residence/work restrictions are "TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN" i don't see how letting DUI drives kill hundreds if not more children every year not shocking!..not to mention the ones killed when they get between drug dealers fighting over their turf! you could probably add up all the children ever killed since they coined the label "sex offender" and the number of children wouldn't be a percentage point of the number killed by DUI drivers and drug dealers last year! not to mention all those ones killed over domestic disputes!...so don't try and feed anyone that drivel about shocking the moral majority....as for the statement many do not reoffend all the studies put out by the US DOJ for the last 10 years say the majority DON'T REOFFEND!

:lol: lets outlaw motor vehicles then since 3,500 people roughly die each month in the U.S. from accidents - this surely makes motor vehicles more of a danger to society than sex offenders. Get a life Worried Citizen. Your arguments are lame.

no lamer than yours...you would be one of the people who worrie about how their shirt looks while leaving the house with no pants!....my only statement is if we are doing this for the children then it would be a better cost benefit and help more children to concentrate one the people who are hurting and killing more of them...now once that is down then you move down to the next biggest problem...

no lamer than yours...you would be one of the people who worrie about how their shirt looks while leaving the house with no pants!....my only statement is if we are doing this for the children then it would be a better cost benefit and help more children to concentrate one the people who are hurting and killing more of them...now once that is down then you move down to the next biggest problem...

The 2500 foot rule helps solve those problems. Keep the offenders farther away from most children.

no lamer than yours...you would be one of the people who worrie about how their shirt looks while leaving the house with no pants!....my only statement is if we are doing this for the children then it would be a better cost benefit and help more children to concentrate one the people who are hurting and killing more of them...now once that is down then you move down to the next biggest problem...

The 2500 foot rule helps solve those problems. Keep the offenders farther away from most children.

all i can say is "PROVE IT!" list one bit of actual numbers that show that!...so far they seem to be going the other way!...especially those coming out of iowa which started enforcing their's a year ago...now the state's prosecutor's association a group that was screaming the loudest for them is now screaming man did we screw up!....compliance is down from 90% to 50-55%...now if your intent was to force ex offenders into non-compliance it was a smashing success....if it was to know where they were and keep them away from children....it's a miserable failure!

[quote="worried citizen":2el4rufl]no lamer than yours...you would be one of the people who worrie about how their shirt looks while leaving the house with no pants!....my only statement is if we are doing this for the children then it would be a better cost benefit and help more children to concentrate one the people who are hurting and killing more of them...now once that is down then you move down to the next biggest problem...

The 2500 foot rule helps solve those problems. Keep the offenders farther away from most children.

all i can say is "PROVE IT!" list one bit of actual numbers that show that!...so far they seem to be going the other way!...especially those coming out of iowa which started enforcing their's a year ago...now the state's prosecutor's association a group that was screaming the loudest for them is now screaming man did we screw up!....compliance is down from 90% to 50-55%...now if your intent was to force ex offenders into non-compliance it was a smashing success....if it was to know where they were and keep them away from children....it's a miserable failure![/quote:2el4rufl]

Iowa had had less sex offenses commited against children by former offenders since the new rules they say. The offenses you speak of are for not registering etc. I guess the sex offenders are so busy hiding that they dont have the motivation to molest as much now. :D