|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [11Alive] Sex offenders too close to daycares - DP1
Message 132212
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Apr 30, 2004 07:47 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article Sex offenders too close to daycares, by Jerry Carnes, which appeared on 11Alive on April 30, 2004.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 132387 (In Reply to Message 132212)
Posted by orolan
on May 02, 2004 03:10 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Probation officials insisted when there's a sex offender under their supervision, they survey the area around the offender's home, looking for schools and daycare centers.
Evidently they don't know what one looks like, because they sure missed a few.
"I would say we're doing a good job, but things do fall through the cracks,” said probation manager Jamie Apple Anderson.
Mr. Anderson, you're full of it. You don't have "cracks", you have the Grand Canyon. Why don't you subcontract your area surveying out to 11Alive? They evidently are quite better at it than your department is.
I wonder how many of these 250 RSO's display signs of suspicious behavior? Is there a large number of unsolved molestations going on around them? Unidentified men looking through the fence at recess time? Kids disappearing as they walk home from school?
And who was there first? People who open schools and daycares within 1,000 feet of an RSO's known residence should be subject to the same laws as the RSO. Actually, they should face stiffer penalties. The registry gives them an easy tool to determine if there is an RSO nearby, and by opening a daycare near an RSO they are allegedly placing a bunch of kids in a bad situation. Reckless endangerment.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132212)
Message 132420 (In Reply to Message 132387)
Rules like this
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 02, 2004 06:24 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I wonder how many of these SO's abused toddlers (like up to age 5??).
I myself am not attracted to toddlers at all. Yet if I were an SO I'd be a "danger" to the daycare center. A danger for me would be living near an elementary school (not a jr.high or high school) or a little league field.
Funny thing is in many states proximity laws for parks have been overturned because they're public places. Remember the guy in California who went to the park and told the therapist he had some thoughts (like he's supposed to)??? The city tried passing an ordinace to ban him from the parks (courts tossed it out). Heres a guy complying with his therapy being honest and they went out of thier way to get him.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132387)
Message 132485 (In Reply to Message 132387)
Orolan
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 02:34 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
The same thing happened in my state. The media went out and found numerous SO's living near day cares or schools and reported their findings similar to this article. What the media failed to tell the public is that not all SO's are on probation. So out of the 250 offenders this reporter found living near a school, how many were on supervision? They don't tell us that.
Also, the proximity laws do not always apply to ALL SO's on supervision. In my state it has to be ordered by the Court. I still have some old cases that do not have that rule.
It's not always the PO's fault when a SO lives near a school. This article made mention of one case where the PO had to correct the situation. What about the other 249 cases? The media likes to say that it's illegal for a SO to live near a school, but we all know it's not really a law it's just a condition of probation or parole.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132387)
Message 132491 (In Reply to Message 132485)
So...
Posted by TGoodman
on May 03, 2004 03:50 AM | Also by TGoodman
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Kansas,
Country: United States |
here in FLa once an SO is OFF supervision...the proximety no longer applies? Is that correct?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132485)
Message 132495 (In Reply to Message 132387)
Question
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 03, 2004 06:29 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Do proximity laws apply to SO's off probation as well?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132387)
Message 132501 (In Reply to Message 132212)
Posted by lj
on May 03, 2004 10:56 AM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
So, if an RSO is at work during a daycare center's open hours, how is that causing any potential danger?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132212)
Message 132511 (In Reply to Message 132491)
GT
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 01:39 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Yes. It doesn't apply to anyone unless it is a condition of their probation. The media doesn't take that into consideration.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132491)
Message 132512 (In Reply to Message 132495)
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 01:40 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Not in Florida. Are there any states that have proximity laws for SO's off probation? I don't know how that could be monitored or enforced.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132495)
Message 132513 (In Reply to Message 132501)
LJ
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 01:44 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I can't imagine that being an immediate threat or issue. But, how many people get off work exactly the same time as planned? I never do. If the shift overlapped then there would be a problem. Why push the envelope if it might result in your incarceration?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132501)
Message 132514 (In Reply to Message 132512)
Posted by steve
on May 03, 2004 01:59 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Are there any states that have proximity laws for SO's off probation? I don't know how that could be monitored or enforced.
I don't have time to research, but I would think there are states that have proximity laws for SOs that aren't on probation or parole. There are states that require some or all sex offenders to register for life, but don't have them on probation the entire duration. If someone does the research I'm sure they'll find states with proximity laws that apply to convicted sex offenders no longer on probation.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132512)
Message 132519 (In Reply to Message 132514)
Mr. Research to the rescue
Posted by orolan
on May 03, 2004 04:02 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
In the case at hand, being Georgia, the proximity law applies to all RSO's regardless of supervision status. Ditto Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Iowa's law applied to all RSO's but it is in limbo due to court action. Louisiana's applies only to RSO's declared by a court to be sexually violent predators. Other states apply the requirement only to Level 3 offenders.
Kentucky and Oregon have bills in the works that would make proximity laws apply to all RSO's rather than just the ones on supervision.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132514)
Message 132520 (In Reply to Message 132519)
Mr. Research
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 05:14 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So if the proximity law applies to all RSO's in this case, and only one case out of 250 was the PO's fault, then who is responsible for the other 249 RSO's? Do local LE check the 1,000 foot rule? If so, what do they do if a RSO is in violation of the rule?
If a local reporter found 250 violations, then it would be logical to assume that LE has not been enforcing the law all along. Why are all these laws being ignored? If they aren't enforced evenly across the board it really is a pointless excersize of futility. I also wonder if local LE helps the SO determine if schools are within 1,000 feet before he moves into a residence. I know if they were on probation in Florida the residence would be checked out before the RSO moves in. Know what I mean?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132519)
Message 132528 (In Reply to Message 132512)
Posted by fallenone
on May 03, 2004 06:29 PM | Also by fallenone
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Ohio,
Country: United States |
A few states have proximity laws still in effect for people not under supervision, like Alabama and Ohio. However in Ohio, the proximity law is written in a way where those in violation of the law are more apt to face civil, rather than criminal, trials.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132512)
Message 132529 (In Reply to Message 132520)
Posted by steve
on May 03, 2004 07:06 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
So if the proximity law applies to all RSO's in this case, and only one case out of 250 was the PO's fault, then who is responsible for the other 249 RSO's?
dp1, the article didn't state that POs were to blame for only one out of the 250 cases. According to the article, the POs of Both Kenneth Leroy Plez and Keith Pollard ordered them to move when they found out. In the example of an offender not on probation, Herman Leroy Kowalke, law enforcement ordered him to move. The article didn't state anything about the other 248 offenders so I have no idea who was supposed to ensure they didn't move near schools and daycare centers and why these RSOs are in violation.
If a local reporter found 250 violations, then it would be logical to assume that LE has not been enforcing the law all along.
Maybe, maybe not. Two of the sex offenders claimed they didn't know there were daycare centers that close. Maybe the POs didn't either. Since you're a PO in Florida, can you tell us where you get your information about the locations of schools and daycare centers in your area, how often you get updates and how you go about measuring distances from residences to those locations?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132520)
Message 132545 (In Reply to Message 132512)
Arizona clusters
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 03, 2004 08:42 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I know the Arizona "cluster law" is intended to apply to ALL SO's. Even those off probation. Thats one of the reasons it'll fail in court.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132512)
Message 132546 (In Reply to Message 132519)
How can they do this?
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 03, 2004 08:43 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I guess what I wonder is how can they legally limit the movements of people who aren't under court supervision. These people have paid for thier crime and completed thier full sentences.
These proximity laws are pure punishment. There is NO evidence they save kids from being molested at all.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132519)
Message 132547 (In Reply to Message 132520)
Unenforcable
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 03, 2004 08:44 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"If a local reporter found 250 violations, then it would be logical to assume that LE has not been enforcing the law all along. Why are all these laws being ignored? If they aren't enforced evenly across the board it really is a pointless excersize of futility. "
The police are overworked as it is. There is no way (without millions in additional tax dollars) they could even begin to verify proximity status of SO's not under supervision. It just cant happen.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132520)
Message 132556 (In Reply to Message 132513)
Posted by lj
on May 03, 2004 11:33 PM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
Not every job has your schedule flexibility. Factory workers, for example, have a set shift to work, whereas an independent sales rep doesn't.
If there's going to be stips such as no drinking, no porn, no hanging around where kids congregate that an SO has to already abide by, what's the hassle with another one that stipulates he/she not be home during the overlap hours?
It 's another rule to follow--sure--but it makes it easier than having to move over the conflict. Why give allowance for trust on some stips, but not on another that addresses the problem involved?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132513)
Message 132558 (In Reply to Message 132529)
Steve
Posted by dp1
on May 03, 2004 11:45 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Since you're a PO in Florida, can you tell us where you get your information about the locations of schools and daycare centers in your area, how often you get updates and how you go about measuring distances from residences to those locations?
The best source of information on the internet believe it or not is Yahoo. Just type the address in there and click on nearby businesses. Search for schools. day cares, parks, malls, churches, etc. Anything that's 2/10 of a mile should be checked out.
In my county the Sheriff's Office has all the daycares and schools listed in their computer. I can call crime alnaysis and ask them to tell me which ones are close to the address in question. Anything in their computer that's 2,000 ft. or less I check out.
After you do your homework you basically know what to expect. Measure the shortest distances first. If nothing is less than 1,000 ft then the last step is a visual inspection of everything within 1,000 ft. just in case a new day care or school opened up that you weren't aware of.
A new day care or school can open up even after the SO moves in. That's why constant checks of the home by PO's and LE are conducted. The Sheriff's Office would also call me in a heartbeat if a new school opened up near one of my guys. So there's checks and balances.
It's possible to miss one or two. The 1,000 ft. rule is measured as a crow flies. It sounds easy to measure a straight line 1,000 ft. Sometimes it gets a little sticky when rivers, expressways, walls, and other pesky, bulky obstructions impede the process. Sometimes property lines don't seem clear either.
With as much time as it takes to enforce the 1,000 ft. rule with just the residence I am mind boggled that they actually passed the emplyment proximity rules in some states. How on earth can a SO know about surrounding day cares and schools if he bounces around at work?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132529)
Message 132562 (In Reply to Message 132558)
DP1 Question
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 03, 2004 11:59 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
DP1 - If an SO is living somewhere and a daycare opens close by does the SO then have to move? Does the agency that licenses daycares have to ensure there aren't any SO's within 1000 feet before issuing a license?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132558)
Message 132572 (In Reply to Message 132562)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 04, 2004 01:55 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Good question. The rule seems to be black and white. Just simply tell the SO to move, immediately.
Not all cases are that simple. Remember Mr. Pet-o-phile? Well, he lived out in the country because he raised (aka groomed) his pets on his property for his retail shop. One day, I was driving around and saw this huge sign advertisimg a family owned day care not too far from his home. I asked him about it the next day. He said that he bought his property 3 years ago and the day care opened a year later. He assumed the distance was 1,000 ft or better, because it was common knowledge he was a predator in the neighborhood, and the county never would have issued them a license to operate a day care. Because of the way the properties were located, you couldn't see the day care's property line from his. So of course, I thought it was no big deal.
Well a few weeks later, I rode by again and saw the owner of the day care outside. I asked her if I could take a look at her property line in the back. Her property was 3 times deeper than I thought. I measure 575 ft. from her property line to his. Needless to say, Mr. Pet-o-phile was not pleased at all.
There was no way I could just kick him out knowing full well his entire property was sorta like Michael Jackson's...weird critters and animals, but I also know both he and I would be in big legal trouble if something wasn't done to resolve the situation.
I did some research on both properties and was able to prove he bought his first. I interviewed the day care owner and she knew he lived there, but she thought he lived over 1,000 ft from her. She had no complaints about the situation. I called the Day care licensing people (county) and believe it or not, there is nothing stopping someone from opening a day care 1,000 ft. from a SO.
Clearly, this guy was not purposely violating the 1,000 ft. rule. I sent a memo down to the Court explaining the predicament. The Judge modified the 1,000 ft. to 500 ft. rule so now Mr. Pet-o-phile was in compliance. I was surprised at the Court ruling, but nevertheless it appeared to be the only fair thing to do.
Not all cases are this sticky. Both parties here owned their homes and conducted business out of their homes. A SO who buys property in a rural area purposely to get away from schools and day cares can’t possibly be in willful violation of his probation if the only day care in his zip code happens to open a year later just 575 feet away.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132562)
Message 132573 (In Reply to Message 132547)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 04, 2004 01:56 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
That's my point exactly.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132547)
Message 132587 (In Reply to Message 132572)
DP1 - comment
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 04, 2004 04:26 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"I did some research on both properties and was able to prove he bought his first. I interviewed the day care owner and she knew he lived there, but she thought he lived over 1,000 ft from her. She had no complaints about the situation. I called the Day care licensing people (county) and believe it or not, there is nothing stopping someone from opening a day care 1,000 ft. from a SO. "
I'd like to see a law passed that restricts the opening of a child care facility within 1000 feet of a SO's residence. I mean the thought of these people reestablishing themselves and progressing in rehabilitaiton then being tossed out because someone opens Kiddy Kare around the corner isn't right. Sure they committed a crime but there has to be a line drawn somewhere... .and it isnt 1000 feet.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132572)
Message 132595 (In Reply to Message 132587)
SIlver
Posted by dp1
on May 04, 2004 11:20 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I gave the same thing a lot of thought. I couldn't believe she opened the day care, anyway. I guess they figued DOC would handle it and make him move. Anyway, a law preventing a day care from opening near SO sounds good, but is it really fair to the person wanting to open the day care? Realistically, anyone who used that day care should have known it was next to a sex pred, isn't that what the registry is for?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132587)
Message 132597 (In Reply to Message 132595)
Fair to Whom?
Posted by TGoodman
on May 04, 2004 12:37 PM | Also by TGoodman
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Kansas,
Country: United States |
Anyway, a law preventing a day care from opening near SO sounds good, but is it really fair to the person wanting to open the day care? Realistically, anyone who used that day care should have known it was next to a sex pred, isn't that what the registry is for?
Fair to the person opening the day care??? If both parties own their property...how is it fair that the SO should move? Realistically, the kiddy kare owner should do research on SO's on the registry in that area BEFORE opening the business...isn't that what the registry is for?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132595)
Message 132598 (In Reply to Message 132597)
Posted by dp1
on May 04, 2004 01:12 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
The Day Care Lady knew exactly who the sex offenders were in her neighborhood. Actually, when she opened it she had two right next to her and she opened the Day Care, anyway.
I believed she used poor judgement, but who am I to judge? The other sex offender is off supervision so it never affected him and my guy was modified so he didn't have to move. I thought the outcome was fair, no?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132597)
Message 132620 (In Reply to Message 132212)
DP1 - Daycare licensing
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 04, 2004 04:23 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
" I couldn't believe she opened the day care, anyway. I guess they figued DOC would handle it and make him move. Anyway, a law preventing a day care from opening near SO sounds good, but is it really fair to the person wanting to open the day care? Realistically, anyone who used that day care should have known it was next to a sex pred, isn't that what the registry is for?"
DP1. There are alot of laws regulating what business can go where. I don't view it in terms of "fair and unfair". For example I couldn't open a bar in my backyard. It's illegal. Why? Because its not commercial zoning.
Most daycares seem to be in peoples homes. I see no problem with having a law restricting them from opening within 1000 feet of an SO's home. Considering some states are now looking at laws like this for all SO's (including those off probation) regardless of how long they've lived there I think it's gone way to far. The courts will toss this out but in the meantime real SO's who are progressing in treatment and reintegration into society are being hurt. It has to stop.
Silverthorne
(I continued this thread here because I hate the way threads wrap right and get cut off in the margin)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132212)
Message 132629 (In Reply to Message 132620)
Off-topic about indentation of threaded view
Posted by steve
on May 04, 2004 08:02 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
(I continued this thread here because I hate the way threads wrap right and get cut off in the margin)
I don't like it either. If anyone has any ideas for how I can handle this without losing the ability to see which posts are replies to what let me know via Private Message.or the Off-Topic forum. I don't care how silly you think your idea might be - share it. If you can point me to any other forums which have a good way of handling this situation that would be great too. The only real constraint is I do not want to increase the width of the main column of the forum pages because I want to avoid any horizontal scrolling being required to read messages using a browser resolution of 800x600 or higher.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132620)
Message 132634 (In Reply to Message 132598)
But What IF???
Posted by TGoodman
on May 04, 2004 10:42 PM | Also by TGoodman
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Kansas,
Country: United States |
They were still on probation and she opened her day care center AFTER they moved into the area? Would the probationer be told he had to move???? That isn't fair to him or his family.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132598)
Message 132643 (In Reply to Message 132634)
TG
Posted by dp1
on May 05, 2004 02:08 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Both sex offenders owned their property before she the day care lady even moved their. One SO was on supervision the other was not. They are both registered and both live less than 1,000 ft away.
Yes and she opened her day care, anyway.
We are not talking about low lifes that rent. These are expensive homes that they all owned.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132634)
Message 132646 (In Reply to Message 132620)
SIlver
Posted by dp1
on May 05, 2004 02:23 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So the motivation for a law prohibiting day cares from opening within 1,000 feet would be based on protecting the SO not the children?
I'll be honest with you. I looked at this situation from every possible perspective. There's basically three points of view. 1. SO, 2. Day care & 3. children.
I agree 100% with you from the SO perspective. Now, take a look at the other 2 and tell me what you think.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132620)
Message 132647 (In Reply to Message 132546)
GA Law Only Truly Affects People NOT on Probation/Parole
Posted by exoffender1
on May 05, 2004 02:27 AM | Also by exoffender1
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
I guess what I wonder is how can they legally limit the movements of people who aren't under court supervision.
They can "legally" do it because moronic, immoral, criminal legislators wrote a law that said they can do it. And of course they do not have to justify in any way that it makes any sense. But it is only legal until courts with infinitely more intelligence reverse it.
The interesting thing about the law in Georgia is that it only truly affects people who have already fully repaid their debt to society. The residence of a person on probation/parole could already be controlled by the DOC. So basically the law is aimed at the only people that they couldn't control.
The other thing that it did do also is take away some of the probation/parole officers' discretion and control. They are now no longer able to tailor approved residences to their "clients". That makes complete sense (in Registry Fantasy Land) - remove all individual control from the people who are right up next to the problem and have the most knowledge about it and put it in the hands of legislators who can apply the exact same solution to everyone. The same legislators that have proven again and again that they don't have enough backbone or sense to even handle themselves.
I have written about this law on these forums before and specifically about one RFSO that I know who has completely defeated any purpose of this law. I am directly helping some of the people mentioned in this news article. I also am doing my part to defeat any purpose of the law by purchasing a house across the street from a high school. I've been somewhat looking for a house like that since this law was enacted but my desire to finally buy one has risen exponentially. The more articles I see like this one, the more I hear about proximity, etc. laws on these forums, and the more hate sent my way only strengthens my resolve to make these laws have the opposite effects intended.
I truly believe that RFSOs are going to become like more and more like other persecuted groups have in the past. The persecution is going to make them very strong and very resolute. They will attack the persecutors more and more. I've influenced quite a number of people to attack and I'm about to start trial attempts at contacting RFSOs in mass. The legislators and anyone else can bring it on. I will stay ahead.
exoffender1
RFSO non-citizen
Here's the address to GA's proximity law: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=42-1-13.
Note the areas prohibited are:
(1) 'Area where minors congregate' shall include all public and private parks and recreation facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums, and similar facilities providing programs or services directed towards persons under 18 years of age.
(2) 'Child care facility' shall mean all public and private pre-kindergarten facilities, day-care centers, and preschool facilities.
(3) 'School' shall mean all public and private kindergarten, elementary, and secondary schools.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132546)
Message 132673 (In Reply to Message 132646)
DP1
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 05, 2004 09:33 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"I agree 100% with you from the SO perspective. Now, take a look at the other 2 and tell me what you think."
Doesn't matter. They wouldnt let a daycare open up at a nuclear plant either because there is a danger. Just because a perceived danger is near doesnt mean it can be ignored.
If I bought a house at the end of a runway I couldn't then expect the airport to move because I MAY be hit by a crashing plane. It woudn't be fair to the airport. Even though the airport is the one with the plane.
If you try to make it "SO vs WORLD" everytime the SO will lose. The point is why make it that way? If they're going to have these laws they need to apply them in a fashion that's just and fair.
Tell me this. Do you think its fair for someone who owned his home 20 years to be forced to move because someone bought a house next door last month and is opening a daycare?
Thats the real dilema. With some of these states saying "it doesnt matter how long" there are some real problems. The courts will toss the laws out. My concern is what happens in the meantime.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132646)
Message 132676 (In Reply to Message 132673)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 05, 2004 12:54 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Do you think its fair for someone who owned his home 20 years to be forced to move because someone bought a house next door last month and is opening a daycare?
No it isn't fair at all. It's downright mean if you ask me. Maybe there should be laws protecting the homeowners. I don't think every SO should be protected, but certainly the homeowner should be.
We all know some SO aren't accepted very well in the community. I have a guy who moved 18 times the first year. So in a case like that I don't think his presence should affect whether or not a homeowner could open a day care. He's temporary.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132673)
Message 132734 (In Reply to Message 132491)
Posted by Valerie
on May 06, 2004 01:01 AM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I have a predator 600 feet as the crow flys, to a nursery school he is not under any community control so it doesnt effect him. But thru his PO I found out he was rearrested in Jan 04 and his paperwork just got lost in the system. So he can kiss his mothers abode goodbye when I get done with him.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132491)
Message 132766 (In Reply to Message 132676)
DP1 - another question
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 06, 2004 08:17 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"We all know some SO aren't accepted very well in the community. I have a guy who moved 18 times the first year. "
Why did he move so often? We're people harrassing him? If so were they criminally charged?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132676)
Message 132772 (In Reply to Message 132766)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 06, 2004 12:56 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
No they weren't criminally charged. They didn't do anything criminal. They just bugged the hell out of him till he decided on his own to move on.
Funny, a couple days ago he said that his landlord was having problems with another tenant. The tenant started saying bad things about sex offenders for no apparent reason. My guy was worried that someone might call the probation office and make a complaint. Just joking around, I told him the easiest thing to do is to just move....since he did it 18 times before then 19 shouldn't be a big deal, He's got it down pat now.
It's just one more crises he'll have to deal with then register in 48 hours. As the world turns.......................
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132766)
Message 132802 (In Reply to Message 132734)
But what if?
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 06, 2004 10:20 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"I have a predator 600 feet as the crow flys, to a nursery school he is not under any community control so it doesnt effect him. But thru his PO I found out he was rearrested in Jan 04 and his paperwork just got lost in the system. So he can kiss his mothers abode goodbye when I get done with him."
What if he isn't found guilty of a new crime? He'll be back with no restrictions. Like it or not Valerie the federal courts (Iowa case) have already ruled these living proximity laws are unconstitutional when used on people already off supervision.
Also, crow flies shouldn't matter. Actual travel distance should matter. Someone living across a river thats 700 feet wide with no bridges for 50 miles (like some places in Missouri) is alot less of a danger then someone 1100 feet just down the street right?
Maybe they need to add an "actual travel distance" into the proximity laws for common sense's sake.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132734)
Message 132803 (In Reply to Message 132772)
A new crime?
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 06, 2004 10:23 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"They just bugged the hell out of him till he decided on his own to move on. "
Well if just living somewhere is a crime for an SO (proximity laws) maybe ANY harrassment of an SO should be a crime? That is any harrassment steming from their status as an SO and being on the registry.
If the registry is really about public safety and protection there shouldn't be any problem with this right?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132772)
Message 132807 (In Reply to Message 132802)
Posted by steve
on May 06, 2004 10:41 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Like it or not Valerie the federal courts (Iowa case) have already ruled these living proximity laws are unconstitutional when used on people already off supervision.
If I remember right the judge's decision had nothing to do with whether the sex offender was on or off supervision. As was discussed in the last few days, there are a number of states which have a proximity requirement for offenders regardless of whether they're on probation/parole. I think orolan listed some or all of the states. That judge is but one man - I'd hardly say that his decision is a signal of the end of proximity laws.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132802)
Message 132820 (In Reply to Message 132803)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 07, 2004 12:24 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
If the people didn't break a law, i.e. shoot him, slap him, or whatever, I don't see a problem. What is the problem? You don't like it when people don't accept child molesters in their neighborhoods? I don't see a problem with that. If a child molester moved next to me you bet I'd have a lot to say about it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132803)
Message 132823 (In Reply to Message 132807)
Being appealed?
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 07, 2004 12:31 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Your right Steve I'm wrong. Still I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the appeals court affirm the lower courts decision. You can't dictate living arrangements when these people are off supervision. Heck in the Iowa case they said you couldn't do it for people ON supervision of a lower level.
I'll find an article about the exact ruling. It was pretty clear.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132807)
Message 132824 (In Reply to Message 132820)
Defeating the purpose
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 07, 2004 12:35 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"If the people didn't break a law, i.e. shoot him, slap him, or whatever, I don't see a problem. What is the problem? You don't like it when people don't accept child molesters in their neighborhoods? I don't see a problem with that. If a child molester moved next to me you bet I'd have a lot to say about it."
Well the registry is in place to give people information to protect thier children and themselves. As I recall thats the ONLY reason for it. Not to have a "bully list" of people you can harrass in your neighborhood. I don't accept alot of different types of people in my neighborhood but they're here and I live with it. Thats life. If I don't like it I can try somehow to get them to leave but not to thier face. I can complain to the homeowners association or something.
Harrassment is akin to stalking and a crime. Perhaps this SO needs to charge some of these guys with stalking? Let them prove they aren't? Heck get a pocket tape recorder and go to town.
One other question. Was the harrassment threatening in any way? Did they threaten him with harm? Did they use the phone and make anonymous threats? All those things are crimes.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132820)
Message 132825 (In Reply to Message 132823)
Appeal article
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 07, 2004 12:41 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
Heres an article on the appeal. IT was a state court not federal. Still I dont expect the Iowa supreme court to overturn the judge. He is right.
http://www.press-citizen.com/news/040104challenge.htm
The article does mention there was a federal court that also struck down this law. So its been struck down by two different courts.
"Johnson County Attorney J. Patrick White, who was named as a defendant in the federal lawsuit filed by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, has declined to comment on the legal snags because the matter still is pending. White has publicly denounced the statute as "Draconian" with "serious constitutional problems.""
Even the county attorney in the case (who was sued) is saying its a bad law. That doesnt happen to often does it? Where even the legal guys are against it.
Still this court justice was a bit off the mark here.
""There is no logical connection between the residency restriction that's imposed by the state and the goal that it seeks to achieve which is the safety of children," he said.
Justice Marsha Ternus challenged that assertion.
"You don't think that a person who lives across the street from a school has more opportunity just by common sense than somebody who lives a half a mile away?" she said."
Common sense would say about 99% of sex offenders are not the "stranger danger" types eh justice Ternus? They might also say common sense indicates most sex offenders can walk 1000 feet to find a victim? So who is this law really protecting at all?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132823)
Message 132827 (In Reply to Message 132824)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 07, 2004 02:18 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
There were no laws broken in this case. There's no question that harassing, stalking and threatening with bodily harm are crimes. But, if people in the neighborhood don't cross that line then what's the problem? You can't force people to like each other.
In this guy's case it was his decision to move out because he didn't want things to develop into a situation where crimes might be committed against him. He had the choice. I don't blame him for moving around till he found a place that would accept him.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132824)
Message 132855 (In Reply to Message 132827)
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 07, 2004 06:26 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"There were no laws broken in this case. There's no question that harassing, stalking and threatening with bodily harm are crimes. But, if people in the neighborhood don't cross that line then what's the problem? You can't force people to like each other.
In this guy's case it was his decision to move out because he didn't want things to develop into a situation where crimes might be committed against him. He had the choice. I don't blame him for moving around till he found a place that would accept him."
Actually this is exactly what I'm talking about. He was afraid and thats why he moved. Even if it didnt appear to be a threat he perceived a threat.
Its true you can't make people like you but you CAN also expect to be left alone. I don't like my next door neighbor, he complains about my dog barking (when he doesnt its the dog across the street). I have a little dog, this thing sounds like 300 pound wolf. Yet he blames my little dog (who is really quiet). Thats as far as it goes. Do I call him a "senile old man" whenever I see him in the driveway? No of course not. Do I call the DMV and suggest he be checked for driving because he's old and confused? No I dont.
Contrary to popular belief people don't have the right to harrass other people. More and more we're seeing schools sued because kids are being picked on by bullies. Its a real problem and people who can't control thier emotions and attitude should be forced to.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132827)
Message 132858 (In Reply to Message 132855)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 07, 2004 06:38 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I hear what you are saying. I don't personally harass people nor do I promote those attitudes. But, people are people. Child molesters will never be accepted IMO. They aren't accepted in jails or prisons. What makes you think they ever would in society? Makes no sense. Hurting the young goes against the normal person's grain. I am not suggesting that they should be treated unfairly. But, it's not realistic to not expect hate. It's better to find out up front that you aren't accepted so you could move on and find a place you could be comfortable with.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132855)
Message 132923 (In Reply to Message 132858)
Agreed.... but......
Posted by Silverthorne
on May 08, 2004 01:10 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"I hear what you are saying. I don't personally harass people nor do I promote those attitudes. But, people are people. Child molesters will never be accepted IMO. They aren't accepted in jails or prisons. What makes you think they ever would in society? Makes no sense. "
At least before they had a chance. Now it seems they don't. I like the idea that people can find out if people in their lives are SO's I really do. My problem is the guy down the street with no kids who has nothing to do with the SO finding out. He doesn't need to know.
Back to my SO KIOSK ideas for the police stations. You could go checkout the people in your kids life or even your neighborhood but you'd have to "sign in" and they could track on the kiosk everyone you looked up. That way if something did happen to the SO they would have a quick "short list" of some people to look at. Just as the SO registry now provides a "short list" when a crime is committed.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132858)
Message 132931 (In Reply to Message 132923)
Silver
Posted by dp1
on May 08, 2004 01:55 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I'd be in favor of tracking the SO more frequently.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132923)
Message 133093 (In Reply to Message 132520)
School / Day Care Registry
Posted by Navigatr1
on May 10, 2004 03:41 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I have said this before, there needs to be a school / day care registry complete with addresses and mapping functions accessible by the general public -- especially if a state is going to have proximity laws. I know Washington State requires all day cares to register with the state, so it would be easy to have such a registry. Does Florida require day cares to register with the state dp1? Home schools should be included on this registry too since some people who home school are trying to claim proximity status. The day care registries should also include any violations that day care has for the benefit of parents checking out day cares. All employees of the day care would be on the registry under that day care complete with their criminal records posted. The same thing should be done with school employees and parents home schooling too. After all, this is just posting public information.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132520)
Message 133094 (In Reply to Message 132547)
Grants
Posted by Navigatr1
on May 10, 2004 03:44 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
There are grants available to law enforcement that I am sure can be used for this type of thing should a police department apply for it. That is what Lee County in Florida is doing to "verify" sex offender addresses.
--Navigatr1
CopWatch.com News Moderator
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132547)
Message 133219 (In Reply to Message 132858)
Posted by scarlett
on May 11, 2004 10:30 PM | Also by scarlett
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
DP1 wrote:
"It's better to find out up front that you aren't accepted so you could move on and find a place you could be comfortable with".
Could you let Fallen One know where this place is. Also maybe we should tell that to the jews and the palestinians too while we are at it.
Scarlett~
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132858)
Message 133586 (In Reply to Message 133219)
Too Bad for the Whiners
Posted by exoffender1
on May 14, 2004 03:30 AM | Also by exoffender1
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Georgia,
Country: United States |
DP1 wrote:
"It's better to find out up front that you aren't accepted so you could move on and find a place you could be comfortable with".
Yeah, I got a laugh out of that statement too. The statement right before that was "But, it's not realistic to not expect hate". There is absolutely no reason for anyone to "move on". As a Registered former offender I'm not the one who is uncomfortable. The whining haters are the ones who are uncomfortable. I personally have found that these people are a small minority, most people are good and decent. The "haters" aren't worth the air they breathe. That is one very good thing about the Registries - it lets former offenders and others learn which people aren't worth knowing. I go out of my way to antagonize them. They deserve it and I enjoy it.
Recently, I heard some of my neighbors were complaining that because of me they didn't enjoy their homes while they lived here and now they can't sell them. One house has been on the market for over four months. Too funny. If they support the Registries they deserve every bit of its benefits. I'm totally comfortable with that.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (133219)
Message 133619 (In Reply to Message 132643)
DP1
Posted by lj
on May 14, 2004 11:16 AM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
We are not talking about low lifes that rent.
I'm going to presume here that you are not implying that people who choose to rent over buying a home are low lifes.
I prefer renting over home ownership for quite a few reasons. And how many people actually do own their homes? It's usually the bank that has more ownership of the home than the people paying their mortgage payment each month.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (132643)
Message 133702 (In Reply to Message 133619)
LJ
Posted by dp1
on May 15, 2004 01:58 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
My apologies. I didn't mean to offend renters. There's plenty of fine examples of low life owners in this world too.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (133619)
Message 133703 (In Reply to Message 133702)
DP1
Posted by lj
on May 15, 2004 02:04 AM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
No problem, DP1--I can now quit humming that song with the lyrics, "hurried romance--low rent rendezvous."
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (133702)
Thread
132212, admin, Apr 30, 2004 07:47 PM [Introduction]
132387, orolan, May 02, 2004 03:10 PM
132420, Silverthorne, May 02, 2004 06:24 PM [Rules like this]
132485, dp1, May 03, 2004 02:34 AM [Orolan]
132491, TGoodman, May 03, 2004 03:50 AM [So...]
132511, dp1, May 03, 2004 01:39 PM [GT]
132734, Valerie, May 06, 2004 01:01 AM
132802, Silverthorne, May 06, 2004 10:20 PM [But what if?]
132807, steve, May 06, 2004 10:41 PM
132823, Silverthorne, May 07, 2004 12:31 AM [Being appealed?]
132825, Silverthorne, May 07, 2004 12:41 AM [Appeal article]
132495, Silverthorne, May 03, 2004 06:29 AM [Question]
132512, dp1, May 03, 2004 01:40 PM
132514, steve, May 03, 2004 01:59 PM
132519, orolan, May 03, 2004 04:02 PM [Mr. Research to the rescue]
132520, dp1, May 03, 2004 05:14 PM [Mr. Research]
132529, steve, May 03, 2004 07:06 PM
132558, dp1, May 03, 2004 11:45 PM [Steve]
132562, Silverthorne, May 03, 2004 11:59 PM [DP1 Question]
132572, dp1, May 04, 2004 01:55 AM [Silver]
132587, Silverthorne, May 04, 2004 04:26 AM [DP1 - comment]
132595, dp1, May 04, 2004 11:20 AM [SIlver]
132597, TGoodman, May 04, 2004 12:37 PM [Fair to...]
132598, dp1, May 04, 2004 01:12 PM
132634, TGoodman, May 04, 2004 10:42 PM [B...]
132643, dp1, May 05, 2004 02:08 AM [TG]
133619, lj, May 14, 2004 11:16 AM [DP1]
133702, dp1, May 15, 2004 01:58 AM [...]
133703, lj, May 15, 2004 02:04 AM [...]
132547, Silverthorne, May 03, 2004 08:44 PM [Unenforcable]
132573, dp1, May 04, 2004 01:56 AM [Silver]
133094, Navigatr1, May 10, 2004 03:44 PM [Grants]
133093, Navigatr1, May 10, 2004 03:41 PM [School / Day Care Registry]
132546, Silverthorne, May 03, 2004 08:43 PM [How can they do this?]
132647, exoffender1, May 05, 2004 02:27 AM [GA Law Only Truly Affec...]
132528, fallenone, May 03, 2004 06:29 PM
132545, Silverthorne, May 03, 2004 08:42 PM [Arizona clusters]
132501, lj, May 03, 2004 10:56 AM
132513, dp1, May 03, 2004 01:44 PM [LJ]
132556, lj, May 03, 2004 11:33 PM
132620, Silverthorne, May 04, 2004 04:23 PM [DP1 - Daycare licensing]
132629, steve, May 04, 2004 08:02 PM [Off-topic about indentation of threaded view]
132646, dp1, May 05, 2004 02:23 AM [SIlver]
132673, Silverthorne, May 05, 2004 09:33 AM [DP1]
132676, dp1, May 05, 2004 12:54 PM [Silver]
132766, Silverthorne, May 06, 2004 08:17 AM [DP1 - another question]
132772, dp1, May 06, 2004 12:56 PM [Silver]
132803, Silverthorne, May 06, 2004 10:23 PM [A new crime?]
132820, dp1, May 07, 2004 12:24 AM [Silver]
132824, Silverthorne, May 07, 2004 12:35 AM [Defeating the pu...]
132827, dp1, May 07, 2004 02:18 AM [Silver]
132855, Silverthorne, May 07, 2004 06:26 AM
132858, dp1, May 07, 2004 06:38 AM [Silver]
132923, Silverthorne, May 08, 2004 01:10 AM [Agr...]
132931, dp1, May 08, 2004 01:55 AM [Silver]
133219, scarlett, May 11, 2004 10:30 PM
133586, exoffender1, May 14, 2004 03:30 AM [T...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
