|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): child abusers - Re: depends
Message 118095
child abusers
Posted by x_kristen
on Oct 13, 2003 01:02 AM | Also by x_kristen
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
im to find outif i am right in thinking that it is illegal for a convicted child abuser to be around a child....specifically alone in their home...iknow its not good...but i mean legal wise...thanx
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 118099 (In Reply to Message 118095)
Re: child abusers
Posted by x_anti
on Oct 13, 2003 02:23 AM | Also by x_anti
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
leagl? of course not, but whatexactly do you mean?
anti
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118095)
Message 118105 (In Reply to Message 118095)
Re: child abusers
Posted by x_simon
on Oct 13, 2003 04:42 AM | Also by x_simon
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
It would depend on the state you're in and any laws that might apply.
For example, it is a crime in Washington state for a mother to leave her child in the care of a known sex offender. Note that the mother is breaking the law, not the sex offender. So the mother, under this state law, would go to jail.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118095)
Message 118107 (In Reply to Message 118095)
Depends
Posted by x_Silverthorne
on Oct 13, 2003 04:53 AM | Also by x_Silverthorne
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
It depends on the conditions of their probation. If theyre off probation there are no limits.
I guess I'd ask what kind of parent lets their kid hang out with a convicted child molester?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118095)
Message 118124 (In Reply to Message 118095)
depends
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 13, 2003 08:11 AM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Depends on his/her sentencing from the crime. Hell look at mothers and fathers that beat their children.. thats child abuse and social services is not quick to separate children from parents or even restrict these adults from other children.
That's what makes the sentencing of CSA such a joke.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118095)
Message 118137 (In Reply to Message 118095)
Re: child abusers
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 13, 2003 10:08 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Kristen,
Typically, such a restriction only applies when the offender is on probation, parole or some other supervision.
But stay tuned. Coming soon from a legislature near you will be new laws that prohibit such association even for those who have completed their sentences.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118095)
Message 118160 (In Reply to Message 118137)
Re: child abusers
Posted by x_Rob
on Oct 13, 2003 01:33 PM | Also by x_Rob
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Its interesting that you mention:
>But stay tuned. Coming soon from a legislature near you will be new laws that prohibit such association even for those who have completed their sentences.
The first attempt at a sex offender city ordinance for Albuerquerke (?? spelling ??) included a provision that, "Registered Sex Offenders" may not be around any children, the city defined "Alone" as:
"ALONE WITH A CHILD. When a Sex Offender is (1) present in the same room or in a vehicle with a Child other than their Ward or their own biological or legally adopted Child when no Responsible Adult is present or, (2) if outdoors, within a 30 yard radius of a Child other than their Ward or their own biological or legally adopted Child when no Responsible Adult is present within the radius. When the Sex Offender is in a public place, the Sex Offender may assume that another Adult is not another Sex Offender unless the other Adult is known to be a Sex Offender. A Sex Offender is not Alone With a Child if the Sex Offender is employed at a Place of Business and acting within the scope of employment when a Child enters or remains in the Place of Business in a room or other location where the public is allowed or may ordinarily be found conducting business. "
The entire ordinance was declared unconstitutional and is currently on appeal. In the meantime the city has again adopted another ordinance, without the above provision, because the judge in his first order specifically mentioned it as being unconstitutional.
I'm not sure why the city thinks, cutting out one provision makes the remainder constitutional, when the judge mentioned several other provision that were also unconstitutional and they are in the newer ordinace. Maybe the courts have no meaning to the city council.
Funny, in todays newspaper the Governor of New Mexico now says he is going to have the state hiring-firing laws changed because a tribunal ruled he was wrong for firing a registered sex offender from the state payroll (a transportation worker).
I don't know, it must be the water or something...
Rob
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118137)
Message 118170 (In Reply to Message 118160)
Re: child abusers
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 13, 2003 06:38 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"I don't know, it must be the water or something..."
Nope. Just a sure-fire way to win votes.
Note that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are convicted felons and thus are not allowed to vote. Remove this disability and you would see some drastic changes in the laws and the people who write them.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118160)
Message 118177 (In Reply to Message 118160)
Mayor Dimwit
Posted by x_Silverthorne
on Oct 13, 2003 07:22 PM | Also by x_Silverthorne
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
The mayor of Albuquerque is a nut case in my opinion. He's the one giving sex offenders a bus ticket out of town. As I recall one had his house burned down there last year after being highly publicized by the mayor himself.
He's pandering for votes thats all. Pathetic.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118160)
Message 118203 (In Reply to Message 118124)
Re: depends
Posted by x_anti
on Oct 14, 2003 02:16 AM | Also by x_anti
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
yes, very true hp, but I can tell you for a fact, in alot of states dfs is too quick actually to take kids, even kids that should stay w/ the parents, then they go to a foster home and get abused, yet the kids that need to be removed, seem not to.
until some horrible abuse happens, yes the system is at times a mess, as other things in this world.
anti
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118124)
Message 118220 (In Reply to Message 118203)
Re: depends
Posted by x_Silverthorne
on Oct 14, 2003 12:54 PM | Also by x_Silverthorne
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Well the pendulum here in Arizona has swung completely back again. For awhile we were "take kids to safety" but a few blown cases where kids were taken from innocent parents and it swung over to "leave kids in the home". Then we had something like 15 kids die in CFS charge last year and this years highly publicizded murders and "cage mom case" (I posted earlier about it) and they're once again talking about "kids first" which means they'll start yanking them out of the home right away again.
The real problem is money. These caseworkers are overworked, underpaid, stressed out and overwhelmed. They can't find the "middle ground" because they won't spend the money to find it.
I'm a die-hard Republican and believe in low taxes. However there are somethings you NEED to spend money on. Children is one of them.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118203)
Message 118235 (In Reply to Message 118220)
Re: depends
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 14, 2003 03:48 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"The real problem is money."
Doesn't the Federal Government still base a lot of CPS aid on the number of cases where children are removed from homes, as provided for under the Mondale Act? Essentially, if the state needs more money, the answer is to remove more kids from homes.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118220)
Message 118269 (In Reply to Message 118220)
Re: depends
Posted by x_anti
on Oct 15, 2003 09:46 AM | Also by x_anti
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
ahh, true silver, agree fully, you r right, ty, peace anti
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118220)
Thread
118095, x_kristen, Oct 13, 2003 01:02 AM [child abusers]
118099, x_anti, Oct 13, 2003 02:23 AM [Re: child abusers]
118105, x_simon, Oct 13, 2003 04:42 AM [Re: child abusers]
118107, x_Silverthorne, Oct 13, 2003 04:53 AM [Depends]
118124, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:11 AM [depends]
118203, x_anti, Oct 14, 2003 02:16 AM [Re: depends]
118220, x_Silverthorne, Oct 14, 2003 12:54 PM [Re: depends]
118235, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 03:48 PM [Re: depends]
118269, x_anti, Oct 15, 2003 09:46 AM [Re: depends]
118137, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:08 AM [Re: child abusers]
118160, x_Rob, Oct 13, 2003 01:33 PM [Re: child abusers]
118170, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 06:38 PM [Re: child abusers]
118177, x_Silverthorne, Oct 13, 2003 07:22 PM [Mayor Dimwit]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
