Ga. Court Nixes Sex Offender Restrictions

New Posts

B

bakerprune64

Former Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
8
Georgia's top court overturned a state law Wednesday that banned registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate.

"It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected," read the unanimous opinion, written by presiding Justice Carol Hunstein.

The law had been targeted by civil rights groups who argued it would render vast residential areas off-limits to Georgia's roughly 11,000 registered sex offenders and could backfire by encouraging offenders to stop reporting their whereabouts to authorities.

More at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/21/national/main3530515.shtml

Let them live in a six foot deep hole! what about the rights of the children that they have harmed! What about the rights of the children they WILL HARM!:razz: Makes me screaming mad.
 
In many cases, I have no problem with keeping child molesters in jail a lot longer than we do. But once they get out, they have to live somewhere.

And in this day when everyone has a car, what difference does it make if they sleep near an empty school?
 
Nova said:
In many cases, I have no problem with keeping child molesters in jail a lot longer than we do. But once they get out, they have to live somewhere.

And in this day when everyone has a car, what difference does it make if they sleep near an empty school?
Click to expand...

Yes Nova, the key word here EMPTY. As far as them not having a place to go when they get out...maybe they should have thought about how the lives of their victims and their won, would be affected. I could care less if they all live under bridges like the trolls they are, as long as they stay far, far away from children.
 
Reminds me of the Tom Petty lyrics "Everybody got the right to be free". No! I hate to say this, but as Nova pointed out they got wheels. I've seen neighbors in a rage after they typed in our Zipcode and freaked out because a sex offender is in the neighborhood. Meanwhile they don't have a clue where their 8 year old is. I remind them there's still those who have yet to offend. You got the creeps that have been molesting children for decades and have never been caught. The guys in another Zipcode have a car. Go on the assumption for every offender ya see on the website there's a ton more out there.
 
bakerprune64 said:
Yes Nova, the key word here EMPTY. As far as them not having a place to go when they get out...maybe they should have thought about how the lives of their victims and their won, would be affected. I could care less if they all live under bridges like the trolls they are, as long as they stay far, far away from children.
Click to expand...

By "empty," I meant at night, when students are not at school. My point was whether or not an s.o. lives near a school, s/he can still get to one by car during the day very easily. If s/he sleeps near a school at night, so what?

I can see the advantage of keeping habitual child molesters away from temptation, but does making them live 1,000 yards from a school really do that? I doubt it.
 
Filly said:
Reminds me of the Tom Petty lyrics "Everybody got the right to be free". No! I hate to say this, but as Nova pointed out they got wheels. I've seen neighbors in a rage after they typed in our Zipcode and freaked out because a sex offender is in the neighborhood. Meanwhile they don't have a clue where their 8 year old is. I remind them there's still those who have yet to offend. You got the creeps that have been molesting children for decades and have never been caught. The guys in another Zipcode have a car. Go on the assumption for every offender ya see on the website there's a ton more out there.
Click to expand...

I hope you'll forgive a personal remark, Filly, but given the personal history you've discussed elsewhere, your thoughts on this subject are a model of reason.

I completely agree here. The s.o. registry may well provide a false sense of security.
 
If they're let out of jail, we have give them reasonable restrictions, and this seems to me a clearly unreasonable one.

Not to mention - I'd bet, like most states, some of those 'registered sex offenders' are not what we are thinking of - a 18 dating a 17 year old, public urination, all the crimes that really shouldn't be up to the level of having this type of restriction put on your life.
 
Nova said:
I hope you'll forgive a personal remark, Filly, but given the personal history you've discussed elsewhere, your thoughts on this subject are a model of reason.

I completely agree here. The s.o. registry may well provide a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

Oh that's fine, Nova. You've taken the words right out of my mouth. I actually spoke about this at a crisis center that helped me immensely. There is a need for the registry absolutely, but I see too many people who want to use it just to vent yet they leave their children run the streets for hours and finally put their head out the door and freak out when they can't find them. God forbid something happened it'd be hours before they know these kids are missing. Just my experience anyway. Then again I'm dubbed the overprotective mom. I know how quickly your entire life can be altered so I pay no mind to what they think.
 
Details said:
If they're let out of jail, we have give them reasonable restrictions, and this seems to me a clearly unreasonable one.

Not to mention - I'd bet, like most states, some of those 'registered sex offenders' are not what we are thinking of - a 18 dating a 17 year old, public urination, all the crimes that really shouldn't be up to the level of having this type of restriction put on your life.
Click to expand...

You know it.
 
Filly said:
Oh that's fine, Nova. You've taken the words right out of my mouth. I actually spoke about this at a crisis center that helped me immensely. There is a need for the registry absolutely, but I see too many people who want to use it just to vent yet they leave their children run the streets for hours and finally put their head out the door and freak out when they can't find them. God forbid something happened it'd be hours before they know these kids are missing. Just my experience anyway. Then again I'm dubbed the overprotective mom. I know how quickly your entire life can be altered so I pay no mind to what they think.
Click to expand...

I doubt you're really over-protective, but if you are, so be it. That's far better for a child than the alternative.
 
Will this is just great to know, since I live in GA and have 2 sweet babies, ages 8 and 10, and 2 step-daughters ages 8 and 13.
I am so sick of these SO's, they don't deserve ANY rights, IMO, and these innocent kids deserve all the protection we can give them. An SO with free will to live wherever is just ASKING for trouble, IMO.
 
White Rain said:
Will this is just great to know, since I live in GA and have 2 sweet babies, ages 8 and 10, and 2 step-daughters ages 8 and 13.
I am so sick of these SO's, they don't deserve ANY rights, IMO, and these innocent kids deserve all the protection we can give them. An SO with free will to live wherever is just ASKING for trouble, IMO.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest?
 
Nova said:
What do you suggest?
Click to expand...


I suggest DEATH for all SO's, but I guess that'll never pass. I really don't know what to suggest....I don't think they need to be living anywhere near kids, where they have a MUCH BETTER advantage, but at the same time even IF I knew they couldn't live nearby I still would not feel comfortable with my kids playing outside alone.
I don't know WHAT I want...I just know I don't want them nearby and don't want kids coming across one, and yes, I know they can do that whether an SO lives nearby or not.
 
I think it's time for the US to start sorting out one sex offender from another. It's one thing for some 14 year old with bad judgment to moon people from the back of a bus and quite another for a SO to rape a child. One should receive some therapy about being childish and immature, the other should be locked up for life. But you can't slap an SO label on both and punish them the same way.
 
Filly said:
Oh that's fine, Nova. You've taken the words right out of my mouth. I actually spoke about this at a crisis center that helped me immensely. There is a need for the registry absolutely, but I see too many people who want to use it just to vent yet they leave their children run the streets for hours and finally put their head out the door and freak out when they can't find them. God forbid something happened it'd be hours before they know these kids are missing. Just my experience anyway. Then again I'm dubbed the overprotective mom. I know how quickly your entire life can be altered so I pay no mind to what they think.
Click to expand...

They are abhorrent and inflammatory cases but, the abduction, rape, and killing of children by strangers is very, very rare based on any source of statistics available. However, such incidents receive a lot of media coverage, leading the public to overestimate how common these cases are leading to laws such as this one.

The vast majority of sexually abused children are not victims of convicted sex offenders nor Internet pornographers, or whatever is the media story du jour and the percentage of sex offenders who re-offend once released is minimal. It's a myth propagated by sensationalist media crusaders and internet bulletin boards.

One tragic result of these myths is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from a far greater threat to children: parental abuse and neglect. The vast majority of crimes against children (90%) are committed not by released sex offenders, but instead by the victim's own family, church clergy, and family friends.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, "based on what we know about those who harm children, the danger to children is far greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger."

If lawmakers and the public, including those "venting on the internet" were serious about wanting to protect children, they wouldn't be misled by "stranger danger" myths and instead focus their time and energy on the much larger threat ... inside the home.
 
Gonzo is right. And I completely agree with everything Nova has posted.
 
White Rain said:
I suggest DEATH for all SO's, but I guess that'll never pass. I really don't know what to suggest....I don't think they need to be living anywhere near kids, where they have a MUCH BETTER advantage, but at the same time even IF I knew they couldn't live nearby I still would not feel comfortable with my kids playing outside alone.
I don't know WHAT I want...I just know I don't want them nearby and don't want kids coming across one, and yes, I know they can do that whether an SO lives nearby or not.
Click to expand...

Really? Even the 20 year old who had a 6 month long ongoing consensual relationship with a 16yo (whom he believed to be 18)??? Even her mother knew about the relationship - he moved in with them briefly - and also lied about the girl's age. When they broke up, they pressed charges. And even though both mother and daughter admitted all of the above to be true, the young man spent something like 1 year in the Fulton County jail and 3 months in a half-way house, and will spend the rest of his life on the SO registry.

Right here in the great state of GA.

He is living with his parents now, helping take care of his mom who has MS and going from job to job as people find out about his status. The neighborhood outcry, luckily, got straightened out after one person went straight to his parole officer for the whole story. She told the rest of the neighbors so they would relax a little bit and quit making these people miserable who have been perfectly good neighbors for over 10 years. But jobs are tough to keep b/c virtually every job has some sort of contact with kids or families, or near kids' places.

I have three little ones and I'm with you on cracking down on the pedos. But CaliKid is right that the registry is so clogged up right now that it isn't helpful at all. There needs to be a better system before you make rules like this.

And what are we going to do with a bunch of homeless pervs??? Is that really better than the majority of them getting their lives together, being where we can find them, and trying to start a normal life?

I think a little common sense finally held sway in the GA legislature. Unfortunately, it's not all that common.
 
angelmom said:
Really? Even the 20 year old who had a 6 month long ongoing consensual relationship with a 16yo (whom he believed to be 18)???....
Click to expand...

White Rain hasn't authorized me to speak for her, but I don't think that's what she meant. Here in the same thread, some of us are using s.o. in the legal sense, which includes all sorts of silly offenses which shouldn't stigmatize the offender for life.

But others are using s.o. to mean actual child rapists only. I'm pretty sure that's what White Rain meant. (I don't agree with capital punishment in any case, but in fairness to Rain, she wasn't calling for the execution of kids who pee behind bushes.)
 
My opinion may be unpopular, but I totally agree with the Court's decision in this matter. This was a common sense decision. The law, as written, literally made it impossible for these people to live anywhere.
 
Nova said:
White Rain hasn't authorized me to speak for her, but I don't think that's what she meant. Here in the same thread, some of us are using s.o. in the legal sense, which includes all sorts of silly offenses which shouldn't stigmatize the offender for life.

But others are using s.o. to mean actual child rapists only. I'm pretty sure that's what White Rain meant. (I don't agree with capital punishment in any case, but in fairness to Rain, she wasn't calling for the execution of kids who pee behind bushes.)
Click to expand...

I really do understand that. But by bolding that statement I wanted to make everyone take a step back from the emotions and to highlight part of the problem with this registry. How do we define a sex offender?

ETA: I used an extreme example, but there are a million shades of gray. If we just kill them all, who gets to decide where the line is?

And are they all (regardless of the definition) really deserving of instant death - no appeals, no mitigating circumstances, no nothing?

If that happens, then I'm thinking we live in Pakistan. Or someplace like that. I'll pass, even if it means I have to keep a closer eye on my kids, because one day my kids will be the grownups, and I don't want a false accusation to end in their death at the hands of a lynch mob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 1,330 (members: 83, guests: 1,247)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
1,247
Total visitors
1,330
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,785
Messages
17,958,870
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top