Ban on sex offenders in parks is upheld

This is and will always be illegal. To make make laws of any kind based on sex just makes the law makers look stupid. We already know the ones pushing these laws are.

These restrictions are just wrong. There is no logical reason to keep people out of a park. Parents should be in the park watching their children; not government making stupid ordinances to do it for them. Keeping this man out of the park is nothing more than being vengeful on the town's part. How far do we want government restrictions to go? Every freedom that is lost, no matter whether it's for an offender or not, brings us farther away from a democracy.

Purl wrote:

These restrictions are just wrong. There is no logical reason to keep people out of a park. Parents should be in the park watching their children; not government making stupid ordinances to do it for them. Keeping this man out of the park is nothing more than being vengeful on the town's part. How far do we want government restrictions to go? Every freedom that is lost, no matter whether it's for an offender or not, brings us farther away from a democracy.

Are you serious?

When I was a kid we used to walk to the park without our parents regularly. Why should children be denied the freedom to go to a safe place to play? You seem to think that the rights of perverts should take precedent over the rights of the kids.

Keith Richard Radford Jr wrote:

This is and will always be illegal. To make make laws of any kind based on sex just makes the law makers look stupid. We already know the ones pushing these laws are.

Are you kidding too?

How is this a law based on sex? This was a case brought against a law which would help prevent child abuse, at least in the parks in question.

But since you brought up the issue of laws based on sex, since the person who brought this particular lawsuit gets his kicks looking at chidren being sexually abused, it's obvious that that is his sexual bent. Do you not see a difference between a couple of homos getting busted for consensual sex in the bushes and someone who is potentially cruising for children?

I would normally agree with you about the freedom thing, but, this person is a convicted sex offender. If it has to do with children, it is protecting the children. He should have no access to any place kids are every alone or in an area that they play openly. He gave up his right when he committed the crime. From seeing your past post every where on this board you seem to think that people are not responsible for their own actions. This person made a choice to commit the crime. His choice and now has to pay the piper for his CRIME. One problem with this country is people are not held accountable for their own actions. It was not my fault, it was so and so's or the govt fault. Be responsible and own up to your crimes or do not do the crime!

Purl wrote:

These restrictions are just wrong. There is no logical reason to keep people out of a park. Parents should be in the park watching their children; not government making stupid ordinances to do it for them. Keeping this man out of the park is nothing more than being vengeful on the town's part. How far do we want government restrictions to go? Every freedom that is lost, no matter whether it's for an offender or not, brings us farther away from a democracy.

OldSparkPlug wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you serious?
When I was a kid we used to walk to the park without our parents regularly. Why should children be denied the freedom to go to a safe place to play? You seem to think that the rights of perverts should take precedent over the rights of the kids.

Are you serious? Do you actually believe this ordinance will keep predators, perverts, offenders, molesters (what ever the hell you choose to call them) out of parks? Do you for one minute think you can send your child safely to the park alone now because of this ordinance? Do you think for one minute that knowing your neighbor is on a sex offender registry makes you child safer? What about the ones that live 20 miles away that you are not aware of that could come to your neighborhood? You get serious! I will repeat something I've been saying, "If you allow one person out of jail that you believe is such a threat to society that they need to put on a list and restricted to within so many miles of where a child goes unless they are under strict parole or probation then you are doing our children an injustice. Do away with these idiot laws and restriction that are hard to be enforced and do not protect like they are suppose to and are only there to placate taxpayers that can't see beyond their own emotions. Keep people that re-offend in prison, period. If you let them out, let them have their restrictions while they are on parole or probation and then if they have proven themselves worthy let it be done. If they haven't proven themselves capable of living by society's rules during parole and probation then lock them up and throw away the key.

Get Real wrote:

I would normally agree with you about the freedom thing, but, this person is a convicted sex offender. If it has to do with children, it is protecting the children. He should have no access to any place kids are every alone or in an area that they play openly. He gave up his right when he committed the crime. From seeing your past post every where on this board you seem to think that people are not responsible for their own actions. This person made a choice to commit the crime. His choice and now has to pay the piper for his CRIME. One problem with this country is people are not held accountable for their own actions. It was not my fault, it was so and so's or the govt fault. Be responsible and own up to your crimes or do not do the crime!
<quoted text>

It's not that I don't want people to be held accountable. I actually am asking our government to be held accountable for these laws and restrictions they are putting in place. Why make restrictions and laws that are ineffective and mearly a bandaid over a broken bone so to speak? See my above post, I don't know how else to say it.

OldSparkPlug wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you serious?
When I was a kid we used to walk to the park without our parents regularly. Why should children be denied the freedom to go to a safe place to play? You seem to think that the rights of perverts should take precedent over the rights of the kids.

we dont know why he is a sex offender. It more than likely has nothing to do with children. I agree we need to protect the children, but this man could very likely not be a threat to children.

OldSparkPlug wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you serious?
When I was a kid we used to walk to the park without our parents regularly. Why should children be denied the freedom to go to a safe place to play? You seem to think that the rights of perverts should take precedent over the rights of the kids.

do you honestly think someone willing to commit the crime of child molestation will be detured by this ordinance?

Sabinus wrote:

<quoted text>
we dont know why he is a sex offender. It more than likely has nothing to do with children. I agree we need to protect the children, but this man could very likely not be a threat to children.

No, we do know at least partially why he is a sex offender. He was convicted of being in the posession of child pornography. I admit I don't know whether he actually was participating in the child pornography but he was convicted of having it in his posession.

Not sure about you, but that makes him a perv in my world.

Sabinus wrote:

<quoted text>
do you honestly think someone willing to commit the crime of child molestation will be detured by this ordinance?

Probably not. But it gives us another reason to throw his a** back in prison if we are able to catch him in a park.

That makes it a good law as far as I'm concerned, although castration would be my preferred method of dealing with him and his ilk.

Purl wrote:

<quoted text>It's not that I don't want people to be held accountable. I actually am asking our government to be held accountable for these laws and restrictions they are putting in place. Why make restrictions and laws that are ineffective and mearly a bandaid over a broken bone so to speak? See my above post, I don't know how else to say it.

I agree with you that ideally he would spend the rest of his sorry days locked up. But this law would give us a reason to throw him back in jail (if he's caught in the park).

My apologies to you. I thought you were a bleeding heart before I read your latest post.

Sabinus wrote:

<quoted text>
do you honestly think someone willing to commit the crime of child molestation will be detured by this ordinance?

Not to mention that not everyone on the registry is a pedaphile. And their are many who learned and who will never, ever reoffend again.

Sex offenders should not be in or around areas frequented by children. Rights were lost when acts were committed.

Keith Richard Radford Jr wrote:

This is and will always be illegal. To make make laws of any kind based on sex just makes the law makers look stupid. We already know the ones pushing these laws are.

You are right about one thing: We do know who the ones "pushing these laws" are! They are people who care about children and do not want those who either cannot or will not control their perverted urges to be anywhere near our kids! Other than that, pretty much everything you wrote is simply wrong-headed.

He is a sex offender, sex offenders are restricted from parks and so he cannot go there. Perhaps a little street justice would be in order.

Sabinus wrote:

<quoted text>
do you honestly think someone willing to commit the crime of child molestation will be detured by this ordinance?

This ordinance will not deter those intent on harming children any more than a law against murder deters those intent on killing someone. However, I would not want to take the law against murder off the books. Nor would I want to take this law off.

Much as we may hate to admit it, laws seldom deter anyone intent on doing bad. But, the law is still useful as it serves its second purpose: namely, defining the standard of proper behavior as well as the punishment for failing to comply with that standard. This law does just that.

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right about one thing: We do know who the ones "pushing these laws" are! They are people who care about children and do not want those who either cannot or will not control their perverted urges to be anywhere near our kids! Other than that, pretty much everything you wrote is simply wrong-headed.

See I disagree, the people who care for children are pushing our legislators for real effective laws; not these laws that do nothing but make angry emotional and sometimes vengeful people feel that they the legislators are doing something. Well they are doing something, they are putting a bandaid over something that really needs some stitches first. We cannot rely on a a registry or restrictions to fix this problem.

No question about it wrote:

Rights were lost when acts were committed.

There is a piece of paper called "The Constitution of the United States" that says otherwise.

If banned from being around children, rights were lost. Rights are lost when guilt is declared. His right to a fair trial resulted in certain rights being lost. Just as felons cannot vote, certain rights are really privileges and can be revoked. Perhaps you can ensure his RIGHT and invite him to your home to play with your children.