Sex offender challenges ban; ordinance bars man from parks

[Thom Little]

A convicted sex offender who lives in Marion County is challenging a Plainfield ordinance banning him from the town's parks and recreation areas.

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Hendricks Superior Court on behalf of the man, who is identified only as John Doe. It says a portion of the town ordinance banning anyone listed on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry from Plainfield parks is unconstitutional.

"He should have the same rights as all citizens, absent of a showing that he is a risk," ICLU Legal Director Kenneth Falk said Tuesday.

But town officials insist the ban adopted in 2002 is justified.

"Our ordinance doesn't taint anyone. They are already tainted because they are on the sex registry," said Town Council President Robin Brandgard. "Knowing that there are sex offenders out there, we wanted to protect the citizens of Plainfield, particularly the children."


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051214/NEWS01/512140430/1006/NEWS01

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Many Convicted Criminals lose Liberties, so. Rights/ Privileges

[merwin]

11. Aside from not being able to vote, own a firearm, or things like that,

you don't lose your rights. But they would only be barred from owning a weapon if they committed a violent crime with a weapon.

Barring a sex offender from going into a park is insane. This is public land. If they want to get an individual restraining order barring him from specific park for a specific reason (ie: he committed a crime in that park) then fine. But if he was a 20 year old who slept with a 17 year old, there is absolutely NO reason that he should be barred.

[madeline_con]

2. "... absent of a showing that he is a risk."

There's your monkey wrench.

Doesn't sex offender status prove he's "a risk"?

[saigon68]

28. PUT THEM ALL TO DEATH

</SARCASM>

god I feel safe

[rpannier]

29. Not necessarily

As he pointed out...a 20 year old who had sex with his 17 year old g/f (or in the case of Indiana, an 18 year old who had sex with his 16 year old g/f) is hardly a threat to the populace.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Tough call. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Kids come first

I am an ACLU member, but this one says no. Kids come first. Whether it's poor kids victimized by the Bush Administration, or kids endangered by this, I come down on the kids' side. Let's see: Impinge on this gentleman's rights, as a CONVICTED sex offender, to frequent parks and playgrounds, or put children at risk. Sorry, he has shown himself a risk already. Flame away.

[NashVegas]

5. Kids in Parks Should Be Supervised, Anyway

Preferably by their parents or other responsible adults.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Restaurants, malls, too. I am 100 percent behind supervision.

My daughter, now 29(!), was always supervised. And well behaved; it wasn't that we needed to do anything special, it was just that it was the way it was. So, I agree with you, Crisco. And run this time of year. People want you for cookies and pies.

[NashVegas]

9. Thanks for the Warning

Plenty of me to go around.

[Rich Hunt]

21. I agree

For a number of reasons.

First of all, what does it mean to say he's a 'sex offender'? This term doesn't just apply to convicted child molesters.

Secondly, if we wants to prey on children, he will find a way to do it.

A park is an open space - I don't see how dangerous it could be.

How much of this is really about 'tainting' the notion of public space - the logic in forbidding
him to use the space taints the public space by framing it as a place where child molesters
go.

Thirdly, this is an open-ended punishment, and I don't think the government
should be in the business of doing this.

In the minds of some conservatives, this is an affirmation of the concept
of 'shunning' - it is a victory for the right in that it affirms their beliefs
that someone who commited an (unnamed) offense should be punished
for life. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. It is their way of weaseling
out of the notion that a sentence is finished once it is completed. I
should hope Americans would accept that.

[f-bush]

26. Couldn't agree more

Thank you, I agree. Where is our redemptive attitude as a society? Once a sentance is completed, all rights should be restored unless and until another crime has been committed.

There is so much mean spirited dialouge and action in our nation today and it is all coming from the right wing trying to drive a wedge between groups and pit us against each other. They are trying to gain total rule through fear and intimidation.

Take away one groups rights and there you go on the slippery slope. Be careful of what we do the "least of these" my brothers, one day it could be yourself!

[AGKISTRODON]

27. Child molesters are a "GROUP"?

That is one "group" where I want a "wedge" involved, between them and my grandkids. I don't encourage rattlesnakes on playgrounds either.

[satireV]

40. By dehumanizing them . . .

. . . you dehumanize yourself.

[LostinVA]

32. Child molesters/pedophiles/serial rapists are NOT rehabilitated

And that is a fact. The guy is lucky he's not in prison for life.

[NashVegas]

33. The Pariahism Has Gone Too Far to Be Useful

The first step a parent can take to protect their children from predators is to supervise them.

The second step, specifically in regards to sexual predators, is to talk frankly to them about sexuality and baby makin,' and what's proper & what's not.

If you think your child is old enough to be out exploring the world on their own, outside of your supervision, and you haven't had "the talk" with them, you're shirking your responsibility as a parent. Although that won't do much to protect your children from violent predators who grab them and take them off somewhere, it will help them protect themselves against the more typical variety who work more through emotional manipulation.

[Crazy Dave]

8. Good point as.....

a lot of people seem to forget that child victims have rights too.

[noamnety]

10. Didn't he ALREADY do the time?

Basically, like others are saying, you're a fool if you think having convicted sex offenders banned from a park removes all risk.

If kids are young enough to be in danger if a sex offender is in a park, they're young enough to need supervision. IF the law is giving parents a false sense of security, it's worse than no law at all.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. It has already been determined by the courts that

prohibitions and limitations on sex offenders is not punitive. So, the fact that they have already done their time is not applicable.

[noamnety]

22. I don't understand the purpose at all

I understand the police keeping a list because there are jobs you'd want to ensure they never get. (social worker, teacher, doctor, etc.)

But I don't understand the purpose of plastering the info online or around the neighborhood. If you know a molester lives 5 houses down the street, you wouldn't want to send your 1st grader down the street alone. But you don't know if a molester lives in the 4th house down the street, so you still need to go with your child.

That's the main part I don't get. Are you supposed to assume the other houses are safe? What are you supposed to do with the information?

[satireV]

41. They wrongly determined it was't punitive.

Sort of like the Dred Scott Decision. Courts make wrong decisions.

[Centered]

43. next thing you know

Sex offenders will be barred from using the internet due to chat rooms etc... (maybe they are already..anyone know??)

[Occulus]

13. I bet he couldn't go to his kids' school functions, were he to have a kid

and THAT harms the kid.

It is also potentially harmful to his child, if he has any, for that child to be required by law to visit a park or playground without the parent present.

Don't tell us that doesn't happen... it does.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. But what good will it do?

I think the principle that it's perfectly all right to restrict the freedoms of convicted criminals to protect the populace, but in this specific case I don't see that the ordinance will do that.

If a sex offender is not going to reoffend then there's no need to stop them going in to parks. If they are, then adding "going into a park illegally" to the charge list presumably won't worry them, even if they can't find a victim outside a park, and it won't make it any easier to catch them.

[Canuckistanian]

4. It's time this was dealt with one way or another

If someone is convicted of a heinous sex crime, and has served their sentence, then why should they continue to be punished?

Or if they're still considered dangerous, then why not impose greater sentences on them in the first place?

And if there's a a group of offenders who have high re-offend rates such as pedophiles, part of their sentence must include intensive aversion therapy. None of this "prisoner refused treatment" crap.

[progressivebydesign]

15. I agree.. it angers me when I read of a re-offender that refused treatment

I think it should be a requirement of sexual offenses.. that they receive treatment, or they don't get out.. I have zero sympathy for sexual offenders. ZERO. I couldn't care less if a sexual offender was banned from a park. He should have thought of that when he committed his crimes.

[Guaranteed]

6. I'm involved in a case very much like this at work. nt

[superconnected]

14. It's alwasy best to take away the rights of the pariah of society first.

sexoffenders and murderers are the easiest to disenfranchise. People will cheer as their rights are stomped on.

Work your way up slowly and start adding the most detested groups. Pretty soon you normalize enough public hatred to throw a holocaust. Everyone hates the people so it must be right.

Hitler started slowly and worked his way up.

If there was a good cause to stomp out these peoples rights without a danger to stomping out the rights of society as a whole, this country would have taken those rights away 100 years ago. I think what we're seeing is a degradation of education. Higher learning is for the rich now.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. I don't buy that slippery slope argument

I think we are fully capable to make distinctions in balancing the needs of society and the needs of the individual. The reason society is limiting the rights of sex offenders is because what we are doing now is not working. Any suggestions?

[superconnected]

18. On your argument many many people would lose their rights for

ever having commited a crime.

Drunk drivers could be banned from bars or heck driving, for life. Anyone with a drug offence could be banned from school yards, someone with a violent offence could be banned from anywhere people gather including apartments. someone with a theft offence could be banned from stores forever.

The purpose of going to prison is to collect punnishment decided by a court for a crime. If you feel peoples punnishment should not be over when they get out of prison, then I doubt any suggestions I make would go over with you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. Again, that is the slippery slope argument,

I believe that we can be reasonable in our restrictions. I would point out that in many cases there are restrictions on drunk-drivers. They are required to spend time in jail, they loose their license to drive for a year, and are required to go through alcohol treatment. And, further, driving is not a right but a privilege, so I do not think you can compare the restrictions put on sex offenders versus the privileges lost by driving drunk.

The courts have determined that putting restrictions on sex offenders is not punitive and therefore legal. The balance between protecting the community and protecting the rights of sex offenders is at issue. Whose rights are more important: the rights of our children to be safe in the park or the right of the sex offender to sit in the park and watch them?

Generally, our laws are designed to give the offender a clean-slate upon release--as you stated once the time is done it should be over. However, we have found that sex offenders are not like thieves or robbers. They are different--sick--and continue to hurt children no matter how much time they get. So, what do we as a society do? We know what we do now does not work. What do you suggest? Nothing?

[rpannier]

30. Your argument would be nice, but if you follow trends in law

1) You make the statement keeping children safe. I think if you look at the numbers most sex offenders do not attack children. They just get the most press.

2) There have been and still are groups trying to have sex offenders moved from jail to a mental hospital for the rest of their lives. Their argument is "They cannot control themselves and society must be protected."

3) As to his drunk driving...a legislator in Florida is now trying to get a law past to force people who have been convicted of drunk driving to have pink license plates so people are aware this person has been convicted of drunk driving.

Every society that moved toward becoming more oppressive always began by attacking specific classes or groups of people and did things to them that many people found reasonable -- to keep society safe. One only needs to look at the history of Gypsies to appreciate that.

[Rich Hunt]

23. it's not a slippery slope

For one thing, one must always take into account the possibility of a false conviction. As such, once a sentence
is served, it should be final.

What's more, when it comes to 'morality' one must always take the of the law into consideration. In forbidding a 'convicted sex offender' from using a public park, the state is essentially saying, 'once a sex offender, always a sex offender.'

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. That is the problem

Sex offenders (as I said in another post) are not like thieves--they are different, and do commit offenses again.

Also: the courts have determined that the function of community safety is not punitive and therefore not part of the sentence.

In the balance between the safety of the community versus the rights of the sex offenders, the state has decided to err on the side of the child.

Do you have any better ideas?

[superconnected]

35. Stiffer sentences. More studies into the psychology of sex offenders.

Do they get any treament right now in our system? If they do, I doubt it's much.

People willing to give up their rights for saftey will have neither. Doing this is exactly why the patriot act was evoked.

I don't see a slippery slope at all. I see people thrown a pariah they will be passionate about taking right away from, that do not take in the consequences of the big picture.

But that's just me.

Keep stomping on civil rights in sectors of the population you don't like guys. It's been shown over and over, where it will get you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. Every state is different

In WA they have lots of opportunity for treatment while in custody, and it is mandatory upon release. But, like any treatment program, they must participate to succeed.

It isn't about not liking the guys, it is about protecting the children. And, likely excluding them from parks is a bit reactionary. Conversly, however, the cycle of assault begins by watching and finding children who are vulnerable. Frequenting places where children congregate is one of the first steps towards the cycle of violence.

[rd_kent]

16. How does keeping sex offenders out of the park

keep anyone safe? Dont give me the argument that he wont have access to kids, etc....
Is the guy even a pedophile? Maybe he'd only interested in old ladies. Is he a danger by being in the park?

[superconnected]

19. banning them from parks doesn't make anyone safer.

What we're witnessing is vindictiveness that likely won't accept prison being enough for a crime.

The truth is, when people commit crimes they choose to break the law. They aren't going to be deterred by rules like they aren't allowed to go in the park, when they're in the act of comitting a more henious crime.

[Rich Hunt]

24. this is what it does

It affirms the notion that 'once a criminal, always a criminal', and I suspect that is what this is really all about - it's about affirming certain pet notions of the powers that be.

If the sentences aren't good enough or aren't effective, then argue for a change in the sentencing. Banning someone from a public space sets all sorts of dangerous precedents, and not only that, it is using the state to (subtly) make certain -value- judgments ('once you're guilty, you're ALWAYS guilty).

[rpannier]

31. In addition

It's another example of passing a law that really accomplishes nothing but makes people think that they are being protected.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. They have passed a similar law in some cities in FL, but

the ban only applies when children are present.

[closeupready]

37. Are felons convicted of violent crimes prohibited from parks?

I'm just curious. Thanks.

[Ariana Celeste]

38. I live in Plainfield. A question..

If this man is so dangerous... then why does he have custody of his son?


Regardless of that he is in counseling, he has done his jail time. He has his son, and can't bring the child to parks or other recreation areas? How awful.

I don't agree with this ordinance. At all. It's just a feel-good thing for people, false sense of security. Pedophiles don't need parks to get to children. All they need is parents who aren't doing their job, and the more feel-good measures we have like this one, the better for pedophiles. Because that will just lead to more parents thinking it'safe not to watch their children.

And what of all the sex offenders out there who haven't been convicted? There are plenty of predators out there that we don't know about.

I believe once someone has done their time, that's it. They've done their time.

[JPZenger]

42. Sex Offender Free Zones the Trend in Phila Area

A number of municipalities in the Phila. area and South Jersey have jumped on the bandwagon to adopt zoning laws that limit where sex offenders can live. One town said that "all our neighbors are adopting them, and if we don't, all the sex offenders will move here."

[HuffleClaw]

44. more 'slippery slope' crap

that will be just FINE in the minds of many, right up to the point where its THEM being restricted. this stuff NEVER stops, but the right sure has picked a 'good' place to start. if you defend their rights, they'll just claim yer 'supporting pedophiles'. then, at some point, they'll decide that drug offences are worthy of similar restrictions. then it'll be something else.

[NaturalHigh]

45. That's fine with me.

Kids come first. I don't want perverts around them.

[spacelady]

46. How about public bathrooms? This IS a slippery slope--I tend to the

side of parental supervision and warning kids to be smart & informed.