Boo Hoo: Sex Offenders Are Restricted

Posted on June 1, 2006

Cross Posted from Gribbit’s Word
The Indiana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that an ordinance in the city of Indianapolis is “too vague and impossible to uphold.”

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director, said the law is unworkable because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.

“You can’t get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation.” SOURCE

The ACLU represents 6 individuals which includes child molesters and rapists. The Plaintiffs filed the suit on Wednesday of this week.

The ordinance was approved May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500.

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender. SOURCE

Well now, too bad for them huh. Here’s the truth campers. If these people would have controlled themselves and not committed the crimes in the first place, they could travel where they pleased when they pleased. But, they were convicted by a jury of their peers beyond a shadow of a doubt for committing these horrible offenses.

The city has a responsibility to protect its citizens - especially children. And if you ask me, giving these perverts an exemption if they are accompanied by another adult who has not been convicted of a sex crime is giving them too much.

Now I can see one of their points and only one. If the offender is in a car traveling from point A to point B, there should be no violation unless they stop at a place frequented by children. If they should happen to be traveling down a street on their way to work and pass by a park and are stopped for a traffic violation, I don’t believe that they should be cited. But in the same respect, I believe that the Officer who pulled the offender over should keep an eye on that individual until they clear the restricted area.

Sex offenses against children have the highest percentage of recidivism and restrictions on these individuals aren’t only prudent, they are required in this day in age with what seems to be an increase in the numbers of crimes against children.

If it were up to me, an individual convicted of a sex crime against child under the age of consent should get the death penalty, so these types of restrictions would become moot. A rape against a minor above the age of consent but still below the age of majority should be given a minimum 25 year term and possibly life depending on the number of counts. But since no one seems to be talking in real terms about real punishment, Jessica’s law needs to be passed in order to keep as many of these perverts in cages like the animals that they are.

As far as their claim that the law is vague, fine; then re-write it don’t reverse it. Instruct the city to include more specific language. But as I’ve stated, if the penalties were more harsh, we wouldn’t even be discussing this.