ACLU tickled pink: Court says CONVICTED sex offenders may frolic in parks amongst the children
Posted on October 6, 2006
From WISH TV (Indianapolis): Federal Court Rules Sex Offender Ordinance Unconstitutional
U.S. District Court in Indianapolis has ruled an ordinance that banned sex offenders from coming near many sites where children are present is unconstitutional. This has been confirmed to 24-Hour News 8 by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
Six men convicted of sex offenses against children sued the city of Indianapolis to overturn the ordinance that bans them from being within one-thousand feet of parks, pools, playgrounds and other sites when children are present.
The six are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. They argued that the ordinance makes it virtually impossible for them to travel through Marion County without crossing into one of the forbidden areas, which are not marked.
The original ordinance cleared the City-County Council by a 25-to-2 vote on May 15th, 2006 and took effect immediately.
Nice “win” for the ACLU. Nice clients. I hope this is reversed on appeal and the city is “permitted” to protect its innocent from these filthy dogs.
» Filed Under ACLU, Child Exploitation, News
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “ACLU tickled pink: Court says CONVICTED sex offenders may frolic in parks amongst the children”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
They argued that the ordinance makes it virtually impossible for them to travel through Marion County without crossing into one of the forbidden areas, which are not marked.
Odd… pedophiles don’t need signs to find children!
Place the signs, change the ordinance and have another go at it.
Actually, they should pass a new ordinance monthly(with slight changes), recinding the previous month’s ordinance and see if the ACLU can keep up with that one.
1000′ is a bit excessive. Convicted criminals they may be, but they still should be able to move around in a populated area without gross restrictions like that. Pull up a map and start plotting 1000′ radius circles around every school, park, rec center… I’d bet the law would require massive detours constantly, even when not in sight of any of these locations.
And how precisely do you propose marking these massive areas? Signs every 50′ in a ring around every location? Come on, all it takes is a glance at that map you just made to know that’s inane. The law is patently silly and you should know it — aside from grossly violating the limited rights a sex criminal still has.
What SHOULD be done is: reasonable distance limits, restrictions on how long they may linger in sight of such areas if that distance allows sight.
1000? is a bit excessive.
I imagine then, you have serious problems with restraining orders… restricting movement without charge or conviction.
but they still should be able to move around in a populated area without gross restrictions like that.
They have far more freedom of movement than they would have locked up.
Pull up a map and start plotting 1000? radius circles around every school, park, rec center
It is the function of government to provide for the security of the people. The criminal is the one who violated the rules and laws of society… do you expect that we should alter society to meet the “want to” of criminals?
And how precisely do you propose marking these massive areas?
Like I said above… they didn’t need signs to find their victims, why do they need signs now?
aside from grossly violating the limited rights a sex criminal still has.
I tried real hard to muster up some “give a crap” on that one, but no go.
I think they are faring well…
1. They weren’t executed.
2. They weren’t placed in a private room with the parents for 10 minutes(facing their accuser).
3. They were released, giving them considerably more freedom than had they remained incarcerated.
restrictions on how long they may linger in sight of such areas if that distance allows sight.
Okay, how long does it take to snatchup a child? How long do you allow your child out of your sight?
Do you have a child/children?
loboink,
I don’t think we’ve ever agreed on anything, but this statement really gets at me.
Short of giving me several bodyguards of my own, no one can “provide security for me”. Anyone that is intent on harming me can make it happen.
The government’s responsibilities are very limited. If an officer sees a transgression happening (this happens in only a minute fraction of all transgressions), they are to attempt to intervene. Otherwise, they simply investigate the incident and do their best to bring the perpetrator to justice.
To bring this back on topic, you CANNOT provide security for the children playing in the park unless you have a slew of officers IDing everyone that comes within 1000 feet. At best, you can provide the illusion of security.
loboink,
I don’t think we’ve ever agreed on anything
It’s lobo-in-ok, as in, lobo in Oklahoma, and I can assure you that we have never agreed on anything(but you haven’t responded to everything, yet).
Frankly, I don’t holdout much hope of that changing… but hey, anything is possible.
but this statement really gets at me.
Short of giving me several bodyguards of my own, no one can “provide security for me”.
That was a bit of a play on the… “to provide for the common defense”.
If you don’t believe that it is a gov. function, then how much do you suppose they have ripped the taxpayor for, to provide National Intelligence, military, Federal, State, county and city LEOs? Not to mention state prisons.
Of course you have to protect yourself, that’s what the 2nd amendment is for, but not everyone is capable of that. We do have mental and medical hospitals, nursing homes, daycare centers and the now famous, federal Indoctrination Centers where we send our children and grandchildren to be brainwashed with how to be good little socialists, invironmental wachos and queers and play the weekly “get-your-head-blown-off” lottery.
But thats not enough! Now they want to turn child predators loose and give them as much free range as possible, without one care for the safety and welfare of innocent children.
Children can’t be protected in a supposedly secure school zone, so let the perverts have at them in the parks and playgrounds, right?
If the schools won’t stop perverting them and the courts won’t keep them locked up and LEOs can’t do anything but process them, then parents and grandparents need to arm themselves and start planting them.
At best, you can provide the illusion of security.
I carry my “illusion” in a shoulder holster.
I think the solution is to make the minimum sentence for keeping child molesters locked up…FOREVER. This would be the most merciful solution. Use your imagination for more permanent solutions.
lobo, we did it! We found something! I fully support your choice to exercise your 2nd ammendment rights.
While I may not have explained my position very well, but if you hear me out, I think you’ll agree with that too.
See, my problem with these laws is that they don’t actually prevent much crime. There simply aren’t enough LEOs to enforce them. It sounds like you know this, so you’ve put yourself in a position to provide for your own security.
So what does a law like this provide to society? At best it gives you an excuse to lock a guy up for a bit longer if an LEO happens to stumble upon him.
So what does a law like this cost society? It would certainly have a huge impact on whatever percentage of convicts aren’t habitual offenders. We’ve all heard of guys in their late teens getting busted for dating 16 and 17 year old girls. Maybe they knew the girl’s real age, maybe they didn’t. Certainly they made a big mistake, but if you lump that guy in with the guys that get horny looking at baby pictures, you’re clearly not handing out reasonable punishments.
Now that’s a pretty difficult thing to quantify, but considering that the potential benefit of the law is so low, I would much rather see parents take on the responsibility of protecting their kids as you have (they don’t necessarily need a weapon to do it though) than to allow a a very restrictive law that will ensnare a reasonably repentant individual.
I at first thought that 1000 feet may be excessive to but I may be wrong for at least one reason.
Children do not stay in the parks or environs but go to nearby stores and other places for refreshments and other reasons. Any predator can wait for a potential victim in these places or along the route between the school, park, or other place where children are and law enforcement could know it and be powerless to do anything.
Predators can even set up such an establishment with the intent of luring potential victims.
So does the ACLU plan on picking up the pieces after the crime has occurred or do they plan on finding a way to prevent the crime from occurring.
That claim that they are protecting me by defending child predators is nonsense since I am not a child predator. They may be protecting convicted criminals since what is done with one class can be done with others but even that is most likely a spurious claim since I have not heard the death penalty propose for petty theft.
See, my problem with these laws is that they don’t actually prevent much crime.
Laws aren’t enacted to prevent crime. They establish boundries that are not to be crossed and punishment when you do.
So what does a law like this provide to society?
Increased boundries and punishment, which enhances the peace and safety of our most vulnerable.
So what does a law like this cost society?
If it is followed, see above. If it is not, as in this case, then more of what we are seeing today, increased molestations, kidnappings and murders.
It would certainly have a huge impact on whatever percentage of convicts aren’t habitual offenders.
Why should those who are not habitual offenders be concerned? If they have no intention of trying to get at the children, barriers are not going to be a concern. The habitual offenders are the ones who are going to be whining about the barriers, much like those who don’t want fences on our borders and those(and their supporters) who were prevented from going over or around Israel’s barriers, to blow up innocent people.
We’ve all heard of guys in their late teens getting busted for dating 16 and 17 year old girls. Maybe they knew the girl’s real age, maybe they didn’t.
It doesn’t matter Jeff. If the law says you have to be 21 to drink that means 21, not 20 years, 11 months and 29 days.
I would much rather see parents take on the responsibility of protecting their kids as you have (they don’t necessarily need a weapon to do it though)
Is that right?
You think it’s necessary and proper for an LEO, whose level of success depends on chance, that is going to cleanup the mess, file a report and look for the perp, to need a weapon, but the people directly responsible for the safety of the children against armed predators, don’t necessarily need weapons? Amazing!
It’s no wonder this country is so screwed up!
Review your comments Jeff, and see where your primary concern lies.
People who have absolutely no respect for the most innocent and defenseless in our society, are going to view life through the same prism.
The only reason I said “(they don’t necessarily need a weapon to do it
though)” was because I think it’s possible to protect your family (to a
significant degree, at least) without a weapon. You’re free to disagree.
You’re free to carry a weapon. Personally, I think I can protect my family
to a reasonable degree without a weapon. That’s all I was saying. Nothing
more. Nothing less.
No doubt. My point was simply that it’s ludicrous to suggest that all sex offenders are habitual child predators. By extension, it’s ludicrous to tell a man he can’t take his son to the park if you can’t demonstrate that he is a significant threat to the other children at the park.
The only reason I said “(they don’t necessarily need a weapon to do it
though)” was because I think it’s possible to protect your family (to a
significant degree, at least) without a weapon.
How unfortunate.
Personally, I think I can protect my family
to a reasonable degree without a weapon.
That should give your family a sense of security and safety.
The terms I use for people who think that way are… victims and statistics.