Do you support limiting school access for parents who are sex offenders?

 
 
 
 
20 Comments

  • Dawn - 5 years ago

    My heart brakes because of this. I am a registered sex offender out of the State of Michigan. I was put on the registry based on a plea, Attempted CSC in the 4th degree, a MISDEMEANOR. I have to register for 25 years. I have 2 children. I can't be in their schools at all. The law just passed in my state, Indiana, and if I do enter school grounds I am facing 2 years in prison. I literally am registered for patting a kids behind. I am not a monster. I am a mom, daughter, wife and use to be a really good teacher. This year I have missed ball games, awards, recitals, conferences and so much more. My daughters doesn't deserve this. She is a child. I appreciate the kind words of so many of you. 8% recidivism rate! I wish the government would look closer at this. Everyday I miss more. It is unfair to punish my child or anyone else's because the government wants to make a "Feel Good" law. I just want to see my daughter graduate someday. At this point I don't know if it will ever happen.

  • FRegistryTerrorists - 6 years ago

    This article is incorrect. There are no parents who are "sex offenders". People are not "sex offenders". There are people who have committed a sex crime in the past. Those people are not "sex offenders". They are simply people who have committed a sex crime in the past. If a person is listed on nanny big government's Sex Offender Registries, then we can call the person a "Registered Citizen". But personally, I prefer to call the person a "Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment (PRHRP)".

    Further, these "school" restrictions/harassment are completely idiotic. A PRHRP does not need to check-in at a school any more than anyone else does. School administration needs to protect the students from ALL people, completely regardless of if a person is listed on a nanny big government hit list or not. If I have my child at a school and there are adults there (or anyone else that could abuse my child), I want those people monitored regardless of any nanny big government list. If I found out that the school administrators were wasting time on a PRHRP and something happened to my child while they weren't paying attention, I would sue the hell out of them.

    These school panics are similar to the "sex offender" idiocy that frequently gets children killed. Just this past Christmas, a 4 year old autistic boy named Jayden Morrison went missing. Police made a big deal out of how they were wasting resources to "check on the whereabouts of registered sex offenders" when instead they should have used those resources to look for the boy. If they had, they might have found him before he drowned. But they will waste resources like that, over and over and over again, just to show off for the vast, uninformed, ignorant public that loves their Registries. And yet somehow they have failed to create the rest of the Registries. Amazing.

  • Valigator - 6 years ago

    Even I was thrown by this. Leave the rules for offenders as they are. Any offender who may have nepharious motives isn't going to abide by any rule. Lately I have read many articles where offenders have been either loitering or attempting to "lure" children from the area. None have children attending the school. Does anyone really think these are the guys who will be "publishing" a letter to announce their plans to visit the school? NO- this is a hoop that is redundant and worthless. If an offender needs to visit the school for any reason. They call, sign in and have a staff member escort them to their designation.

  • TN45 - 6 years ago

    Robin, you're right now that I think about it. Why isn't Anthony Weiner a registered sex offender? Remember Mark Foley? He's the congressman who got caught sending teen-aged boy paiges on on Capital Hill sexually enticing text messages. Why wasn't he tried for solicitation of a minor and sent to prison and registered as a predatory sex offender?

  • TN45 - 6 years ago

    I got tongue-tied in a previous post. I meant to say don't you just love how politicians pick and choose what laws and guiding principles they will follow or ignore from agenda to agenda?

    Situation 1- A 13-year-old boy who has been bullied since day one of school- a boy who has reported the bullying to everyone from the teacher to the principal...a boy those charged with his safety and well-being turned deaf ears and blind eyes to...brings a gun to school out of the most extreme of desperation and guns down the kids that had tormented him every day of school since kindergarten. The D.A. is "outraged" and vows to try this MONSTER OF A KID AS AN ADULT for his crime. By doing so, the D.A. assigns to this boy THE ADULT CAPACITY TO FORM CRIMINAL INTENT AND THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS BEHAVIOR AS AN ADULT WOULD. They say he can LEGALLY BEAR THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CRIME AS AN ADULT OFFENDER WOULD. Have you got all that?

    Now...Situation 2...A 13-year-old boy has an 18-year-old girlfriend. She's at his house while his parents are supposed to be gone until late. She wants to give him oral sex and so it starts..Mom and dad come home early unexpectedly and catches them in the act. They press charges against the girl for statutory rape. That the 13-year-old was a willing and eager participant is NOT a legal defense for an 18-year-old who's having oral sex with a 13-year-old. Why is that fact not a legal defense? THE CHILD IS TOO EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OF AN ADULT TO UNDERSTAND SEXUALITY AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

    See the self-contradiction of the legal system? Is a 13-year-old old enough to try for murder AS AN ADULT, but TOO EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE TO LEGALLY HAVE ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND PRIVILEGES AS ADULTS OVER 18. (WITH RESPECT TO DRINKING ALCOHOL..AGE 21)

    To me, that's the legal system wanting it both ways depending on its agenda at the moment. Whichever way they want it, they need to decide and make it that way for all areas...not just adult criminal culpability, but for all freedoms, privileges, and rights given to adults. If our society and legal system don't want kids to be able to legally have the same freedoms, rights, and privileges as adults, then they need to keep kids out of adult criminal court or if kids as young as 10 can be tried as adults for their crimes, then all age of consent laws need to be wiped off the books and whatever the youngest possible age at which a child can be tried as an adult needs to be the legal age of consent across the nation for all things that one must be an adult to legally do.

    http://wnep.com/2014/10/13/10-year-old-boy-charged-with-homicide-of-90-year-old-woman/

  • TN45 - 6 years ago

    I agree with Don. This is just another way to deny sex offenders ANY EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
    Don't you just love how the laws a politician chooses to follow or ignore based on the agenda of the moment? Unless they want to completely strip a sex offender's citizenship totally, the lawmakers and judges of this nation need to uphold the Equal Protection Under the Law. Justice and abiding by law should NEVER BE DECIDED BY PUBLIC SENTIMENT OR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. We live in a Democratic Republic WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. That proves that what's overwhelmingly popular is not always what's right and just.

  • Echo - 6 years ago

    do they not care about the damage that this would do to any child of a so called sex offender? the fall out that this would create??????

    can't they imagine or understand what this law would do to any child associated with a so called sex offender?

    NOT ALL sex offenders are child molesters nor are they violent rapists!!

  • Harry - 6 years ago

    Since teachers and school staff molested ALL the kids in school, it would better to ban teachers from schools. This will protect more children.

  • MitchBradley - 6 years ago

    A vast majority of sex offenders never commit another sex crime. Recidivism among sex offenders varies from 3.7% to 4.3%, compared to the 30%-60% of many other crimes. 95% OF SEX OFFENSES ARE COMMITTED BY SOMEONE NOT ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY. So preventing a person from seeing his/her child because he has a sex offense in the PAST is detrimental to the child as well as the parent. It protects no one.

  • Ric Moore - 6 years ago

    Rick Jackson: "Only about 8% of registered sex offenders re-offend, The lowest of any other criminal re-offending."
    No, single victim murderers are slightly less.

  • Ric Moore - 6 years ago

    The standing good sense rule for a convicted sex offender is to never be alone with the children of others, without other adults being present. I see nothing wrong as long as there are witnesses to the conduct of the offender. Anything past that is pure Gestapo.

  • kasozi kaddunabi - 6 years ago

    shouldnt even be allowed n society

  • FRegistryTerrorists - 6 years ago

    If we can call a person who committed a sex crime "sex offender" for the rest of the person's life then we can call all people who have lied "liar" for the rest of theirs. "sex offender" is a mislabel used by the un-Americans who support the worse-than-worthless Sex Offender Registries (SORs).

    What amazes me about this is that the pandering politicians want to restrict "sex offenders" but not "gun offenders", for example, people who have SHOT CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS WITH GUNS ON PURPOSE. Unbelievable.

    The real question that this article should have asked is "If the SORs are so wonderful, how is it even conceivable that we do not have 100 other types of national Registries?!!!"

    Experts have NEVER supported the SORs because they know they are counterproductive idiocy. Americans do not support the SORs. What is amazing is that the un-Americans who do have failed so miserably to get the rest of their nanny big government Registries created.

    How is it possible that we do not have a national Gun Offender Registry?!!

    How is it possible that we do not have a national Career Criminal Registry?!!!

    How is it possible that we do not have a national Violent Criminal Registry?!!!

    We have people Registered with nanny big government that committed a sex crime decades ago and yet we don't have your neighbor who commits a crime every year Registered. Pretty amazing. And again, proof that the SORs are not REALLY for "public safety", "protecting children", or any of those other lies. The SORs are for harassing families.

  • Rick Jackson - 6 years ago

    Only about 8% of registered sex offenders re-offend, The lowest of any other criminal re-offending. Yet, every time I see a news story about a new crime, it is a teacher molesting students. I really think teachers need to register as potential sex offenders, and go through the same type of hearing to have access to the children.

  • Georgina - 6 years ago

    Not only should they be allowed to visit their own children at school, they should also be able to attend school activities that their children participates in. Ask any parent; wouldn't you enjoy watching your child perform in a band concert, attend their football games, and be involved with their educational experience? There are over 100 ways to be placed on an expensive, ineffective registry and it is not only the person (who has served their debt to Society and deserve the opportunity to live in harmony with the community), it becomes the "whole family" being punished for LIFE and live in FEAR because of the "legal label" of "sex offender" when they are an "ex-offender." Do away with the registry that does more harm than good and allow "families" to live as "normal" families!!

  • voiceofreason - 6 years ago

    I can get behind this proposal when it applies to ALL people with a criminal record. Why is it the wife beater or the drug dealer can mill about my child's school unsupervised but the guy who had a slightly underage girlfriend or who had some inappropriate images on his hard drive decades ago must submit themselves and their child's welfare to this torch-and-pitchfork procedure?

    I request - no, demand - that this will be instituted for ALL convicted criminals. That is 65 million Americans. One out of 4 adults. Our children deserve it!

  • Robin - 6 years ago

    In New York state one of the hardest working congressmen for harsh restrictions against registrants was Anthony Weiner, who has somehow managed to keep himself from being registered. You just cannot make this stuff up. The entire registry is beyond a joke. It is a pitiful excuse to carve up the Bill of Rights. Voters really need to be watching who is taking away civil liberties and why. Since the registry is not protecting anyone, it needs to go. It needs to go completely. It needs to go for everyone. It needs to go today.

  • virginia - 6 years ago

    It's ironic to contemplate excluding parents with convictions which require registration from their children's schools and educational lives. The vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated within the child's own home or close social circle, including teachers, day care workers, clergy, etc. THOSE OFFENDERS, who pose substantial danger to children, are not required to register. This is not closing the barn door after the horse has left ...it's closing the barn door while a fire rages within the house. A totally inappropriate, ineffective response.

  • Chad - 6 years ago

    Really, this is what our legislators are spending their time on? Are we going to start exempting sex offenders from taxes on parks, schools and other places where they are trying to be prevented from utilizing? Read the statistics, worry about the unknown element like your neighbor or family instead.

  • Don - 6 years ago

    I have never heard of a case where a convicted sex offender molested a child on school property during school hours. This is much ado about nothing. So if a child is having issues at school and the parent needs to go in for a conference, he/she would have to post a two week notice and conduct a public hearing before the issues could be addressed? Please. Such foolish restrictions end up hurting the children of the FORMER offender and do not protect anyone. The "danger" is purely imaginary. This proposed legislation is tantamount to putting justice in the hands of a lynch mob. It is time to tune into facts and reality instead of ignorance-fueled hysteria.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment

Create your own.

Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.