Bill to Allow Sex Offenders at Schools And Playground

[doggie]

I keep hoping they can't get any more stupid and they just keep doing it.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/23 ... s-schools/

Both parties agree sex offender bill is insane.

It’s a sad fact that America is quickly becoming desensitized to the idiocy that comes out of certain politicians mouths. Honestly, what else could explain the fact that Todd Akin managed to pull nearly 40% of the vote in his state after claiming that “legitimate†rapes couldn’t lead to pregnancy? That insanity aside, though, it’s finally come to a point in American history where a Republican has brought both sides of the political spectrum together. Although, it’s not really in the way that most of us were hoping for.

“I Have never heard of such an insane law.â€

In what may be deemed one of the most insane attempts at a law ever, Georgia state representative Sam Moore, a Republican out of Macedonia, GA, has put forward a bill that would literally remove the restrictions convicted sex offenders face on areas that they can be around. In fact, the new law, if passed, would allow those listed in sexual offender registries to loiter outside of schools, daycare centers, and even playgrounds.

Don’t scroll back up; you’re not reading an article from The Onion. Although, it’s going to be nice to see how they could possibly make this story anymore insane than it already is. Fortunately, Moore’s attempt at lifting these common sense restrictions has drawn ire from both Democrats and his House colleagues. The sheriff of Cherokee, a man who once said he’d never enforce any new gun regulations passed by Congress, even went as far as saying:

“In my 34 years of law enforcement I have never heard of such an insane law having been introduced.â€

You would think that pressing this sex offender law forward would be a momentary lapse in judgment that a politician would quickly backpedal on, but that’s definitely not the case for Representative Moore.

Moore thinks his reasoning is sound.

Representative Moore has faced harsh criticism from all sides after proposing this legislation, but it has not wavered his resolve. He stated that the law was initially intended to prevent police from demanding that people identify themselves, and to do this, he explained, Georgia needed to get rid of loitering laws. He further went on to explain that the restrictions that sex offenders face were contained within the loitering law, and that it was best to just start fresh.

Of course, Moore didn’t make a suggestion to replace the sexual offender loitering law, and sadly, he even stated that the state needed to have a discussion over these restrictions. When asked what he thought about convicted sexual offenders being allowed at places with children, he literally said:

“I am okay with that. The reason I’m okay with that is the assumption is they have done their time. If they’re still a danger to society, they should not be free [...] Am I saying it’s not creepy? It’s definitely creepy.â€

Unfortunately, it’s more than creepy. This is because there’s no real way to know whether a pedophile will continue in their criminal ways. Statistics show that 27% of untreated sex offenders will reoffend. For treated sexual offenders, this number is 19%. This means that one out of four or five sex offenders will recidivate, and the same study (PDF file) that lists these numbers points out that the likelihood of reoffending goes up when these offenders have more opportunity to do so. You know, like when they’re allowed to be around schools, daycare centers, and playgrounds.

Should we really be surprised?

Most people are surprised or flat out disgusted when they initially hear about this new attempt at a law that allows sex offenders around children, but honestly, should they be? Many members in the Republican Party, also referred to as “the party of morality,†would benefit from these types of laws. After all, former Republican Mayor Philip Giordano, who was convicted of having sexual relations with an 8 and a 10-year-old girl, would probably love this new law when he gets out of prison.

Then there’s Republican county commissioner David Swartz, who was recently released after spending time in prison for raping two girls, ages 6 and 12, that might want to head to the Peach State and hang around some playgrounds. Sadly for Donald “Buz†Lukens, a former Republican U.S. Representative convicted for paying money to a 16-year-old girl for sex, he passed away a few years before the new law would’ve done him any good.

But I digress. This is definitely an issue that both sides can likely agree on, but honestly, it wouldn’t be too surprising to think that some people would agree with the measure simply because restricting certain areas may seem like a “violation of civil liberties.†There’s no point, however, in claiming that this is a Republican issue. After all, Moore’s colleagues absolutely hated the idea, but when a party has made a name for itself over the past decade for saying and doing stupid things, they really don’t have much room left for insanity like this.

__________________

[Conuly]

The link doesn't work for me.

[doggie]

fixed sorry about that

[PennySycamore]

Thanks for fixing the link, doggie. It sometimes seems like the Teabaggers are always trying to out-crazy themselves.

[doggie]

Thanks for fixing the link, doggie. It sometimes seems like the Teabaggers are always trying to out-crazy themselves.

And they keep topping themselves. seems impossible but there you go proof is in the stupid. At least no one else likes this one.

[salex]

The thing is, the argument about "they have done their time" went through the courts years ago... and if the registry is part of the sentence, it is part of "their time."

Now, given I've heard that some people get on the list for public urination or mooning someone... it is possible some states might want to look at their laws--but not toss them out.

[debrand]

The thing is, the argument about "they have done their time" went through the courts years ago... and if the registry is part of the sentence, it is part of "their time."

Now, given I've heard that some people get on the list for public urination or mooning someone... it is possible some states might want to look at their laws--but not toss them out.

I agree. The list probably needs to be fixed so that people who urinate in public or moon someone shouldn't be on it but that doesn't mean that the registry shouldn't exist.

Some on the extreme right seem to think that less regulations equals more freedom but in some cases less regulations and laws just means that the strong can victimize the weak.

[louisa05]

I agree. The list probably needs to be fixed so that people who urinate in public or moon someone shouldn't be on it but that doesn't mean that the registry shouldn't exist.

Some on the extreme right seem to think that less regulations equals more freedom but in some cases less regulations and laws just means that the strong can victimize the weak.

There are also cases where young men have been put on the list for statuatory rape in cases where consensual sex occurred between a girl just under age and a boy just past the age of majority. There were media reports about a family in Florida awhile back where the couple eventually married when they were older yet he remains on the sex offender list and cannot really be with his own children.

These laws need a second look for a wide variety of reasons. But this bill is certainly not a solution.

[ThisOlGirl]

I wonder if he owes someone a giant favor and that person is on the sex offender registry. That's the only reason I can come up with as to why someone would even suggest such a bill. And even then...

[lawlifelgbt]

I don't want offenders at playgrounds or schools either. However, some restrictions (e.g. not allowing offenders within 1000 feet of "any place where children may congregate") effectively makes the whole town a zone where offenders can no longer live, meaning they can't live/work where they might have roots. So they might move to the next town. Next place passes similar laws. They have to move again. Bam, forever ostracized.

[FloraKitty35]

This bill is not the solution it does not sound like it is very well thought out all.

[Mama Mia]

There are also cases where young men have been put on the list for statuatory rape in cases where consensual sex occurred between a girl just under age and a boy just past the age of majority. There were media reports about a family in Florida awhile back where the couple eventually married when they were older yet he remains on the sex offender list and cannot really be with his own children.

These laws need a second look for a wide variety of reasons. But this bill is certainly not a solution.

I agree. It would make sense if pedophiles were restricted from the areas that have large groups of children, but the sexual offender lists include many people who are not pedophiles......statutory rape, couples having sex in a parked car, public urination and so on. The other problem with including such a wide group is that they all go on the various data bases that the public can check which leads to a huge amount of anxiety for parents.

[salex]

Some on the extreme right seem to think that less regulations equals more freedom but in some cases less regulations and laws just means that the strong can victimize the weak.

Some people want the strong to be better able to victimize the weak. After all, isn't that a benefit of being one of the strong... and all the guys I know who are involved in these sorts of groups don't seem to realize that they fall into the "weak" category, and would be among the first to be trampled by the truly strong if many of the laws they disdain were repealed. I am always amazed.

[No Cure for Stupid]

I think sex offender laws need to be examined. There should be different levels. If you're drunk and you pee in public, it's not the same as raping a child.

If an 18-year-old has consensual sex with his/her 16-year-old boyfriend/girlfriend, then laws like that shouldn't apply. But the idea of just letting anyone loiter at a school or playground seems really messed up.

[Jana814]

I think sex offender laws need to be examined. There should be different levels. If you're drunk and you pee in public, it's not the same as raping a child.

If an 18-year-old has consensual sex with his/her 16-year-old boyfriend/girlfriend, then laws like that shouldn't apply. But the idea of just letting anyone loiter at a school or playground seems really messed up.

I completely agree w/ both of your statements.