Posted on 08/26/2005 10:51:30 PM PDT by Beowulf9
ACLU sues Woodfin over park ban on sex offenders
The Associated Press
A new law that bans sex offenders from going to parks in the town of Woodfin was challenged Friday in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.
The ordinance, enacted in May, is unfair to convicted criminals who have served their punishment and done nothing else wrong, according to the lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NC's Legal Foundation in Buncombe County Superior Court.
"These laws stigmatize people who have successfully rehabilitated and may even have families of their own, who might want to take their own children to the park," said ACLU-NCLF executive director Jennifer Rudinger.
"We certainly understand and support the city's interest in promoting public safety, but these overly broad laws that punish people based only on their status do not serve the goal of making the public safer."
The complaint was filed on behalf of a registered sex offender who lives in Woodfin, who was identified in the lawsuit only as John Doe.
Doe was convicted in 1987 of a sex offense involving an adult and has successfully completed all the terms of his sentence, Rudinger said.
Town manager Jason Young declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday, saying officials had not yet seen it.
"We feel we're on safe legal ground" with the ordinance, he said.
The law penalizes offenders with a fine of at least $500 or a 30-day jail sentence.
Information from: The Asheville Citizen-Times
If the guy is too dangerous to be let in to a park then why is he out of prison?
Dang it, your right. Lets move him in next to your house, and play in the park with your kids. He's served his time.
Now you are asking the right question.
Dang it, your right. Lets move him in next to your house, and play in the park with your kids. He's served his time.
Dang it, maybe you misunderstood my question.
If he's dangerous enough to need some sort of restriction on his freedom (that he probably wouldn't respect) then why is he walking free?
I don't advocate releasing anyone that will have any restrictions placed on their rights.
Recidivism is very common with sexual offenders.
I don't have kids but my father is a convicted felon (pot grower) so I have a little perspective on the whole reduced rights thing.
My only consolation is that he can't vote Democrat.
Either someone has paid their debt to society in full or they haven't. If the guy can't be trusted around kids then he shouldn't be free, or possibly even alive.
The status quo is a middle ground that is unneccessarily dangerous for honest citizens. We're trading our safety for their freedom.
End of problem.
Remember when we protected women and children first?
Gruesome statement, but probably accurate.
I think placing certain restictions is common.
For example, your father can't vote, probably can't get a CCW permit, to name two.
I understand that it's common. That's what I mean by the status quo is a middle ground that is unneccessarily dangerous for honest citizens.
The death penalty needs to be applied more broadly. I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent. I see it as permanent rehabilitation in cases where less extreme rehabilitation will certainly fail.
Child molesters and first degree murderers are good examples of criminals needing permanent and irreversable rehabilitation.
I'm not sure I mind him not voting as he's a burned out dirty hippy but it isn't right.
Didn't we talk about this once?
ACLU defending the indefensible, again.
ping to the list
ping
ping
Just one point of refinement:
I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent.
It is a deterrent as the Mobsters and gangsters apply it. We often read in the news things like "police are having trouble getting peole to testify because they fear for their safety".
If only they would phrase it this way "Police are having trouble getting people to testify because they are deterred by the death penalty that applies to all witnesses".
The evidence that I have heard seems to prove that sex offenders cannot be successfully rehabilitated. Unfortunately, the percentages of successfully rehabilitated sex offenders are low, and several argue that too much is at stake to test the numbers by releasing them (Douglas and Olshaker, 1997, p.362). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
I think your point is predicated on how normal, well (sort of) adjusted people react to threats to their life from abnormal maladjusted people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.