Sex Offenders Sue For Playground Access
June 1, 2006 – 8:59 amI decided to use the title of this AP story from CNN as the title for this post (though that title may change as the article gets updated). That’s a pretty inflammatory title, huh? It sure got a reaction out of me.
The city of Indianapolis just passed a new ordinance banning sex offenders from coming within 1,000 feet of parks, pools, and playgrounds when children are present. The beef?
The plaintiffs went to federal court to argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on roads that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites.
Okay, that’s a little different than the image I had of the sex offenders suing to get access to the playground. I had a mental image of a bunch of kids on a swingset, and the sex offenders are pissed off asking, “Why can’t we swing on that swingset too?” But like I said, this is a little different.
Here’s the only information I could find about the plaintiffs themselves:
The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
This may be a bit tough, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the child molesters and rapists. Tough luck. You violate a child, and you’re done. Period. Messing with people who can defend themselves is one thing (and still a very, very wrong thing), but messing with people who can’t even defend themselves? That’s a second helping of cowardice and moral bankruptcy that’s going to stay with you for a long time.
And it might mean a little longer detour on your way to the grocery store, even after you’ve paid your dues to society. But, that’s part of the price that comes with violating children.
4 Responses to “Sex Offenders Sue For Playground Access”
One of the problems with these laws is that apparently they apply to all sex offenders, not just child molesters. Since many (possibly most) of these offenders were convicted of either statutory rape (which doesn’t deserve the label “rape” if you ask me) or normal rape which is overwhelmingly committed against people who knew the rapist before the attack (not children). In this case, it seems that society isn’t protected that much (why bar a “normal” rapist from walking within a block of a school?) and it poses expensive problems when enforcing the laws.
Though the bitter part of me is all for making rapists’ lives difficult (why not forbid a rapist from coming with 1,000 feet of a woman, ffs?), the objective legal part and that which considers cost:benefit ratios thinks that perhaps this is excessive.
By Dixie on Jun 2, 2006 at 10:37 am
Yes you are right. That’s the problem with sex offender laws. It emcompasses everyone, even the person caught urination behind a bush. In our state if you are 16 and have consensual sex with someone 21 the 21 year old is considered a sexual predator and has to register for life. Our age of consent is 17 and if the person is five years older that the victim this is what you get. Yet a 16 year old can get married to someone 21 with parent consent. In the US the average age of consent is 16. So in most states in this country it would not be a crime. How is this protecting anyone and why should you be considered a predator and have to register for life? Why should this person not be able to take their children to the park or watch their child in school activities? The registery was designed to the dangerous. I don’t this person as dangerous or a sexual predator.
By Patty on Jun 4, 2006 at 6:34 am
I think both of you are right here. I had in my head a very limited version where child molesters were being kept away from children, which I naturally thought was (and still do think is) a good idea.
But the statutory rape example was a very good counter-example. And enforcement costs and headaches would certainly increase dramatically as the net widens.
But would a more restrictive version of this same proposal not garner sufficient support to become law? Why not only keep those found guilty of crimes against children away from playgrounds? Is this somehow naive?
By jjk on Jun 5, 2006 at 9:58 am
I don’t know why the restriction was created to include all sex offenders. It weakens the spirit of the law because the letter becomes difficult to enforce…which leads to non-enforcement. And in the case of child molesters casually strolling by parks to catch a glimpse of their preferred porn, this is a Very Bad Thing.
It certainly would be better to repeal this version and write one that makes a little more sense. Such a measure would probably pass with overwhelming support. There’s a general election this November — someone should create an initiative to put this on the ballot.
By Dixie on Jun 6, 2006 at 3:15 pm