New Rules For Virginia Sex Offenders?

CHESAPEAKE, Va. -- Chesapeake leaders want to add community centers, parks and maybe even libraries to the list of places that sex offenders can't approach. Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
naynay

AOL

#1 Nov 8, 2007
i feel this unfair to the offenders whom have commited acts while in their youths and have not had any instinces while rebuilding their lives. my brother is a registered sex offender and has a daughter that he loves and tries his best to help whenever he can. he can't help her with school work or take her to the library to read with her or even be at her birthday party in a park? I wonder If the rules could be instated with some kind of exceptions? like for example...checking in to a hotline to get authorization to be in a library or park? this is a far fetched thought but why punish all of them whom are doing their best to move on with their lives? i strongly aggree that rules should be instated because their are some of these predators whom deserve exactly what they get.
angryin MD

Lanham, MD

#3 Nov 8, 2007
I honestly think that people go a little overboard. Yes, sexual offendors do "hunt" for children in public places. But children aren't always the victims, adults can be too. What about those that have been reformed? Or what about those who are wrongly named "sexual offendors", or have been given that name if they were adolescents at the time of their so called wrong doing with another adolescent. These people are subjected to having to "air" their "dirty laundry" and aren't truely predators/offendors. NOW, you want to take parks and libraries away? Give me a break. They did wrong, they did their time for their crime. Libraries are necessary for some, especially if they have been reformed, they need access to gain employment, the library is a good way to get on the internet. And at the libraries internet activities are monitored constantly. Parks, I hate to say this, but sexual offendors can be be found anywhere and they go everywhere.........SO why don't you just ban them from every possible place on this earth!!!!
Kaelinda

United States

#4 Nov 8, 2007
I agree that children (and sex offenders) can be found anywhere and everywhere, and it isn't possible or reasonable to forbid offenders access to public facilities normally used by adults, such as libraries and parks and recreational facilities (which, by the way, would include ball parks!). It is true that a small percentage of sex offenders shouldn't be labeled as such; their charges of offending as adolescents with other adolescents are patently unfair - but probably irreversible. Unfortunately, the vast majority of sex offenders can't be rehabilitated - they have their sick impulses and can't get over them. PARENTS need to protect their children, even if it means walking to school with them or taking them to school, monitoring their outside-the-home activities, and knowing where their children are at all times - as well as knowing what they're doing. The government shouldn't be playing nanny.
Ocean56

AOL

#5 Nov 11, 2007
angryin MD wrote:
I honestly think that people go a little overboard. Yes, sexual offendors do "hunt" for children in public places. But children aren't always the victims, adults can be too. What about those that have been reformed? Or what about those who are wrongly named "sexual offendors", or have been given that name if they were adolescents at the time of their so called wrong doing with another adolescent. These people are subjected to having to "air" their "dirty laundry" and aren't truely predators/offendors. NOW, you want to take parks and libraries away? Give me a break. They did wrong, they did their time for their crime. Libraries are necessary for some, especially if they have been reformed, they need access to gain employment, the library is a good way to get on the internet. And at the libraries internet activities are monitored constantly. Parks, I hate to say this, but sexual offendors can be be found anywhere and they go everywhere.........SO why don't you just ban them from every possible place on this earth!!!!
Exactly. It is very easy for a malicious false accuser to make an accusation of "child molestation" against anyone, for any reason. Those who say "false accusations are extremely rare" haven't bothered to take the time to do research on how often false accusations of "molestation" do occur.

The number of these false accusations cases has risen alarmingly over the last 10-20 years, ever since the Bakersfield, CA "ritual sex abuse" witch hunts, and very little has changed. There's almost no investigation done on both sides, to investigate the accuser as well as the accused, and false arrests and wrongful convictions happen more often than not. They especially happen in nasty separation, divorce and custody cases, and it's all about getting revenge on the spouse who left the relationship or marriage.
Ocean56

AOL

#6 Nov 11, 2007
naynay wrote:
i feel this unfair to the offenders whom have commited acts while in their youths and have not had any instinces while rebuilding their lives. my brother is a registered sex offender and has a daughter that he loves and tries his best to help whenever he can. he can't help her with school work or take her to the library to read with her or even be at her birthday party in a park? I wonder If the rules could be instated with some kind of exceptions? like for example...checking in to a hotline to get authorization to be in a library or park? this is a far fetched thought but why punish all of them whom are doing their best to move on with their lives? i strongly aggree that rules should be instated because their are some of these predators whom deserve exactly what they get.
There's a huge difference between a "sex offender" and a truly violent predator, who has committed terrible acts against children, involving serious bodily injury. Unfortunately, the line between the two has become dangerously blurred, and pushes the panic buttons to a level crossing the line of hysteria. A "sex offender" is often someone who participated in nothing more than "unlawful sex," which could easily mean a 19-year-old having sex with a 16 year old, in a state where 18 is the legal age of consent. "Unlawful sex" is NOT violent act, nor are many others.

It's getting much too easy for people to be falsely accused and then wrongfully convicted of being a "child molester" or "sex offender" because when these cases go to trial, a great deal is hidden from juries. And if a defendant isn't fortunate enough to be able to hire a top-notch criminal defense attorney, who doesn't receive his/her pay from the state, the odds of being convicted go up dramatically.

Look at what almost happened in the Duke Lacrosse case in Durham, NC recently. Three innocent lacrosse players narrowly escaped a wrongful rape conviction, only because they were lucky enough to have defense attorneys who believed in them, and who fought against a corrupt DA who purposely hid DNA evidence which exonerated all three players.

It was important lesson that even in sex crime cases, whether the complainant is an adult or a minor, the constitutional presumption of innocence should never be abandoned simply because police want an arrest and a prosecutor wants a conviction. If we as citizens abandon that, then the next victim of a false accusation and wrongful conviction could just as easily be YOU or someone in your family. I certainly don't find that acceptable, and I hope no one else does either.
Julie

Silver Spring, MD

#7 Nov 11, 2007
Wow, I can't believe the simpathy for the offender. I was a child victim and have forgiven my offender. But I am also now a parent and want my child to be protected.
These people don't need to frequent place that kids hang out at unless they are accompaning a child themselves.
I do feel that we have a right to know that these people are offenders so that we can protect our children. Based on what I know most of these people don't change.
NateKnuckles

Silver Spring, MD

#8 Nov 11, 2007
So will they be "card carrying" sex offenders?

Who would know!
Ocean56

AOL

#9 Nov 11, 2007
Julie wrote:
Wow, I can't believe the simpathy for the offender. I was a child victim and have forgiven my offender. But I am also now a parent and want my child to be protected.
These people don't need to frequent place that kids hang out at unless they are accompaning a child themselves.
I do feel that we have a right to know that these people are offenders so that we can protect our children. Based on what I know most of these people don't change.
So you want anyone who "might" be a sex offender to be banned from libraries, where both ADULTS and children can go? Sorry, but your methods are so extreme that no reasonable agency could enforce them.

It's NOT about "having sympathy for the offender." Parents can exercise reasonable caution without going overboard and insisting that the government babysit their kids with such extreme measures. When DS was small, I was watching him constantly, I never allowed to play in places I didn't personally supervise. And guess what; NO stranger approached him with any ill intentions. Why? Because I was THERE. See what I mean?
Silvia

United States

#10 Dec 29, 2007
I am unnerved how little time the police puts into actually reserching a case. A friend of mine was accused of molestation by a child he did not even know. The police never checked into this girls background but offered my friend a deal. You admit to the crime and you get 6 month in jail or it will go to court where we will ask for 17 years. Without money for a good lawyer my friens life is totally ruined. He is branded for the rest of his life as a sex offender without any proof at all. We have released murderers in our mids but they are welcome in our communities. As a foreigner I am discusted with these US laws.
Ocean56

AOL

#11 Dec 29, 2007
naynay wrote:
i feel this unfair to the offenders whom have commited acts while in their youths and have not had any instinces while rebuilding their lives. my brother is a registered sex offender and has a daughter that he loves and tries his best to help whenever he can. he can't help her with school work or take her to the library to read with her or even be at her birthday party in a park? I wonder If the rules could be instated with some kind of exceptions? like for example...checking in to a hotline to get authorization to be in a library or park? this is a far fetched thought but why punish all of them whom are doing their best to move on with their lives? i strongly aggree that rules should be instated because their are some of these predators whom deserve exactly what they get.
The term "sex offender" has been so overused and used to create unnecessary panic, hysteria and hatred toward anyone so much as accused of a sex crime that it is now highly suspect. Contrary to what those in law enforcement would have everyone believe, not everyone is a violent predator. Many so-called "sex offenders" were convicted of "offenses" where NO BODILY INJURY of any kind occurred. But law enforcement would rather we not make that distinction, because then average citizens, who can all too easily be falsely accused of a "sex crime," be it against an adult or a minor of any age, would start questioning law enforcement's methods. And that is something they want to prevent at all costs. They don't want to be questioned, or be held accountable.

The way it is now, a false accusation of a "sex crime," be it rape, child sex abuse, or something along those lines, can be made against anyone by a clever and manipulative accuser with an axe to grind against the accused. The reasons are varied, but the terrible damage has been done. Once accused, police and prosecutors will automatically view the person as "guilty," long before any trial begins. Just look at what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case in North Carolina, or some of the notorious "child molester" witch hunts during the 1980's and 1990's. In all sex crime cases, whether the complainant is a minor child or adult, the constitutional presumption of innocence has been replaced with the automatic presumption of guilt. And anyone who doesn't have an attorney determined to effectively and zealously fight for their clients against these charges is certain to be convicted. Which certainly suits the police and prosecutors very well, but certainly doesn't help the wrongly convicted defendants.

Those who are guilty of violent crimes, where serious bodily injury occurred, should remain in prison to serve their sentences. Those who have NOT been guilty of any serious bodily injury to either an adult or minor shouldn't be branded as "sex offenders" at all, IMO. There is a difference between a violent predator and one who has inflicted no bodily injury on anyone, although some refuse to see that difference.

Ocean
http://www.fija.org
oddball

Augusta, WV

#12 Dec 29, 2007
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want anyone who "might" be a sex offender to be banned from libraries, where both ADULTS and children can go? Sorry, but your methods are so extreme that no reasonable agency could enforce them.
It's NOT about "having sympathy for the offender." Parents can exercise reasonable caution without going overboard and insisting that the government babysit their kids with such extreme measures. When DS was small, I was watching him constantly, I never allowed to play in places I didn't personally supervise. And guess what; NO stranger approached him with any ill intentions. Why? Because I was THERE. See what I mean?
Anytime that I'm out with my kids I make sure that they stay close to me and the wifey at all times!! As for the govt "babysitting",I don't want or need the govt to tell me how to raise my kids! Hell,the govt can't even babysit themselves!
Ocean56

AOL

#13 Dec 29, 2007
Silvia wrote:
I am unnerved how little time the police puts into actually reserching a case. A friend of mine was accused of molestation by a child he did not even know. The police never checked into this girls background but offered my friend a deal. You admit to the crime and you get 6 month in jail or it will go to court where we will ask for 17 years. Without money for a good lawyer my friend's life is totally ruined. He is branded for the rest of his life as a sex offender without any proof at all. We have released murderers in our mids but they are welcome in our communities. As a foreigner I am discusted with these US laws.
I agree. Sadly, this is how most, if not all accusations of either rape or child sex abuse are dealt with by law enforcement, all across the country. They automatically assume the accused is "guilty" without doing any kind of investigation into the accuser's background as well as that of the accused.

Why can't police investigators do a thorough job of investigating both parties, and see where the truth comes out? If it comes out that the accuser has had a questionable background history, which might include a criminal history him/herself, or one where she (or he, as women are sometimes accused of "child molestation" as well) has made previous false accusations against others, then any reasonable person can question the validity of the accuser's statement, and not be so quick to arrest the accused until all the facts are known. Yet this is almost never done, which I find appalling.

Even cops and prosecutors have been falsely accused of sex crimes, as the Tawana Brawley case in New York City in 1986/87 clearly showed. One would think they would realize how easily how false accusations can be made, and take extreme care to avoid making inaccurate assumptions, and even worse, false arrests. But they don't. I guess it will take one of them (police, prosecutor or judge) being falsely accused before they realize how easily a malicious false accusation can happen to THEM. I hope they have a decent attorney if it does.

Ocean
http://www.fija.org
Ocean56

AOL

#14 Dec 29, 2007
oddball wrote:
<quoted text>
Anytime that I'm out with my kids I make sure that they stay close to me and the wifey at all times!!
There you go, you're exercising common sense. Kids who have their parents close to them at all times, especially in public places like stores, parks, and playgrounds are far less likely to be taken by predators than those whose parents leave them alone and vulnerable. Predators tend to look for the easy targets, which are kids by themselves.

Ocean
http://www.fija.org
oddball

Augusta, WV

#15 Dec 29, 2007
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, you're exercising common sense. Kids who have their parents close to them at all times, especially in public places like stores, parks, and playgrounds are far less likely to be taken by predators than those whose parents leave them alone and vulnerable. Predators tend to look for the easy targets, which are kids by themselves.
Ocean
http://www.fija.org
Thank you,I'm a firm believer in common sense! I served in the Navy,and the one thing that they told and taught us, was to always,always watch your back!! Keep an eye on things and people around you at all times. Even though we don't walk on on all fours, it's still a survival instinct that we all have,it's up to us to discover it!
A concerned parent

Chesapeake, VA

#16 Jan 6, 2008
All that are upset about the new rule .. What if one of the offenders was with one of your children and did this disgraceful thing.. sorry oncea sex offender at any age always a sex offender... They should wear the scarlet letter!!!!
Ocean56

AOL

#17 Jan 6, 2008
A concerned parent wrote:
All that are upset about the new rule .. What if one of the offenders was with one of your children and did this disgraceful thing.. sorry oncea sex offender at any age always a sex offender... They should wear the scarlet letter!!!!
It depends on what you mean by a "sex offender." The term has been used and abused so much by now that it no longer has any real meaning.

Contrary to what most members of law enforcement would have you BELIEVE, a sex offender ISN'T necessary a VIOLENT PREDATOR. A violent predator is one who has committed serious bodily injury to either a child or an adult, who have committed murder, rape, sodomy, and other violent sex acts against adults and children. Violent predators should simply serve their sentence, not be released early because the prisons are overcrowded due to the ridiculous drug possession laws.

A "sex offender" can be someone who was convicted of "unlawful sex," which in many cases is an 18 or 19-year-old man having sex with a 15-18 year old girl, and the sex was CONSENTUAL. But because the laws have arbitrarily decided that "a 15-year-old cannot give consent," the man can be arrested and convicted for doing so, if the girl's parents complain loudly enough. These days, a person can be branded for life as a "sex offender," even where was NO BODILY INJURY either intended or inflicted, which is an abuse of the sex offender registry.

Also, there are many people who are falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, all across the country, of either child molestation or rape simply because law enforcement officials took the accuser's statement at face value. There are plenty of times when malicious and unfounded accusations are made against a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend, usually male but sometimes female, during ugly separation, divorce and custody cases, or nasty relationship breakups. The intention is a simple one; remove the unwanted spouse or partner from the picture, by whatever means necessary, including jail/prison if the desire for revenge is strong enough. Anyone who seriously believes "false accusations are extremely rare" and "children never lie or are mistaken about being abused" should do more research on the issue instead of taking whatever law enforcement officials tell them on faith.

Contrary to what many choose to believe, anyone can be accused of either child molestation or rape, for whatever reason. Ever see the movie RULES OF ENGAGEMENT? Then remember this line; "all your medals and all your citations won't mean jack squat [word altered] if they come after you." Even COPS have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of "sex crimes" they never actually committed. Once accused, the presumption of innocence is GONE, and their lives are destroyed, no matter what the person's previous standing in the community was before the accusation was made. Funny how that works.@@

Ocean
IMAGINARY gods have NO jurisdiction
http://www.fija.org
Ron northern va

Woodbridge, VA

#18 Jan 6, 2008
Chesapeake???? I could see if it was a major city like Richmond bringing this up...If passed in Chesapeake what about other larger cities....I don't hear them hollering about this...doesn't matter anyway this is just another feel good statement being made by polioticians..it will never get anywhere and just stir people up on boards like this....there are enough laws on the books to enforce without adding another...

Instead of worrying about child molesters in parks,etc..better to concentrate on making sure all of them are registered in your city..bet you can't account for more than 70% of them in any city
Ocean56

AOL

#19 Jan 6, 2008
Ron northern va wrote:
Chesapeake???? I could see if it was a major city like Richmond bringing this up...If passed in Chesapeake what about other larger cities....I don't hear them hollering about this...doesn't matter anyway this is just another feel good statement being made by polioticians..it will never get anywhere and just stir people up on boards like this....there are enough laws on the books to enforce without adding another...
Instead of worrying about child molesters in parks,etc..better to concentrate on making sure all of them are registered in your city..bet you can't account for more than 70% of them in any city
Chesapeake, VA [and other small towns across the country] is starting to sound a lot like Bakersfield CA in the 1980's. Hundreds of people were falsely accused, tried and convicted of sex crimes which as it turned out, NEVER took place! If you want to find out more about this travesty, which is resurfacing in many other places including Chesapeake, google "Bakersfield CA witch hunt." You'll get many hits, and the information is deeply disturbing.

There are people who deliberately ratchet up the level of panic and hysteria about "sex offenders" and "child molesters" just as the prosecutor in Bakersfield, CA did, to create their own little "crime wave." Certainly kept law enforcement officials busy for a while didn't it...locking up the WRONG PEOPLE.

Ocean
IMAGINARY gods have NO jurisdiction
http://www.fija.org
A concerned parent

Chesapeake, VA

#20 Jan 6, 2008
THE CITY OF CHES IS NEAR NORFOLK VA, VA. BEACH VA IN WHICH THERE ARE NUMBEROUS SEX OFFENDERS IN ALL OF THE CITIES. THE LAW CHANGED IN JULY 07 IN WHICH CERTAIN BUSINESSES ARE PRIVILAGE TO THE INFORMATION AND WE GET DAILY NOTICED OF THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED WITH THE SEX OFFENDERS IT IS AMAZING TO SEE THOSE THAT WERE "CHARGED" IN THEIR TEENS BECAUSE THEY HAD SEX WITH A MINOR IN LATER YEARS HAVE ANOTHER CHARGE OF RAPE, ETC IT IS MORE THAN 50% SO YES SOME I AGREE HAD A TICK OFF PARENT TAHT CAUGHT THEIR DAUGHTER OR SON HAVINGSEX AT AN EARLY AGE BUT THOSE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN
Ocean56

AOL

#21 Jan 7, 2008
A concerned parent wrote:
THE CITY OF CHES IS NEAR NORFOLK VA, VA. BEACH VA IN WHICH THERE ARE NUMBEROUS SEX OFFENDERS IN ALL OF THE CITIES. THE LAW CHANGED IN JULY 07 IN WHICH CERTAIN BUSINESSES ARE PRIVILAGE TO THE INFORMATION AND WE GET DAILY NOTICED OF THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED WITH THE SEX OFFENDERS IT IS AMAZING TO SEE THOSE THAT WERE "CHARGED" IN THEIR TEENS BECAUSE THEY HAD SEX WITH A MINOR IN LATER YEARS HAVE ANOTHER CHARGE OF RAPE, ETC IT IS MORE THAN 50% SO YES SOME I AGREE HAD A TICK OFF PARENT TAHT CAUGHT THEIR DAUGHTER OR SON HAVINGSEX AT AN EARLY AGE BUT THOSE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN
Riiiiiight, "few and far between." So law enforcement would like you to BELIEVE. I had consentual sex at 17 with a young man of 19. I suppose that's "rape" to you?@@ I can assure you, it was NOT. Uncomfortable, since it was my first time, but definitely not rape. But if my parents had found out about it, they would have called the police on my then BF and had him tossed in jail. Which is precisely why I never told anyone. My body, my choice. This was all over 2 decades ago, by the way.

Ocean
IMAGINARY gods have NO jurisdiction
http://www.fija.org

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paper Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kimberly-Clark Gets It Perfectly Right In Attra... Dec 17 PD_Lape 2
Lawsuit: Surgical Gowns Let Disease Pass Through Dec 17 PD_Lape 2
Kleenex maker plans 1,300 cuts Dec 17 PD_Lape 2
U.S. Ebola fears fuel new demand for protective... Dec 9 PD_Lape 2
U.S. Ebola fears fuel new demand for protective... Dec 4 PD_Lape 2
Bank of America and Walgreens Most Active Stock... (Jun '12) Dec 3 fayebryant00 6
Kimberly-Clark To Cut Up To 1,300 Jobs Nov '14 star writer 3
More from around the web