The ACLU is at it again :-P

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/31/sex.offender.suit.ap/index.html

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP)

Six sex offenders sued the city Wednesday to block a new ordinance that bars them from venturing within 1,000 feet of parks, pools and playgrounds when children are present.

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.

The ordinance was approved May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500.

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Tenley Drescher, an attorney for the city, said officials planned to defend the ordinance. "The important part is protecting kids," she said.

Beam me up Scotty.....

Dr. Mordrid

[Sasq]

erm yes and no.
not got an issue with what the law is trying to do.
*though we have discussed issues with the 'definition' previously. as far as keeping convicted child molesters/rapists etc away from places where children play good idea. keeping some guy who had sex with his gf when he was 19 and she was 17, they later married and he can't take his kids to the park alone...

Just as the article reads, and not having read the actual ordinance, it could do with a little more definition. particulary on things like the driving.

That said, keep the bastards away from kids.

[Wombat]

A little quick to pass judgment, isn't it? There's very little detail in the AP snippet. The ACLU's site doesn't have anything yet.

Did find an article on another local site: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/9298220/detail.html

Seems to me that the example grievances are valid - the new law paints with too broad a brush here.

[Dr Mordrid]

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

That should take care of most objections. Staffers can "escort" them in most locales including schools and churces.

IMO I don't want any perves alone in a child space.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

Why should that "take care of most objections?" Where do these mythical "staffers" come from? How would a convicted offender obtain one? How would an offender even know where not to go? These locations aren't marked - you're expecting someone to navigate a minefield without a map.

IMO I don't want any perves alone in a child space

This isn't about being IN a child space, it's about being a significant distance near one. I have a school, a (separate) baseball field, a rec center, within 1/2 mile of my home (on major roads), and those are just the places I am aware of. I couldn't even get to the highway under such restrictions. In many cities, the vast majority of the city would be covered by these exclusion zones.

FWIW, "sex offender" covers an awful lot of people. I really have known people who were convicted because they were 18 and the parents of their 17-y.o. daughter sought prosecution. You think this is an acceptable way to restrict the rest of their life?

Hell, even "drug-free school zones" are at least posted. They're also generally 1,000ft. Oh, they are also useless, and don't reduce drug sales in their affected areas.

[Brian Ellis]

Bloody stupid law, as described. If I were such an offender and I wanted to go to, say, Larnaca, I would have to pass three schools built on or close to the main road, without a bypass available. I can visualise hundreds of small towns in the USA with schools etc. on Main Street, which are unavoidable. I could even imagine urban freeways within 1000 feet of a school or playground.

Take the intent (which I do understand) of this law and extend it to its logical conclusion. Kids are in school, what? 6 or 7 hours/day? That means they are out of school for 17 or 18 hours/day. They are BY FAR more in danger when they are not collectively in school or a playground. They are more in danger if they are playing alone in their own front yard, so the law should logically proscribe equally being within 1000 feet of any house where there is a kid in the family.

A law is useful ONLY if it can be applied practically. To forbid offenders to enter places where there are kids, OK, I've no problem with that. To proscribe a radius of 300 m round every place where kids may be found is just plain stooooopid! In fact, if you took a map of any city and drew a line delimiting the banned areas, I doubt whether there are many places where offenders would have a right to be, and the chances are that a lot of these areas would be enclaves that you could not get into without passing through a banned area.

Also, it does not discriminate between a bloke who flashed himself to an adult female (or male) and a true paedophile. Is a guy caught in a raid on an illegal brothel likely to assault children?