Sex Offenders Oppose Volunteer Ban

[Woodmonkey]

(ATLANTA) — Five sex offenders filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming that a tough new Georgia law that bans them from volunteering at churches also robs them of their right to participate in religious worship.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rome, claims the Georgia law effectively "criminalizes fundamental religious activities" for sex offenders and bars them from serving as a choir member, secretary, accountant or any other role with a religious organization.

"Even helping a pastor with Bible study or preparing a meal in a church kitchen will subject (sex offenders) to prosecution and imprisonment," the complaint said.

It is the latest of a growing list of legal challenges targeting Georgia's strict sex offender statute, which was hailed by supporters in 2006 as one of the toughest in the nation but has since been the frequent focus of lawsuits contending it is far too restrictive.

The main portion of the measure bans sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of just about anywhere children gather. That includes schools, parks, gyms, swimming pools and the state's 150,000 school bus stops.

The original version of the law banned sex offenders from working at churches, but when it was retooled this year supporters slipped in a provision also banning them from volunteering at houses of worship. Doing so could risk a penalty of 10 to 30 years in prison.

The changes were adopted with little debate in April at the urging of Republican lawmakers who said it will help protect Georgia's children and prevent the state from becoming a "safe haven" for sex offenders.

"I have not had one prosecutor, one judge, one sheriff, one mama, one daddy, one grandparent coming down here telling me to repeal the residency requirements on sex offenders," state Rep. David Ralston, one of the measure's sponsors, told House lawmakers during the session.

"I think the people of Georgia understand we're trying to protect the children of Georgia," said Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.

Critics have launched a slew of lawsuits over the last two years claiming the law is unconstitutional, and federal judges are already considering challenges targeting the school bus stop portion of the law and another provision that could evict offenders who live near churches.

The latest challenge, which was filed by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, claims that the measure deprives Georgia's sex offenders of the "rehabilitative influence" of religious activity.

"Certain people on the sex offender registry should not work with children in a church setting or elsewhere," says Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the center. "But criminalizing the practice of religion for all 15,000 people on the registry will do more harm than good."

The group's lawsuit centers on five sex offenders who fear the new provision, which goes into effect July 1, will ban them from participating in many religious functions.

Among them is Omar Howard, a 33-year-old who is on the registry after he was convicted of false imprisonment of a minor during a 1993 burglary.

He got involved in a Christian ministry during his 14 year prison sentence and he became an active volunteer at several churches after his release last year. Now he's not sure whether the law will allow him to help prepare for revival meetings, serve on church committees or sing in the choir, which he feels is part of his calling.

"What really can I do? This law cripples me. All I can do is go to sermons and leave. Why am I a threat to exercise my faith?" he said.

The Source

[Chrisj]

I can understand not not being able to live near a school or playground but not within a thousand feet of a bus stop. I assume you can be placed on the sex offenders register for crimes other than sexual abuse of children so apart from excluding paedophiles everyone else who may have committed some minor indiscretion, streaking, nude sunbathing etc can all be tarred with the same brush. This sounds like one of those bits of legislation which is more to do with appearing to be tough on certain crimes rather than addressing the root problem which is protection of children from predators.

The introduction of laws to curtail the freedom of certain members of society who have in theory served their time is understandable if vulnerable members of society are to be protected, but this law seems to want to exclude them from society altogether, even organisations who might prevent them from re offending. Today on Radio 4 there was some debate on the criminal records check that everyone who works with children has to go through, there is some evidence that organisations that do voluntary work with children are struggling to get volunteers. The thing is if you do work for two or three organisations where children are involved each organisation has to pay for its own checks. You can not be issued with some form of licence that declares you are police checked, and each time you have to complete a form and each time the organisation has to pay for the checks.

Another more disturbing issue is that of societies attitude, a child was picked up and murdered whilst wandering on the street, she had been spotted by at least one other driver who didn't stop to help for fear of being branded a paedophile. My father in law loved to go for a walk in the woods at a near by park but now he will not go unless my teenager daughter goes with him because of the funny looks he gets from parents. It has reached the stage in this country where any man is very wary of stopping to help a child especially who is not one of his own. If the police take you in for questioning over an incident you can be certain the headlines in the paper will ruin your life and career even if it later proves you were innocent. And the glacial pace some investigations proceed at you could well find yourself, unemployed and ostracised before the police even make a decision if there is a case to answer. The retraction won't be as prominent as the accusation and people being what they are will assume there's no smoke without fire so you will be guilty by popular acclaim.

The mob mentality can prove to be very dangerous, a paediatric nurse was driven out of his home by a baying mob. Some semi literate oaf heard paediatric which was close enough to paedophile for him, whipped up a crowd of other semi literate oafs and set off with a lynch mob.

[Snowden]

It's ridiculous, but it is the way things are these days. My son's a Catholic priest, Chris. He says it's reached the point that if a priest is accused of anything regarding kids, he's sometimes simply kicked out of the priesthood before he can be proved guilty or innocent.

The only thing I can attribute all this to is that mothers are not at home and kids wander about too freely. They are being taken advantage of and have no "mothers living on the street" to keep an eye out for them.

I realize it's more than this, but that much of a perceived protecting cover seemed to be sufficient for most children. They, as well as any predators, need to feel that somebody is overseeing them.

[Woodmonkey]

I assume you can be placed on the sex offenders register for crimes other than sexual abuse of children so apart from excluding paedophiles everyone else who may have committed some minor indiscretion, streaking, nude sunbathing etc can all be tarred with the same brush.

Nude sunbathing, steaking etc won't get you on the sex offenders list. You have to do something that involves sex, like rape, exposure, kiddie porn.

There's a push to separate out the child sex offenders from the list because those who go after adult women don't go after children. They wouldn't be covered by the laws of not going a certain distance from schools, playgrounds etc.

I think that they should keep convicted pedophiles from children since it's been shown that they can't stop.