Adventureland will compare state sex offender registry to season pass holders

My question is, "And then what?"

Are they going to deny season passes to these people? Assign them a special security detail when they are in the park? Keep statistics on what percentage of season pass sales go to registered sex offenders? Taunt the registered when they walk in the gate?

This sounds to me like something they would do to (a) keep an intern busy, and (b) look like they are doing something about a perceived issue that they already know not to be a serious problem, also not a problem they are really in a good position to do much about.

Am I missing something here? Particularly given that the one offender they caught last season would not have been on the registry anyway?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I'm not convinced that sex offender registries do anything either except create government jobs. I'd love for someone to actually study a measured effect of these efforts.

A very good childhood friend of mine is on the registry for something not so bad, and easily explainable. From how he has to live his life now, I see how difficult it is for him to be on the registry. The bright side of that is that he works his butt off for himself, and is doing pretty well nonetheless.

The crime he committed was not evil or anything. He made some very bad choices. He lost a lot of friends through that ordeal. I stuck right with him, because I knew the whole story, and I knew that he was not a bad person.

I suppose, through all of that rambling, my point is that some people on the national registry don't deserve serve a lifetime of punishment that it creates. Being put on the national registry should be case by case, and should be allowed to be blocked by a judge, in my uneducated opinion.

Tying it to this topic, I just want to say that while comparing season passholders to the National Registry can be a good way to find the bad guys, not all of the people on that list are bad guys. Not everyone on that list would be at a theme park just to carry out a perverted agenda.

On the other hand, it's great that the park is trying to find ways to protect the rugrats, who muck about unattended, if that's really what this is all about.

I think it's a little dangerous in that it gives parents the perception that they can leave their kids unattended at the park.

It just *might* catch someone....but I really doubt it. Like Jeff said, keeps an intern busy. All you could probably really do at this point is refuse them a season pass anyway (unless there's a law that bars them from amusement parks?) Seems like the ones really molesting guests in theme parks these days are wearing costumes.

Well, Dave said interns. I did not have relations with that woman.

What about those who walk up to the gate and purchase a single day ticket. Are they gonna check them out as well?

Peeing in public can land you on the sex offender registry in some states.

egieszl said:
Peeing in public can land you on the sex offender registry in some states.

In some states even working within the sex industry ( strippers, doing porno, even the posting of nude pics of yourself online ..etc..) is enough to land one on the sex offender list too.

A few years ago when I was in Virginia Beach I can remember one of their local TV news stations had done a story about a local woman who was dancing in one of those "gentlemen's clubs" only to forget her pasties. Long story short the police showed up, arrested the woman and she had to register as a sex offender.

An old classmate of mine lives in Palm Springs and works in the adult movie industry. From what he was telling me they won't accept "actors" living in certain states such as Virginia, West Virginia and Utah to work in their films because of the fear that once they go home they too may have to register.

The latest thing is they now want to try teenagers who "sext" naughty pictures to each other as sex offenders. The law is out of control. Child molesters are bad, yes. That's why we put them in prison for some amount of time. But I still question if these registration laws are even constitutional. They haven't been truly challenged in the courts because no one wants to appear to defend a "deviant." Especially horny teenagers who want to see each other naked, because clearly they're a threat to society, and obviously not like every other teenager in the world.

Jeff, I totally agree with you and I do as well wonder about whether or not such laws are constitutional, but it could be worse if some had their way. When Virginia was going through the vote on gay marriage, I had the chance to interview the senator on the radio who was behind the bill ( he was against gay marriage & civil unions ). Not only did he believe that ALL gay men/women should be "registered" as sex offenders only because they are, well gay but even those who have HIV/AIDS and Bipolar disorder should be registered too. The senator kept making the claim on my program that those with bipolar are bisexual so therefor people have a right to know. Oh in the same interview with me, he made a claim that children born with downs syndrome were a "product of the devil" . UGH !!!

As strange as this man was ( and still is ),yet he was re-elected a few years later and continues to serve to this day in Richmond. Go figure !!!

That's the scary thing. If our elected officials are a reflection of the population, it's a scary place indeed.

Well, I'm bipolar, and my g/f says...

Seriously, this is an issue with a LOT of gray areas. How far is the park willing to go on this, and will other parks follow? I thought those on the lists couldn't be near kids, and that an amusement park would definitely be off-limits.

rollergator said:
I think it's a little dangerous in that it gives parents the perception that they can leave their kids unattended at the park.

Agree that this is a bad smoke screen that could provide a false sense of security for dropping kids off that probably shouldn't be on their own at the park. Unfortunately some parents treat a season pass like a summer babysitting service.

ilovethewildone said:
Seriously, this is an issue with a LOT of gray areas. How far is the park willing to go on this, and will other parks follow? I thought those on the lists couldn't be near kids, and that an amusement park would definitely be off-limits.

In Virginia if one is a convicted sex offender they can't even have PG RATED MOVIES with children in them in their personal collection without facing additional jail time.

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2011/01/sex-offender-faces-more-prison.php

Gray area true but as Jeff had said earlier "... They haven't been truly challenged in the courts because no one wants to appear to defend a "deviant." Say for example I was turned down from entering a Jeepers Fun Center to achive a credit because I didn't have a child with me. There are already laws on the books that doesn't allow such things since that is considered discrimation. Sure I can sue Jeepers and chances are I would win but would it be worth it such as having the general public questioning my motive of doing such a thing? No it wouldn't plus also there could be a backlash. Parents would say that since Jeepers is doing the right thing in protecting children by not allowing those without kids for entering then they could very well, perhaps even getting their elected officials involved to put pressure on other places ( such as theme parks ) to adopt similar rules. Imagine say the governor of Virginia ( who considers himself to be family friendly ) putting pressure on Kings Dominion and Busch Gardens Europe to set aside time for only those with kids to enter. Will those parks fight it? Doubful for the fear of being "anti-family" and being accused of "favoring sex offenders.

It really could open up a can of worms.

Chriscub said:

In Virginia if one is a convicted sex offender they can't even have PG RATED MOVIES with children in them in their personal collection without facing additional jail time.

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2011/01/sex-offender-faces-more-prison.php

Did you even read the article you linked to? In that particular case, yes, the offender violated his parole by possessing certain PG rated movies:

the parole board determined that having these movies violated a condition of Armel's release that prohibited him from viewing potentially stimulating images of children

Considering the man's crimes, I don't think it's unreasonable. But it's pretty misleading to give a blanket statement that anyone convicted as a sex offender in VA will face additional jail time for having PG rated movies with children in them.

It seems like the term "sex offender" can be used VERY loosely depending on where you live. It's hard to imagine how someone who pees in public, and someone who strips in a club can all be put in the same category as rapists and child molesters. What the hell is wrong with people?

As far as the ignorant senator from Richmond, it shocks me but doesn't surprise me. He's not the first official to make such comments. It still blows me away that there are people out there that actually believes that s*** and votes them in or re-elects them anyway.

-Tina

I think this is a smoke screen to make it seem like they aredoing something after some bad publicity. But like mentioned, if someone was goingto do something wrong they would just buy a day ticket. It’s a sad thing to saybut it’s the way it is. Not to mention not every one that is on the registrydeserves to be those or is they did commit something worthy of being on it willever again.

A manwas put on the registry for sunbathing nude in his own back yard which wasfenced in. the neighboring kids climbed a tree and saw him. Sexting charges on15, 16, and 17 year olds.

I think too often the case is aperson not asking the Wright question and making a wrong choice. They should notbe lumped in with the pervert that sits outside a school to grab a child.