You know, all that you all are saying doesnt have much bearing with the particulars of this situation. I'm sure no one wants anything to happen to their loved ones. But in the same breath, you cannot fault the Judicary for making the ruling that they did. He interpreted the laws AS WRITTEN. That is the *only* function that he was supposed to do. If you all feel that the laws were too lax, I strongly urge you all to express this malcontent with the Legislature as it is their job to make the laws.
And it is curious to me that so many here seem to be entrenched in the mantra "Once a criminal, always a criminal". It makes me wonder if some of y'all would rather see people locked up for life for everything. If rehabilitation is *not* possible (and I for one think it IS), then perhaps our entire penal system needs to be overhauled.
lata, jeremy
--who did NOT sleep through "Consititution Class"
Jeremy, I must respectfully disagree.
He was given a second chance, and he blew it. He went out, and he molested another kid. Rehabilitation obviously did not work for him. For many people it's not "once a criminal, always a criminal", but for sexual abuse of a minor, rehab did not work for this guy and he needs to stay away from children. It is so obvious that he cannot control himself.
-----------------
Please visit the small parks. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes
Woodencoaster.com
Two more things for 2Hostyl:
1) It's not "once a criminal, always a criminal", it's "twice convicted, two or three other times you did it without being caught." There's a big difference, you know.
2) Once "T" starts popping out little Curt Juniors, I'm sure you'll join the mob. Matter of fact, I'll save you a torch and pitchfork. How's that?
-'Playa
*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya on 1/2/2003. ***
Several points:
1) The judge did leave open the possiblity of banning busker's based on a history of pedophilia convictions. The judge's real problem was with the vagueness of the local law. I think that the courts have supported laws that prevent convicted pedophiles from working in jobs that involve children, such as teaching.
2) I feel that everyone has a right to earn a living, however, we do restrict the fields that someone may work in on many different criteria including education, medical history, history of emotional disorders, and criminal convictions. This is true for doctors, teachers, policemen, firemen, pilots, bus drivers, and may other professions. The issue here seems to not be the right to work, but the right to work in a profession which relates directly to criminal convictions.
3) I believe in rehabilitation. I believe in people overcoming adversity. I've worked with convicted fellons who have served their time. I've worked with alcholics, both sober and otherwise. I strongly support those who have overcome their problems and are working towanrds overcoming them. However, I don't think we should give child related jobs to people with multiple convictions for pedophilia or bus driving jobs to people with multiple convictions for DWI. However, if the alcoholic wants to be a clown or the person with a history of pedophilia wants to drive a city (not school) bus, I have no problem.
I think Jim is right on. My mom is a behavioral psychologist. She works with some of the saddest cases, you wouldn't believe. She is always cautioning me to not judge to quickly people with mental illness but even she said there are 100 other things this guy can do that wouldn't involve direct contact with children.
Frankly, if that guy does anything else the blame should be put squarely on the judges shoulders and he should be gang raped in prison.
I don't think this should shock so many people. I'm sorry but we've had some of the worst pedaphiles to date in the music industry and some of them are still around even now. (michael Jackson) ^cough^!
To be fair, I still think that the guy did something bad and should be punished for it and never given a good chance to do something like that again. What he did was sick and should be stopped. I'm sorry, but putting him in a job where he has access to kids every day is not OK. I don't care if he says he's cured, he blew his chance the minute he did what he did. It's like putting a wolf in a chicken coop, this should never happen.
dexter said:
NoLimitChic,
However, When something like this happens to someone, they will assume that the crime commiter will definately do it again, in which I do not believe.
I'm not so sure that the man who grabbed you would be the same evildoer that he was the month he grabbed you.
But as I said, I later learned that he had done this to another women at another fair only a month prior... except... she wasnt so lucky.
-----------------
"Now this looks like a job for me so everybody just follow me, cuz we need a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me." Without Me, The Eminem Show
Playa, you can keep your pitchfork. I have a fundamental problem with anything there is the "lynch mob" mentality. Even if I am in general agreement with running Frankenstien's monster out of town like everyone else, there is always time for a modicum of reflection.
And I still dont see how you all are not assuming that rehablilitation does not work. You all keep spouting back how people seemed to be "destined" to repeat their crimes anyway. So, if that is the case, why not lock them all up for the duration of their natural lives?
One more thing, and this comes up every time there is something involving childrem, to the parents on the boards, just because you all have children does not give you all some "Moral Majority" over those of us who do not. Perhaps it even can serve to give you a certain predispotion that can preclude objectivity. I do not fault no blame you for your opinions, and no one really knows how one without children will react in the future if they *do* become parents. But if anything, they are allowed a viewpoint that might not be available to those whose "parental instincts" are first and foremost in the mind.
lata, jeremy
-----------------
"Sunshine, daisies, butter-mellow! Turn this stupid fat rat yellow!"
Handing lifetime sentences is not the spirit of this nation. One may say that it is not a punishment because there are many other jobs the man can do. However, that fails to recognize the fact that liberty is taken from the man if he cannot choose his profession of his own accord. Liberty is a compromise, the liberty you give to one takes away from the liberty of another. This compromise was accepted by the founding fathers of our nation, but with the limits of the first 8 amendments. Those eight amendments provide a floor below which liberty should not slip, for if they did it would be a compromise no more but an unlawful taking by the mob from an individual.
Sexual predators are terrible people, in some regards I believe them worse then murderers, but our system does not provide the indeterminate removal of freedom for these crimes. It is also of importance that our system of justice ranks crimes into two groups (felonies and misdemeanors) and into degrees within them. For some felonies there is a right to restrict one's liberty for life, however this man did not commit one of those crimes. If we deny this man's civil rights, trust me yours will be next. In fact, as American's we are giving away a number of our civil liberties every year for some notion of crime control. Yet all we are achieving is the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and no significant reduction in crime. We all have a duty to protect the Constitution even when it is for a reprehensible person, because their loss today will be our loss tomorrow.
*** This post was edited by Enigma13 on 1/2/2003. ***
Noone is saying he should be denied the right to work. Why though, can we not deny him the right to work directly with children?
Would you put a convicted drug dealer in a position at a pharmacy?
By saying he can't be a clown, or a teacher, or any other position that puts him in direct contact with children doesn't deny him his civil rights. A midget isn't allowed to ride a rollercoaster with a 48" minimum height limit. Are we stripping him of his civil rights? Of course not.
Being a proponent of Civil Rights doesn't mean you have to disregard common sense.
Hey, if this guy wants to dress up like a clown and dance around his house, more power to him.
*** This post was edited by wahoo skipper on 1/2/2003. ***
2Hostyl: Who said morality had anything to do with it? Do you think I'm perfectly just in saying I'd want to kill someone who molested my children? (On second thought, I wouldn't do that--I'd just get a baseball bat, work their knees in backward and go for a little dental 'revision') This has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with paternal instinct. That instinct isn't about justice or fairness what's right or wrong for anybody--and that includes the kids.
It's irrational and overprotective and cloying and more powerful than any force you can imagine. It's the same basic instinct that turns cute, furry little woodland creatures into ruthless killers. Get too close to the nest and watch what happens.
That's why I'm saying you'd have to have your own kids. You'd have to experience this feeling to know what I'm talking about. There's no rhyme or reason or logic or 'Plain English' way to describe it, that's all.
-'Playa
-----------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.
*** This post was edited by CoastaPlaya on 1/2/2003. ***
As a new dad I completely agree with 'Playa 100%. I would protect my brothers and sisters and I would protect my wife but if my child were harmed by a piece of ______ person like this clown I am most certain I would do things I didn't know I was capable of.
I wouldn't crack that guy in his face with that bat. I would bend him over and shove it where the sun don't shine.
wahoo skipper said:
"Noone is saying he should be denied the right to work. Why though, can we not deny him the right to work directly with children?Would you put a convicted drug dealer in a position at a pharmacy?
By saying he can't be a clown, or a teacher, or any other position that puts him in direct contact with children doesn't deny him his civil rights. A midget isn't allowed to ride a rollercoaster with a 48" minimum height limit. Are we stripping him of his civil rights? Of course not.
Being a proponent of Civil Rights doesn't mean you have to disregard common sense.
Hey, if this guy wants to dress up like a clown and dance around his house, more power to him.*** This post was edited by wahoo skipper on 1/2/2003. ***"
1. We can't deny him the right to work with children because he has already served the punishment for his crime and this would be an additional punishment for which there is no authority. We would be denying him the right to choose his occupation, a right we all have.
2. I would not put a convicted drug dealer in a position of a pharmacist if I were in a position of hiring, but I would not restrict his right to work as a pharmacist under guise of law.
3. Denying him the right to work any job that puts him in contact with children would deny his civil rights because it denies him a choice in a fundamental life decision. There is no authority to deny him the right to make that choice. The midget analogy is not applicable because there is no fundamental right to use other peoples personal property (like rollercoasters), while there is a fundamental right to use public forums.
4. By believing in civil liberties I am not disregarding common sense. I do not believe that it is a good idea, and I wouldn't hire this man to work with children. I just believe that we lack the right to deny this man his rights after he has served his punishment and lived crime free (we still do presume innocence until guilt is proven) for over twenty years. Would I hire him, no, but neither would I deny him the right to be hired if someone were willing to give him a chance. In this case we can't deny him the right to access to public forums.
5. I totally understand the sentiment of killing a pedophile if they abuse your loved ones. I would feel the same way. However, I am saying that after someone has paid whatever debt to society the law has meted out (as the actor for society) and shown themselves to be rehabilitated for over twenty years we cannot continue to deny them rights. You do not have to like him, nothing denies anybody the right to refuse his clowning services, but we lack the right to deny his oppurtunity.
I don't have the right to choose my occupation. I wanted to be a commercial airline pilot but because I am color blind, I cannot be. It seems the airline industry is concerned for the safety of the flying public because I might land on a taxiway instead of a runway.
Another thing I cannot do is get a license to be an electrician. It seems that there is some concern that I might do a poor job of wiring a house and could leave potential dangers.
In both cases, the good of the public as a whole takes precedence over the good of the individual. In my opinion, the case with this clown is no different.
Edit: I just read with great interest a medical entry regarding Pedophillia in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. Under the topic of treatment, it stated, "Behavioral treatment of pedophilia does not affect recidivism, nor apparently does incarceration. The condition remains chronic."
Well that makes me feel much better...not.
*** This post was edited by wahoo skipper on 1/2/2003. ***
So let's delineate the difference between ponti-fecation and just plain common sense. Enigma13, same question: Is he your new roomie now? Why or why not?
-'Playa
CoastaPlaya said:
"So let's delineate the difference between ponti-fecation and just plain common sense. Enigma13, same question: Is he your new roomie now? Why or why not?-'Playa"
-----------------
Please visit the small parks. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes
Woodencoaster.com
1) The man is not, would not be, does not intend to be, employed by Playland. Again, the generic term for performers engaged in this clown's line of work is busker. Clown, street magician, musician, storyteller, mime, juggler, poet, artist. This particular person happens to be a clown.
2) The existing law prevents Playland from denying this person a performance permit. The park in question is operated by a County government, and as such is bound by civil rights/non-discrimination clauses as regards access to the non-revenue areas of the park. As the law now stands there is no clause which gives the County the right to deny this person a performance permit. He has complied, apparently, with the requirements for obtaining his performance permit, and denying him his permit would require either violating local ordinance, or (in the cause of fairness) denying the permits of all comers.
3) This is a civil rights issue because it involves equal access to public facilities. It has nothing to do with this guy's right to try to earn a living; it has everything to do with his right to make use of the public grounds.
I reiterate: The judge made a legal decision based solely on applicable legal issues. You don't have to like it. You're entitled to be outraged by it. If you don't like it, you're welcome to propose ways to fix it. But be careful. Be aware of the problem of unintended consequenses.
Oh, and let me ask you this, you who would stop at nothing to "protect the children"...
You know that the clown blowing up balloon animals at Playland might be a pedophile. This worries you.
But what do you know about the nice man sitting on the bench feeding the ducks? You know, the perfect stranger who is not performing, who has just as much access to your kid as the clown, but who is completely anonymous, and who nobody would notice if he slipped off into the bushes for a few moments.......
Think about it. Do you really feel safer because you don't know where the pedophile ended up? Is it really comforting to know one place where he isn't?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
You must be logged in to post