Depending on conditions, yes. At least in Pennsylvania.
Same in Maryland. Depends on what conditions the department of Parole and Probation put on their release and registration. Adult offenders not likely. Child offenders far more likely.
Even at your 72 hour hearing (arraignment) a judge can set conditions on what you are allowed to do. For example, depending on your charges, the judge can limit your access to the internet, including what you do with your phone. And if you must use your phone for navigating (that require web usage) someone must be right there with you.
Sentencing is much the same. It up to the judge to set boundaries.
2 x
I self-identify as a conspiracy theorist. My pronouns are told/you/so.
In any case, I don't think sex offenders are restricted from trying to find employment (although frequent traveling between states does sound suss). At the end of the day, I hope most of us would want sex offenders to be employed, not unemployed.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:13 amIn most states, sex offenders are required to report to the authorities, register, and avoid areas with children like schools and churches. Failure to do that is, in fact, illegal. You may disagree with such laws, but they are the law.
Sex offenders are required to ... avoid churches?
Since when?
It also depends on the type of church.
A church that operates a school, daycare, bible school, etc. Most likely. A church whose ministry is to adult ex-cons, probably not. There are ministries dedicated to that exact thing.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:58 am
In any case, I don't think sex offenders are restricted from trying to find employment (although frequent traveling between states does sound suss). At the end of the day, I hope most of us would want sex offenders to be employed, not unemployed.
If they are parolees then they are restricted like any other parole who has to answer to a parole officer. If they are no longer parolees but simply registered sex offenders then they are required by law to register with the authorities every time they change addresses. Sure they can move between states, but they have to follow the laws of their new state which likely requires that convicted sex offenders register with the local authorities and also imposes restrictions on where they can live and work.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:58 am
In any case, I don't think sex offenders are restricted from trying to find employment (although frequent traveling between states does sound suss). At the end of the day, I hope most of us would want sex offenders to be employed, not unemployed.
i don’t think it’s a matter of strict shunning.
Unfortunately, it’s proven, restraints, conditions, oversight, tracking, accountability, separation from access to potential victims, are necessary. Even in our faulty culture. Too many victims of repeat offenders to ignore.
Last edited by temporal1 on Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:13 amIn most states, sex offenders are required to report to the authorities, register, and avoid areas with children like schools and churches. Failure to do that is, in fact, illegal. You may disagree with such laws, but they are the law.
Sex offenders are required to ... avoid churches?
Since when?
It also depends on the type of church.
A church that operates a school, daycare, bible school, etc. Most likely. A church whose ministry is to adult ex-cons, probably not. There are ministries dedicated to that exact thing.
I suppose I am far more concerned about the member in good standing who has escaped a criminal record who is imbedded into the church structure, than I am about some random guy wandering from town to town whom everyone is already suspicious of.
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:58 am
In any case, I don't think sex offenders are restricted from trying to find employment (although frequent traveling between states does sound suss). At the end of the day, I hope most of us would want sex offenders to be employed, not unemployed.
i don’t think it’s a matter of strict shunning.
Unfortunately, it’s proven, restraints, conditions, oversight, tracking, accountability, separation from access to potential victims, are necessary. Too many victims to ignore. Even in our faulty culture.
OK, t1. So do you think sex offenders should be employed or unemployed?
A church that operates a school, daycare, bible school, etc. Most likely. A church whose ministry is to adult ex-cons, probably not. There are ministries dedicated to that exact thing.
I suppose I am far more concerned about the member in good standing who has escaped a criminal record who is imbedded into the church structure, than I am about some random guy wandering from town to town whom everyone is already suspicious of.
That is a problem with the culture of the church then. If they are hiding and sheltering sex offenders and abusers within their midst. Which does seem to be a problem in some churches, that is true. And you are right to be concerned about it.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:58 am
In any case, I don't think sex offenders are restricted from trying to find employment (although frequent traveling between states does sound suss). At the end of the day, I hope most of us would want sex offenders to be employed, not unemployed.
i don’t think it’s a matter of strict shunning.
Unfortunately, it’s proven, restraints, conditions, oversight, tracking, accountability, separation from access to potential victims, are necessary. Too many victims to ignore. Even in our faulty culture.
OK, t1. So do you think sex offenders should be employed or unemployed?
employed with restrictions+oversight. isn’t that what i said?
when/if not incarcerated.
do you agree rape, rape of the vulnerable, is violence? i agree with this.
also, that the legal definition of rape of children isn’t conditional on penetration? i agree with this.
the CAM threads got into these many questions, esp with Anabaptist views.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
temporal1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:10 am
do you agree rape, rape of the vulnerable, is violence? i agree with this.
also, that the legal definition of rape of children isn’t conditional on penetration? i agree with this.
the CAM threads got into these many questions, esp with Anabaptist views.
What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand?
