Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 27, 2006

Child molester to be released

Evaluator: Offender no longer a ‘sexually violent predator’

July 27, 2006

Advertisement

A repeat child molester from Lawrence won't be going back to his lock-up in a treatment program at Larned State Hospital.

Randy A. Foster, who had his commitment to the hospital overturned earlier this year by the Kansas Supreme Court, will be freed because of a Larned evaluator's finding that he no longer fits the definition of a "sexually violent predator." Without that label, Atty. Gen. Phill Kline's office can't go forward with its effort to have Foster sent back to the program.

"We're bound by what the Larned evaluator determines," said Sherriene Jones, a spokeswoman for Kline's office.

As of Wednesday, Foster was being held in the Douglas County Jail.

The case shows that when it comes to determining who is and isn't a sexual predator, the evaluator's word can mean everything. Paul Appelbaum, a former president of the American Psychiatric Assn., said in an interview last year that evaluators have "enormous discretion" because the definition of a predator is so vague.

In Kansas, a sexually violent predator is someone with a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" that makes him likely to commit repeated acts of sexual violence.

"Almost everybody who has committed an offense like this will get some mental abnormality diagnosis," Appelbaum said. "Evaluators therefore are left in a very difficult position. Here's somebody who by definition has committed a major sexual offense. You say 'No,' and they're released and they do it again. Fingers point at you ... If you say 'Yes,' the person is sent away, maybe never to be out on the streets again."

Foster was sexually abused by his father and was molested by a 12-year-old boy when he was 5 years old, according to court records. His sex crimes include 1993 convictions for molesting two stepdaughters, ages 4 and 6, and a stepdaughter's friend.

He underwent treatment in prison and was required to complete an outpatient sex-offender program after his release on parole in 1998. He participated for two years, but eventually was kicked out for "lack of progress." That led to his parole being revoked in August 2000.

In February 2003, the state sought to have him sent indefinitely to the sexual-predator program - a place critics such as Appelbaum say provides dubious treatment and is a costly way of extending sex offenders' prison time.

Foster went to Larned for a pretrial evaluation in March 2003, and evaluators found he met the definition of a predator. A screening tool found he had a 45 percent risk of reoffending within six years.

One of the evaluators was Rex Rosenberg, a master's level psychologist who has been criticized for developing a survey intended to diagnose whether someone is possessed by a demon. When Rosenberg took over sexual-predator evaluations for the hospital in late 2001, the percentage of people labeled a predator after their evaluation roughly doubled.

Based largely on the evaluation, jurors at Foster's trial in Douglas County found he was a predator. But earlier this year, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that Assistant Atty. Gen. Nola Wright made inappropriate comments that prejudiced the jury - for example, telling them he already had been deemed a predator in numerous evaluations and screenings.

To try Foster again, the state needed a new evaluation from Larned. Earlier this month, the word came back from the hospital that Foster "does not meet the criteria of a violent sexual predator," according to court records.

The records don't indicate who performed the more recent evaluation of Foster. The public may not ever know its contents.

"We can't talk about the details of the report because it's confidential and it's under seal with the court," Jones said.

Foster's attorney, Jessica Kunen, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

Comments

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

I see why you want the government to control people's lives. Neither of you can even exhibit anything close to responsible behavior. The principles underlying the argument fit for anyone. FREE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS that do not come fom you or the government. Pathetic ignorance. We have plenty of morons in government, thank goodness that these two (or is one? Marion = enforcer) aren't.

Marion, stop supporting the facilitation of pedophilia.

0

Jersey_Girl 8 years, 1 month ago

jayhawks71 - what I will do is be aware of those faces. What I will do with that information is share it with friends and family members. Perhaps it IS wrong. I never intented to use the site to harass offenders. It will serve to remind me that as nice as Lawrence is, it still has a dangerous side, and not just between 2 am and 3 am outside of bars. I grew up here. I grew up blissful unaware that anyone could or would hurt a child. It still shocks me to see such stories in the LJW. This site is a reminder to me always be a little extra wary of strangers, especially when I have one of my younger siblings or niece or nephew with me and to teach them the same.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion, clearly you have some sort of mental block that equates my statements of the worthlessness and harmfulness of sex offender registries and the exorbitant costs of maintaining their accuracy and supporting child molestation. What illogical leap must one be willing to take to come to such a conclusion? Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. I mean really, if you are in some way mentally incapacitated, please, and I mean this sincerely, let us know. I will be the first to understand how you can so distort a position. If you are not, and you think you are being clever, you are not. Justify the value and costs of sex offender registries if you want to counter my claims. You don't seem to know how to do that.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Yes sw, when you deal with Marion, you can't have a thin skin. It is sad that he resorted to saying that I was "probably a child molester" because he didn't have anything else to say.

I am not going to again enumerate my objections to sex offender registries, they are throughout this thread. However, let me make it as clear as can be: my objections to sex offender registries have absolutely NOTHING to do with support for molesting children. The act of harming a children physically, sexually, and/or psychologically is dispicable. Society members need to take responsibility for their own well-being. And IF one believes that a person perpetrating an offense is a danger, then there should be a move toward a longer sentence. I realize that was part of the ire raised by this article. However, I raised the issue of the sex offender registry, which is really used give a de facto life sentence to a person that has committed a crime, but has served the prescribed sentence.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion, you make an excellent point. Children have the right to be free from harm to their life. Free person have the right to life. liberty, and property, which are protected by our Constitution. Those rights are abridged upon conviction of certain crimes. One serves a sentence, is released as a free person. These rights are no longer abridged. Your child's rights do not supercede the rights of another free person.

Further, my issue is with sex offender registries that are worthless and costly and in some instance, actually harmful by facilitating pedophile communication and instilling a false sense of security among people.

And Marion, counter the arguments and stop making trivial ad hominem attacks. Stop attributing websites to me. Your level of maturity in conversation fails to impress anyone.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Dear Red Herring,

You disagree that offender registries facilitate pedophile communities?

You clearly agree that the police state is the only solution. That all free people must be tracked because any person at any time is a threat to your life or the life of your child.

I see you give up due to lack of support for your faulty argument. And of all people Marion, I thought YOU would be a champion of reducing wasteful government spending on worthless projects.

Sadly, you cannot control your impulse to name call; the damage to your frontal lobe from years of banging your head against a wall has taken its toll. Your igorance of principled thinking leads you to the only path for which you see a way out, to try and discredit me with inflammatory names. Sorry Marion, your feeblemindedness simply does not allow you to see anything past the end of your nose. You are classless Marion, but I feel no pity for you. Only disgust that you find calling someone a child molestor humorous. There is nothing funny about that.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Ultimately, YOU are responsible for the well being of children in your care? Shouldn't YOU ensure that they are in your visual field? We teach children to "never talk to strangers" or to "run/yell for help if someone tries to harm you"; what will you be telling them that you learned from a registry? Will you be explaining to them in detail about the harm that those people on the registry can bring to them? Children need our watchful eye to keep an eye out for them because they don't possess the ability to be responsible for all of their actions or to fully comprehend the possibilities of their actions. Your nieces and nephews will also grow up blissfully unaware, just as you had, even if you tell them something repeatedly.

Registries have the unintended side effect of facilitating pedophile communities. When people work together toward a common goal, they accomplish more than the group members working in isolation. Do you really want to facilitate pedophiles sharing their "best tips" for luring children? I certainly do not want to be a party to this! Government band-aids create additional wounds, which they then need to endlessly band-aid, ultimately abridging the rights of free persons including those never convicted of a crime. We all become suspects for police.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Figured you still didn't get it Marion.

How do you know if there is danger lurking nearby when the government itself states that it doesn't guarantee the accuracy of registries?

Whose rights are being violated by a warning sign against falling rocks? The rocks? You certainly have lost it if you now support the rights of rocks. I don't buy into rocks having rights, but I sure do support a state where free people are free.

So, let me understand here oh infinitely ignorant one, if there were NO sex offenders listed in the registry for your community... you would.... assume no danger, right? And if not, then, why waste taxpayers money, law enforcement time to fix a problem that ... doesn't exist?

Let me clarify with a timely incident. I was at the park today with my friend and her two children. The daughter wanted to go to the bathroom (she is physically old enough to go alone); the mother asked if I could keep an eye on the other child because she wanted to go to with her daughter to the park bathroom, which she referred to as "pedophile haven's." Parents are well aware of the threat. The problem you are professing to solve is not actually a problem (not knowing the existence of a threat).

You still have not addressed why you support the government funding of pedophilia facilitation. See, I don't want to make it EASIER for pedophiles to connect with one another. I know (and so should you) that when people work together toward a common goal, they come up with more efficient ways of reaching their goals. We put people in jail for something like being in possession of a joint, and they learn some "best practices" from being in a community of criminals. You support posting names, faces, addresses (why not phone numbers too) of pedophiles on the Internet so now they can find eachother more easily.

Comprende Marion? Ahh why do I even bother with you anymore. I guess I have a passion for helping people with LD.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Jerseygirl, you identify the absolute best that could come from registries, but that benefit is small and far outweighed by the costs.

People have difficulty recognizing others whom they have seen only in a photo. For example, the benefit of having a photo on one's credit card to combat against unauthorized use was examined. Photos did not help because, even with the photo IN HAND cashiers (who knew in advance that they might be tested and should examine the photos) were unable to tell if the person in the photo matched the person in front of them. In most cases, you won't have the photo there to compare! I looked through a registry yesterday and I could not tell you with better than chance accuracy anything about those people that I saw other than most were male.

People also have trouble distinguishing among strangers of other races. We can distinguish among people of our own race far better than those of other races. Registries are filled with people of many races and ethnicities.

What information will you share with family and friends? That life has risks? Do these require a sex offender registry? How will they "remind you" of anything if you have to remind yourself to go look in the first place? Perhaps we could fund e-mail alerts as well, so that every citizen can be spammed with every change in the registry. Afterall, we would have to know of EVERY change because perhaps, just an address might change and the person might have moved next door to us (although we probably wouldn't know it because we couldn't even recognize him from the photo!).

Aren't most of the people you come across in public going to be strangers to some degree? Why not heighten your vigilance when in public. Will you be "a little extra wary" for only those faces that you recognize (if you recognize) from the registry only to be surprised by the one that was not on the admittedly inaccurate registries? The false sense of ADDITIONAL sense of security because a registry exists is harmful. It lulls people into thinking that they need to watch out for those people on the registry at the expense of being sensible especially because MOST molesters violate relatives rather than randomly snatching kids off the street. The latter are just more widely covered in the news.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Yes, those federal tax dollars just magically appear; the fruits of government labor... oh wait, the government doesn't EARN its money, it takes it!

What rights have you obtained? What rights has the government GIVEN to you (and how is it that a government which receives ITS power from "the people," making it subservient to THOSE people has acquired the ability to GRANT RIGHTS! It hasn't! You have been brainwashed into thinking the government gives rights!).

Victims rights is a misnomer; victims and non-victims (aren't we all victims of government oppression and thinkers like enforcer) have the SAME rights. You don't get special rights because you were victimized! You don't get the RIGHT to know where someone lives or works. You don't get the RIGHT to turn them into your slave or tell them where they can live or who can hire them. They can live where they can buy property; they can live where someone chooses to rent to them; they can work where someone chooses to hire them. What don't you get about leaving people to make choices?

And indeed I have a choice whether I pay... and if I don't pay, what are you going to do about it enforcer? You going to come to my house with "government agents" and forcefully extract money that you have no right to? Or do you actually believe that YOU have the right to reach into my pocket and pull from my wallet! And when I resist, what will you do? Threaten me? Instill fear in me? Violate my person to take my money? Sounds like robbery to me, and ultimately armed robbery! This is better and somehow more civil than the force with which a violent sex offender uses? This is OK because it serves you and because you claim to have government sanction?

And to suggest that I "missed the boat" implies your ignorant acceptance of the status quo. So once the government begins to do something it cannot be undone eh? Welcome to the police state. Do you also think that once the "war on terror" is won that we will get our liberty back by just sitting back, like you twiddling our thumbs saying, "oh well, the government said so." Mindless automaton! You just don't get it. The issue of sex offender registries has nothing to do with sanctioning (and what if the government sanctioned the violation of children, would that be OK with you then? Should you silently sit and take it?) of pedophiles and everything to do with violating the RIGHTS (the same one's victims and non-victims have) of a free person.

I suppose that whiskey bottle you sip from before posting in your drunken stupor should be ripped from your hands, afterall, the government ratified the 18th amendment in 1919. Oh well, whatever government does we cannot undo!

Nice try with your bait, but I will pass.

0

audvisartist 8 years, 1 month ago

Man that stinks. Child molestors, especially repeat offenders, need to be locked up and have the key thrown away. I'm sorry, but the safety of our children comes before any person's freedom if he/she has harmed a child in the past. Back home in Texas we had a judge that made the national news for forcing his sex offenders to put signs on their property saying that a sex offender lived in that house. Seems like a fair thing to do if you're an offender and somehow got out of the Larned State Hospital or whatever other "correctional" facility you were in. I kind of feel for the guy since he was abused as a child, but he chose the wrong path to help him cope with it.

0

xenophonschild 8 years, 1 month ago

"possessed by a demon"

Don't know what to say.

0

ASBESTOS 8 years, 1 month ago

Send this to O'rielly at Fox. He is on top of this thing, and is putting pressure on the elected folks as well as the Judges and Shrinks.

0

PointofView 8 years, 1 month ago

I think we can count 'cured' sex offenders/child molesters on one finger - and I highly doubt this guy is the 1 in 100,000,000 who will not reoffend. It seems the more 'educated' people become, the more regressed our common sense is - ?

blue73harley, you might be on to something with your comment......

0

trinity 8 years, 1 month ago

this is an outrage. the recent rape and murder of the young lady from olathe is yet another instance of somebody who allegedly hasn't re-offended in years, REOFFENDING in the worst possible way. that piece of dirt who did this to her had a conviction from the mid-80's, elsewhere.

i am beside myself. these people need ever be in a community again.

0

lelly 8 years, 1 month ago

uhh, how about a picture of this winner so we can avoid him?

0

thomgreen 8 years, 1 month ago

Is it just me, or does he look like just about every school janitor I've seen in my life (oops, sorry, custodial engineer). As a matter of fact, I've noticed that most of the guys on the sex offender registry, that are older, look like janitors. Ban all janitors!

0

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

Hey, now, no discrimination against janitors...

0

staff04 8 years, 1 month ago

I have no doubt that something in the system broke in this situation, but does anyone else find it kind of interesting/humorous that Rosenberg's "demon possession test" "roughly doubled" the percentage of those labeled as predators?

0

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

Sounds to me like Rosenberg himself is possessed by demons...

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 1 month ago

"In Kansas, a sexually violent predator is someone with a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" "

Do you know what they used to call "personality disorders"? Back before P.C. terminology, they just called in "character disorder", meaning that the person's real problem is that they simply lack character, they are BAD. Part of what is wrong with the system is that we won't call things what they are. Someone who commits these acts is not just sick, they are MORALLY deficient. When we stopped calling "bad" bad, we unwittingly became accepting of bad behaviors, making us tolerant of things that we shouldn't tolerate.

0

jennifermarti 8 years, 1 month ago

Another fine example of the justice system being unwilling to protect our children. And I suppose it's going to come as a huge surprise that was unpredictable when he does this to another helpless child. All of the dirt bag sex offenders should be taken somewhere and disposed of; our city would be a safer place that's for sure!!

0

hipper_than_hip 8 years, 1 month ago

The state needs to make child rape a capital offense.

0

feeble 8 years, 1 month ago

No excuses for this guy's behavior, I sincerely beleive that he does not below back on our city streets.

But imo, blame for this rests with that wacko shrink with the "demon" survey. If you want something to stick, you got to do it right, cause otherwise the perp will just get lost in the system and end up back at the city limits.

0

Centrist 8 years, 1 month ago

They should have kept this "freak on a leash"

0

badger 8 years, 1 month ago

enforcer -

You don't seem to understand much about the sex offender registry. Even public urinators, who serve almost no time and are released, stay in there indefinitely - no one gets taken off for being 'cured'. It's a lot more likely that he hasn't been added yet because he hasn't been freed yet. People still in custody generally aren't added to the list until they're released, as I understand the procedure.

As to his release:

This will end badly, mark my words. Someone will be hurt by this decision, whether it's another child he harms or him getting attacked. It shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone that I have a great deal more sympathy for the former of those situations than for the latter, but either one will demonstrate that the system is broken here.

0

acg 8 years, 1 month ago

The recidivism rate for these animals is extremely high. They will offend, again and again. If we rallied our lawmakers to change the penalty for these crimes to either a: life imprisonment in general population ( and by life I mean life, not out in 8 years because of good behavior) or b: death then the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about them being back out on the street. There should be no questions about it, at all. You molest a child and we'll either put you away forever or put you down like a rabid dog.

0

mooseamoose 8 years, 1 month ago

What's the fuss? If he's possessed then all you gotta do is rebuke the demon in the name of jesus!!

heh demons... sounds like Rosenberg needs help too

0

mztrendy 8 years, 1 month ago

He's no longer classified as a sexually violent predator? I'm sorry, but if he's ever been classified as a molester, he will always be classifed as one. If I was his attorney, I wouldn't want to be reached for comment either. Freak.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

I really do not know what to say to this its just so aaaaaaaahhhhhhh.

0

badger 8 years, 1 month ago

enforcer -

His commitment is being overturned.

Everything I have read gives the impression that his original conviction is not. Ergo, he will still be a sex offender (and should be required to register), but not one committed to the violent sexual predator program.

You sure like to throw out a lot of people's names (do you know if that's OK with them? Did you ask them if you could post things speaking for them based on their official capacity?). Do you know Jannie Bullin? I never could find the alleged city, county, state, or federal agency or that employed her as a social worker, and she seems to have vanished from the boards right around the time you started posting again. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to her agency of employ, as you know so very many people 'in the know' in convenient positions to speak for government agencies?

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

What is outrageous is the sex offender registry. Let the public band together to create its own registry, not tax dollars and law enforcement personnel (more tax dollars) to go knocking on doors of people that have paid their debt to society. If YOU want a sex offender registry, open up YOUR wallet and pay for it, don't make the rest of us do it. That is the problem I have with sex offender registries; change the time for the crime if people are a threat to society. Keeping people in prison just makes them better criminals; in a sex offender, out a sex offender hardened, musclebound thug.

On another note, interesting to see people both use and dismiss "the research" wherever it fits their needs. First, "this evaluator" says he is not a threat, using his training in "the evidence" then people want to say that these predators "seem to be incurable" based on other evidence. Cure is a bar and one can set the bar wherever one wants; in our society we like to cover our bases with everything (e.g. alcoholism, addiction, sex offenses, cancer, eating disorders) to say that one is "never cured". Well what is a cure? What if he were to THINK about harming a child, but in the future never acted? One could set the bar of "cured" at potentially harmful thoughts or one could set the bar of "cured" at not acting on the thoughts. Should we call in the thought police to enforce?

0

Griblit 8 years, 1 month ago

Guys, this worm doesn't have to register- NOT because he's cured, NOT because anything was overturned, but SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE DATE OF HIS CONVICTION.

It's the scariest truth a mom of 2 little girls had to see, but the state does not require offenders who were convicted before 2004 to register when released- mind you the state can hold them longer if they're 'dangerous.'

So, they only get released when an 'expert' deems them no longer a threat, but if they were convicted prior to this registry law, they're gone- no tracking.

Anyone see a law that needs amending? Why it's not retroactive I can't say, but it's not as if these pervs might NOT have comitted the crimes or that the crimes weren't illegal before the registry law, so shouldn't the law apply to them, too?

They need to be tracked when released- unless the legislators want them as neighbors.

0

Steve Jacob 8 years, 1 month ago

Why not a murderer registry then? They are probally much more prone to kill again then a "normal" person.

The very ugly truth is the penalty for child molestation is so high, most figure there they might as well kill the child becase they will be in jail for life (most of the time) anyway.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 1 month ago

When moral conservatives talk about "values", everyone gets their panties in a bunch. But, the way the system tolerates these people is directly related to our society's hesitation to allow ourselves to believe that there is a thing called MORALITY. When "relativism" takes hold of our legal processes and when immorality is called a "disorder", we fail to lay blame where it needs to be laid, and we fail to "expect" "right" behavior. Some people need treatment. Some need to just be held responsible. This is true not only with sex offenders, but with the homeless (take your sandwich and rape you winos), with child abusers, etc.

Sometimes the path to recovery starts with a moral judgement. FIRST of all: call bad behavior BAD. Then work toward "repentance". This guy's history is one of resisting "treatment" (per the story). If he understood that his actions were MORALLY WRONG, he'd be a lot more eager to change.

I read a story about a woman who caught her dad in bed with her 8 year old daughter. His excuse was that the girl was "seductive". What do you think? Did this guy's problems have to do with his "personality", or his "character"? The medical profession would say that it was his "personality", not his "character", that was busted. This is a social trend that needs to change.

0

spammer89 8 years, 1 month ago

I don't even have kids and this makes me mad as hell, i really wish they would stick these freaks in the joint for life, then they would have no chance to re-offend ruin another childs life. I feel that the "list" process should include printing the pictures up and posting them in the area in which the sick S.O.B. is going to live.

0

Confrontation 8 years, 1 month ago

"The very ugly truth is the penalty for child molestation is so high, most figure there they might as well kill the child becase they will be in jail for life (most of the time) anyway."

Ha! Child molesters spend very little time in jail. (Just ask Judge Paula Martin). This is especially true if they don't kidnap or nearly kill the victim. They kill the kid for the thrill or to keep them from identifying their abuser.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

well I just learned that somebody tried to snatch a little girl yesterday here in town and they want to let this guy roam free I think we have enough perverts out there to worry about we do not need one that has already been convicted. KEEP HIM IN JAIL... Needless to say my kids are not going out side today until I hear more on this.

0

westernksgirl 8 years, 1 month ago

Dad, you are absolutely correct. Of COURSE a child molester has a "disorder", NORMAL, MORAL people do not do that, period. However, I also think that "insanity" pleas should not enter a court room, either (i.e. Andrea Yates. COME ON! Of COURSE she was crazy when she killed her kids, BUT she still did it, not once, but five times. Now, I do believe in justifiable being a way to get one off of a murder charge, i.e. you try to rape me after I give you a sandwhich, and if I have a gun, or a well placed blow to your head with a blunt object .. but, I digress. . .) Admitedly, there is a huge flaw with the sex predator law inasmuch as it HAS to leave the door open for someone to be "cured" for it to be "constitutional" and not a violation of a predator's "civil rights" (which, I think in itself is an oxymoron, but, moving on . . ) What would be the better solution, is for this to be a capital offense, with absolutely no hope of parole. none. No registry, no release, no recidivism. You are found guilty, you, not society, pays for your crime.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 1 month ago

"the penalty for child molestation is so high, most figure there they might as well kill the child becase they will be in jail for life"

It's even more complex than that. The urge to molest is very compulsive. There is little thought put into consequenses or "what do I do afterwards?" Once the crime is committed is when many of these guys finally decide to kill. The fear of imprisonment is part of it, but also the shame of the act. Even without the prospect of prison, many who kill would still kill. There is a cycle of shame and self-loathing involved in the behavior, which is a big reason why they never change. It's a cycle.

0

badger 8 years, 1 month ago

Griblit -

Are you sure about the 2004? I saw some folks on the Kansas registry with older convictions than that, maybe back to 2000?

You are right about the date of his conviction maybe exempting him from registry, though. I was under the impression he'd been convicted after the registry date because I thought the violated parole and re-imprisonment counted and some of the folks I've seen on the registry went back that far. Sorry about that confusion.

0

spammer89 8 years, 1 month ago

Okay they want ban everthing else, why not ban sex offenders from the community at least that would be worth something to everyone.

0

acg 8 years, 1 month ago

We should do it like that city in Florida. Make it illegal for them to reside anywhere within 1000 feet of a school or daycare facility. That would seriously limit the places they could live in Lawrence.

0

thisiknow 8 years, 1 month ago

Before the law went into effect the practice in Douglas County was for the accused child molester to have a Choice in how this was handled. The child molester who molested 3 girls got to choose DIVERSION. He got to go to counseling and then got to apologize. The End!!!! He was never labeled as a molester and he lives in Lawrence to this day!!! Feel any safer knowing he apologized? We don't ! We steer clear of him but since he got to choose you will never know what he was accused of . At least with this one you have a picture, that is some security.

0

Confrontation 8 years, 1 month ago

Reality_Check: Why not offer a room to this pervert? Maybe move in some of your young relatives if you believe he's been cured. Check out the rate of recidivism among all sexual predators and you'll see there is no cure for them. Besides, it's only counted as recidivism if they're caught.

0

mztrendy 8 years, 1 month ago

Yeah Reality_check. Let him be your neighbor. Let him watch your kids if you trust him so much.

0

amcclellanks 8 years, 1 month ago

Child sex offenders are the worst criminals ever. A child would have to live in fear and knowing what this person has done to them the rest of their entire lives.. think about that. Thier childhood innocence ended at the hands of a "sickness / disease".

There should be tougher laws on Child Sex offenders, retstraining orders, better yet a private prison were all sex offenders are shipped to and have to run the facility themselves, feed themselves and police themselves. A child sex offender should have no civil rights once they commited an act against an innocent child.

I don't care what the facts are on repeat offenders. All I care is to protect my daughter. That would be like saying it's okay if it happens once, because the facts show you wouldn't do it again. WHATEVER!. Once is enough, why give them the opportunity to destroy a life again?

0

thisiknow 8 years, 1 month ago

Reality_ Check----- Our fear probably comes from the countless reports we read or hear on the news about a child molester reoffending. Unless you have personally been witness to, or one of your family has been molested, maybe you ought to set back and listen to how much fear there is over something so fearful. Be thankful it has not touched your life. I do not need stats to tell me that the chances of reoffending is high. Our family went through it and my facts aren't worthless!! Wrap your head around this fact. The fact is the pervert who molested my daughters also molested his son and , since the pervert got to choose DIVERSION, he kept spreading his venom and now his son is in prison for rape, molestation you name it. Fear should be listened to.

0

Griblit 8 years, 1 month ago

Yup- the 1994 date of the registery initiation is correct- I was going off of a report from the news last night, when they said something about 2004- I should have been more careful about that before repeating it. It looks like they only stay on the registry for ten years before dropping off of it. I don't know what the implications are for him.

0

joshs_mom 8 years, 1 month ago

Did not know if anyone had seen this yet.......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205961,00.html

I have admired John Walsh for a long time.

0

hockmano 8 years, 1 month ago

I despise child molesters like everyone else. They should lock them up and throw away the key!In my two block area there are 5 registered sex offenders, 2 of which are in the same apartment complex. One is a student at the high school. And this is within maybe 5 or six blocks of the elementary school! If I had my way, there would be no sex offenders in Lawrence. No second chances if I was in charge!The sooner people realize that there is no rehabilitation for these freaks the better!

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

countless reports?? Give me a break. I bet you have heard fewer reports of "re-offenders" on the news in the past year than you can count on your fingers. Hyperbole!

and to those of you who bring up the "give him a room if you TRUST him so much" I don't trust a single one of you here. Why should I? You have done nothing to earn my trust. Your comment speaks to your ignorance that you "trust" anyone you don't know. You are all potential sex offenders as far as I am concerned.

Wait til the next "offender" registry is implemented and you end up on it. You cheated on your spouse; registry? You shouldn't be able to live within 1000 feet of a married person; you speed or violate any other motor vehicle law? you cannot live within 500 feet of a car. You don't give up your right to privacy AFTER you have served your sentence.

"1000 foot" rules are a joke. Knowing where an able bodied sex offender lives and telling them that they can't live within 1000 feet of a school is meaningless. You really think it somehow makes you safer to know that "that guy" lives over there? What, are you going to do, watch your kid less if you have no sex offenders within 2 blocks of your home? Sex offenders, like much of the rest of society are ambulatory. Sex offender registries and 1000 foot rules lead to a false sense of security; that is clearly the ONLY value to knowing where this person lives, unless you plan to harrass them??

0

compmd 8 years, 1 month ago

Jayhawks71 and Reality_Check, thanks for reminding me that there are people here who can think and reason rather than simply react with pure emotion, usually hatred and fear.

A couple quotes I'd like to single out as thought provoking from amclellanks:

"Child sex offenders are the worst criminals ever."

Just out of curiosity, when you see the letters "BTK" what do you think of? A better criminal?

"A child sex offender should have no civil rights once they commited an act against an innocent child."

Write your legislative representatives if you really believe in this. Given American history regarding equal rights on many fronts, I don't think you're going to have much luck. What would you have them do, give pedophiles special drinking fountains and make them sit at the back of a bus?

thisiknow had one of my favorite lines today: "Fear should be listened to."

I don't even know where to start with that.

Let's all calm down a little bit people.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

I have no affinity for people who prey on children; I think I need to make that clear. This is an issue of citizens that have served their sentence and paid their "debt" to society being forbidden from returning to society and being subject to HIGHLY unusual punishment. Which other crimes require you, upon release after completion of sentence to continuously update where you live? Even convicted killers are not subjected to these 1000 foot rules. People who think that these do anything but place an unreasonable burden on someone trying to assimilate back into society is off his rocker.

Do some of you realize that urinating in public, say an alley, in some jurisdictions is considered to be "exposing yourself" and you, once convicted are now a "sex offender?" I don't condone urinating in public, but far more ridiculous is to chain a person to a lifetime of potential threat from being on a sex offender registry.

I hate the slippery slope argument more than most, but we have seen our freedoms erode substantially in the past five years. Realize that at some point, someone is going to take issue with something that YOU do and YOU will end up chained to a registry.

YOU have no right to force a person that has finished his sentence to submit to such a gross violation of the Fourth (and probabaly Sixth) amendment.

0

KungFuLogic 8 years, 1 month ago

Cmpmd, in response to your comments:

You are either mentally impaired to a spectacular degree or a pedophile yourself. My bets on the later.

Child sex criminals are unequivocally the most pernicous criminals. The sufferning and torment they inflict on their victims continues for decades, and in many cases, a lifetime. All so a pervert can prey on the most innocent and trusting in society. Girls and boys that are molested have higher rates of depression and low self-image. They are more likely to be promiscuous. More likely to commit suicide, more likely to have failed marriages, and on and on and on and on.

What you coin as an emotional response is not counter to justice, it is called contemptible disgust. In the law, there is absolutely a place for such a response when the underlying offense warrants it.

No child predator should ever roam free again. They will repeat, repeat, repeat. All along the way they prey and destroy on a society's soft belly of the most innocent and trusting, children. No free society aspiring to maintian principles of justice can allow this to happen without bringing down the full wrath of a disgusted an indignant legal system.

However, it is reassuring to know that no matter how many children a pedophile rapes and kills, an intellectualite such as yourself can in sanctimounious drivel tell us all we are overreacting.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Oh, I decided to take a further look at this registry and this isn't even a sex offender registry, it is a "registered offender" registry. There is a guy on there for ATTEMPTED voluntary manslaughter, there are multiple people who were under 18 when he was registered as well. Then you have to love the accuracy of the guy whose addressed was verified as of "5/5/2060." What really scares me are the "thought crimes" that we have on the books "ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ABUSE" Intent! Short of confession, how does one know another person's intent! Even actions that appear to be part of the comission of a crime is speculation that cannot rise to the level of exceeding reasonable doubt.

Watch it, they know what you are thinking. Soon, just the mere THOUGHT of taking something without permission will land you in jail.

Stop trusting the government to protect you. They have NO DUTY to protect you. The Supreme Court has ruled on this.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

KungFuLogic,

Does correlation-causation serve as the basis for your so-called logic? It is amazing that your logic also includes labeling one who finds the response and government force used on citizens that have paid their debt to society as a pedophile. That conclusion does a nice job of casting the rest of your post in a bad light, reflecting your inability to separate emotional response from a reasoned discussion on the topic.

This isn't an issue of overreacting. Be as disgusted at the behavior of a sex offender as you want to, but you have NO RIGHT to chain a person, for life to a sex offender registry. Once they are released, they are members of society again regardless of your impression of them. I can be contemptibly disgusted by some behaviors, and other individuals can be contemptibly disgusted by other behaviors. Abortion registry anyone?

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Marion, you can't prove your point, so don't bother. All I need is one non-recidivist sex offender to disprove yours. I love Karl Popper, he made it so easy to dismiss hacks and quacks like yourself Marion. I am glad that "as far as you are concerned" has no bearing on my life.

Pseudo-liberal, neo-socialist? Hah, I think you have me confused with someone else. I am for people to be free from tyrannical governments and tyrannical democracy. Leave people alone; and further, leave people alone once they have paid their debt.

Marion, I suppose we will have to wait for the day when your "crimes" warrant a registry, a dog collar and a 12 foot fence with razor wires and machine guns. I hope that day never comes.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

well at least we know that enforcer isn't a Christian, that's for sure!

And enforcer, I will gladly line up to throw stones at you in retaliation for your actions; you would be more worthy of stoning than a person who served his sentence and then is subject to your aggression on his person. I suppose the concept of rule of law has no place in your society.

Some of these comments reek of "rights predation. " Time for another registry, only this one should be privately funded.

0

Rationalanimal 8 years, 1 month ago

Jayhawks71 is correct everyone. Thank goodness for the liberal intelligenstia to save us all from our emotional selves (remember is was brother Lenin that taught us that religion was opium for the masses).

We should all embrace our newest member of the community, invite him over for a country-cooked supper, let them play with our children, and just for good measure, send them up to bed with our children. After all, they spent their time in prison, are cured, and will therefore never perpetrate again. Hallelujah that we have Jayhawks71 to enlighten us all.

Prophet Jayhawks71, since you are so enlightened, you should be the first to have Mr. Foster over for dinner. Give him a good tour of your house, show him all the loose window latches that can easily be pryed open, and let him know when your away and your children are totally unsuprevised. And then to cap it all off, let Mr. Foster spend some quality one-on-one child/pedophile time together for show of good faith.

Didn't think so.

When it comes down to it, you make an academic argument in the abstract that conventiently overlooks the trail of ruined lives as a consequence of liberal doggedness. It is totally disingenous until you have the good neighbor over.

Take your pick, emotional outrage or defending a pedophile. And yes, they've earned the label. That would make a heck of a dinner conversation when you have Mr. Foster for dinner.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Rationalanimal, stop using labels in your effort to discredit my comments, that includes your misuse of the term "rational" in your name.

Second of all, you seem to be jumping to your own conclusion. No one is suggesting that you invite this VICTIM (read the story) over to your house; no one is suggesting you greet him with open arms or even INVITE him to your neighborhood. No one is asking that you wave or let him sit your children. No one is asking you to sit passively when you see him talking to kids at the public park. You create a false dichotomy that if you aren't against him, you must be with him. Boy, where have we heard that one before?

On the contrary. What you should be doing is exactly the opposite. The opposite of INTERACTING is AVOIDING. Avoid this person that you find so vile. Stay away from him. Keep your kids away from him. Do not invite him on to your property, do not invite hime to play catch with your kids. LEAVE HIM ALONE. That is it. Leave him to live his life and when he attempts to infringe on your rights or your children, then you have every right to protect your children and your property.

Your last paragraph reflects the kind of dichotomous thinking that led you astrray from the beginning of your post.

0

sweetpeagj 8 years, 1 month ago

I just love the fact that these offenders have paid their debt to society so leave them alone. What a crock..sure they paid but you know what? The children paid dearly, daily, for a lifetime so who the hell cares if it is against any amendment you want to throw out there. These innocent children have to live with this the rest of their lives and no amendment gives them the freedom from that. I don't give a rat's butt if this is emotionl for you Jayhawks71. The majority of us believe that once you have taken the innocence away from a child who cares if offenders are denied every right. Personally, I think they should all have to die but before they do they should all get raped by a donkey and let them see what it is like. I see what happens to the two year old that the father and uncle had fun with. When they were done with her she didn't have a vagina or anus. They tore that baby all up. Tell me that they served their time now leave them alone. This little girl can't ever have children or normal bowel movements again. Sex for her will always be painful and dirty. Keep your rights for people that don't do this to our children all you want but these4 sick *ucks don't have any rights as far as most normal people think and feel. This wasn't their first offense against a child they also did this too another child less than two years earlier. Completed the program and said "Cured" gave them the right to go out and do it again. You like to speak like you have knowledge and everyone's rights in mind yet you seem to sugercoat what the victims (regardless of age) have to live with for a lifetime. And it was correctly stated that a great number never live to see 18 because they hate themselves so much they want to die.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

What is unbelievable is that this group spouts about the unbelievable results that sex offenders perpetrate on their victims and how they, the sex offenders "ruin and destroy" the lives of their victims, yet gloss over "Foster was sexually abused by his father and was molested by a 12-year-old boy when he was 5 years old, according to court records."

Amazing. So RationalGenius, by your dichotomous logic either the victims are in full control of the outcomes or they are not. Either Foster is a victim as were his victims and neither responsible for what happens to them or they are BOTH responsible for whatever comes of their lives. Which is it dichotomyguy?

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

sweetpeagj, do you even realize that "violence" as is commonly understood, doesn't even have to be a component of one of these crimes?

Sugarcoat what the victims have to deal with? Did you read the story to know what FOSTER was subjcted to in his youth???!??

And as for your last statement, what a vague "great number" are you referring to? 1/8th? 1/4th? 1/3rd? 4/5th? If it is such a great number, then either child molesters are few and far between or we will quickly have no one reaching the age of 18. Which is it?

Your post gets to the heart of it, to heck with rights. The same mentality that let's our government run roughshod over citizens rights at every turn in the name of the war on terror. Brainwashed, that is what you are. Maintaining rights for the "unpopular" people, views, and words are the most important ones to maintain. Rights don't really need much protection if no one is infringing.

And you are da** right that I will speak with people's rights in mind. Personally, I think that your words reflect ignorance and hatred of liberty, but I will certainly defend your right to say what you want, which is more than I can say you.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Enforcer, then tell us of all the awful things that happen to victims of violence? You want to discount the effects on Foster because you are so enlightened? Tell us then. By your logic, there are plenty of people who grow up without negative effects of being abused as well.

What are you talking about as far as sex abuse creating homosexuality? What does that have to do with this conversation and where did you come up with such a conclusion, and better yet, attribute that to me!

I have no problem with you not being a christian, I was merely stating the obvious. Certainly there is a christian or two in here rah-rahing you, not realizing the hypocrisy of their rah rah. More power to you for not subjecting yourself to the rath of men from thousands of years ago who justified their tyranny on people by creating an invisible man threat to scare people. I see you have no problem rejecting that use of force against people, yet you don't have any problem doing it here. Your hypocrisy is shining like the sun at high noon.

And too bad for Socrates. They killed the fictional bible-based Jesus for spewing crap too, didn't they? The mob put him to death. Gotta love mob rule.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Oh, by the way, to clarify my stance, it is that these individuals should not be subject to sex offender registries. It really is that simple. However, a few of the automatons on here have somehow turned this into a "free the pedophile, let him act with impunity." Nothing could be further from the truth so stop creating straw-man arguments to attack.

0

Rationalanimal 8 years, 1 month ago

jayhawks71,

The overwhelming falacy underlying every premise of your arguments made here (using the term "arguments" with generosity) is that if you "just let them live their lives, they will let you live yours."

Your irrationality is beyond comprehension, or you are wolf in sheep's clothing.

The uncontrovertable fact is, that at some point in time a pedophile crossed the line of live and let live and destroyed a person's life. That's why they went to prison in the first place. Overwhelming scientific studies show pedophiles will do this again and again when and if the opportunities arises. That is why they are appropriately dubbed "predators". They sit in the tall grass and wait for the opportunity to viciously destroy a child. And in fact, part of their wickedness is that they revel and enjoy the pain and suffering they inflict on their victim.

Shakespeare said it best: "He is mad that trusts a tame wolf."

Hume said: "He is mad that argues with he that is mad."

You've argued your way into an insane corner and are now back-peddling.

Again, if your arguments are truly sincere, have the chap over for dinner or just let your kids play across the street from him while he lustily drools over them. They'll be dead or molested or both within 6 months.

Live and let live. That line was crossed with the first offense. What the poor SOB suffered as a kid is irrelevant when it comes to taking a predator out of society.

Your lack of compassion attitude that what the victim does with their life after a pedophile destroys it is up to you, "master of your own destiny" Dr. Phil crap, demonstrates not only a stunning callous indifference to the torment a victim is sentenced to for life, but also illustrates why liberals can't be trusted to protect and defend our society, let alone the weak and defenseless.

Perhaps next you'll tell us all a pedophile's victims brought it on themselves by acting so provocative.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Fallacy? The fallacy here is that one must commit a crime to have life, liberty, or property infringed upon. Once the crime has been committed, one does the time. Once the sentence has been fulfilled (I am not talking about probation), the debt to society has been met. The man then has the DUTY to respect the rights of others; if he does not, he faces the rule of law and the relinquishing of the rights he has for the term of his sentence; not further. To demand that the state not further use force on a person that has paid the debt that he was served is far from fallacious. I demand that the state do no such thing and that my tax dollars not be used for such an abrogation of rights not ceded indefinitely!

"Overwhelming scientific evidence" in the study of human behavior and mental processes amounts to a "stacking the deck" in one direction; this can be as simple as a preponderance of evidence in one direction or another. Are child molesters more likely to molest again than not? Statistically, the answer is yes, however, his debt has been paid according to the sentence that he received. The fact that you use such subjective terms as "viciously" and "wickendess" reflects your passion toward the topic. You are most certainly entitled to that passion and to state your opinion. A person who serves the sentence for the crime for which he was convicted also maintains those same rights.

To quote the Bard in an effort to provide support for your position, or to discount mine, suggests to me that you read a newpaper article that told you about the overwhelming scientific studies that you raise, rather than understanding the process underlying the data and the interpretation of the data.

The ultimate problem that I have addressed is the status of sex offender registries. The debt has been paid; no man, once his sentence is served remains subject to the whims of society.

What is unbelievable is that you create false representations of my point. For the record, there is no back peddling here. Find one line where I recommended that you or any other citizen befriend this man. You presented this fictitious situation, not I.

What is further preposterous is to claim that what HE suffered as a child should not be taken into account, yet it has these harmful effects on his victims. Which is it? Either it was harmful to HIM and harmful to his victims (this is the side I fall on, in contrast to your absurd claim of "lack of compassion" and "callous indifference") or it was not harmful to him and not harmful to his victims. To the contrary; I indeed have compassion for victims of violence, especially children, but this does not change the situation. Clearly you are demonstrating an inability to separate rational from emotional thought.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Scientific evidence, when applied to human behaviors, amounts to claims about groups, not individuals, so either the evidence supports that being molested is harmful, in general, or it is not. I fall on the side of the argument that it is. There is no debate that the behavior of this man is reprehensible and that each citizen has the CHOICE of whether to interact with this man or to avoid him. Requiring him to register his place of residence serves to provide a false sense of security to those who do not see a sex offender registered in their area. YOu have no right to force me to pay for your voyerurism, which is ALL that comes of sex offender registries. Parents should ALWAYS err on the side that someone wants to harm their children; however, that would require people to take responsibility for their actions. Knowing that the man next to you was convicted and served a sentence for molesting a child should not make you more vigilant! You should already be at heightened vigilance! Child molesters have feet, bicycles, cars and the ability to ride the bus. They can be in your neighborhood without living in your neighborhood, yet your sex offender registry serves as a relief mechanism for concerned parents/citizens who become less vigilant when the registry shows a "clean" neighborhood. That is an additional travesty of sex offender registries alongside the failure to respect the rule of law because your emotions run wild.

In closing, cut the ad hominems. They simply weaken your stance. For the record, which definition of "liberal" are you alluding to? Finally, your last statement is so ridiculous that it does not merit a response. It is clear that you are willing to give up rights for a little PERCEIVED security. I, however, choose not to bend to every whim of society and governmental band-aid, which typically results in a poorer situation than before the government applied the covering to the wound that it created.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

this man has stated that he would never stop do not know where you can find that at but I am sure some one in here can, This is not a person that should ever get out.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Thought crime! They would have those men locked up for having the thought because they MIGHT act on it. When people act and violate others rights, society penalizes them.

RC, part of the problem is that some people seem to think that if you are against people's rights (in general) being trampled by government (and in this case a convicted child molester that has served the imposed incarceration) that somehow that makes you pro-pedophile. The same faulty logic applies when people call pro-choicers, pro-abortion.

I am pro-freedom and pro-choice; I am far from being pro-pedophile or pro-abortion. However, people have the right to control their own bodies, including what goes into them (e.g., "chemicals" or natural substances) or what comes out of them (e.g., speech). You have no say in the matter.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

momma, provide a source please, but beside that, of what value is a sex offender registy to you? How will having a website with the photo, address, date of birth, and crime listed change the way you operate? The voyeurism (and I succumbed to it as well) of such a site is compelling. I simply wanted to see the faces associated with these crimes. Interestingly, I bet that for at least half of the offenses on the list, people don't even know what those crimes entailed. Further, to add to the bloated bureaucracy and to add to law enforcements job of going to "make sure" the person lives where it says they live, is ridiculous. If you find that they DO live there, what have gained? If you find that they DO NOT live there, what have you gained?

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

jayhawk I said I did not know where to find it hello but just wait for marion or holygrail abestos they will know I do rememer that there have been several article about this man in the ljw if you want to go back in time ok. I have never said anything about the regerstry so on your own with but I do know a sex offender lives about 3 doors down from my grand kids but we know he is there so???

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Hey RC, perhaps you need to take your name's advice. Don't post your question every hour; perhaps people need a chance to respond.

Please don't incite them to use the force of government to oppress people any more than it already does. And in their defense, these forums are for the very thing that are criticizing them for; speaking out to whatever limited audience they choose to speak out to. I invite their informed or uninformed opinions; they shouldn't have to use government as its tool or shut up, they should stop using government to do useless things that waste people's money and that harms freedom.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

momma, I know what you said and that is why I said to provide the source. Putting your feet to the fire, it is easy to present heresay and then people forget that it was heresay and accept that "he said it" and forget that the source of their knowledge that "he said it" came from some nameless faceless internet forum.

Further, I was asking you about the registry. I realize you haven't commented on it. I am wondering what people are getting out of these government-sponsored registries beside the salacious voyeurism.

And yes, at the end, you say "we know he is there so???" Exactly. Were you lax before in the monitoring of your grand kids (or rather were their parents) such that you have a heightened vigilance? What parents need to realize is that child molestors can be anywhere in society and shouldn't use the information gained through a S.O. registry to heighten or lower their vigilance! People rely too much on the government to do things for them and to protect them, yet government continually fails to do anything useful.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

Just because I do not remember which news org. I saw this on does not mean my comment is invalid. I will agree the reg. needs help in many way when you can not tell when one person on it is a person who just happened to be 19 and have a girl friend who was 17 and parents that did not like the sit, no shoulnot be on there but when a person likes to rape 4,5,6yr olds, then yes I would like to know about them. This does not mean I do not keep an eye on my kids or grand kids a very good one at that.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

hey rc what about women? they be offenders as well but what do you do about those times when you are not right there with you kids? As much as I try to be way over protective there are times you know.. I would like to live in a perfect world but that is not happening is it.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

hey on a happy note the fair starts tomorrow yippie one more reason for me to be way overprotective it always conserns me but I love to take my little one and watch her have fun. The grandkids need to go with mom not me to much work. :)

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

offtheright picked on the fair or no money to have fun?? the rides do not sart till middle of next week I think.

0

sweetpeagj 8 years, 1 month ago

I didn't gloss over his abuse at all. Maybe if they had gotten him help he wouldn't have felt the need to do this to others. His help should have come long before he ever thought of touching a child. Does it excuse what he did? The fact that he was molested doesn't carry any weight when he decides to be the molester. I never stated anything about a registry for these people.Read my post again. I have worked years with molested children and young adults. I was molested by family members until I was 15. Does this give me the right to do this to anyone else? Or does it mean that I want to do anything and everything in my power to make sure this cycle of abuse stops? We can all make an excuse about what happened to us as children to live our lives by. I spent years in therapy with other victims trying to stay alive and centered. Did I lose a lot of friends to siucide over this? You bet..did I lose clients to suicide because of this..you bet. Most of the time suicide was all I thought about just to stop the pain and hurt I went through. Luckily, I decided that if I died then they would win and keep molesting some one else. I had them put in jail instead and started to heal. Part of that was helping others going through the same type of experience to get better also. I have never allowed my children alone with male or female until I have made sure that they were trustworthy. Hell, I never even allowed my ex husband to change their diapers or bathe them because of my own experience. Was I overprotective? Probably..but my children have never had to experience anything like I went through. This case is about a man who refused treatment and doesn't want to get better. Do I think being a registered offender makes one difference. Nope, you can know what house he lives in but you will never know what goes on behind his door. I still don't care about his rights anymore than I do about a murderers.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

thank you for the male/female part it seems people forget that women do this horrible crime also.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

yeah see it all the time just makes me want to smake the parents in the head. Heck i do not even like letting mine in the back yard that is fenced in with a very big dog and me right here with her, poor child may never learn to ride a bike.:)

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Actually momma, it does. I can say that I heard you say that you don't pay your taxes and that you steal cable television, but that wouldn't be fair to you would it? Might your claim be valid, certainly, but your mere statement that you heard somewhere that someone said that.... .is worthless.

I don't think the registry "needs help." The most efficient solution is to get rid of every one of them. No money or manpower should be used to pay for or support them. They are likely to contain gross inaccuracies and infringe upon the freedoms of FREE people. They serve no useful purpose other than to satisfy salacious voyeurism. As a reminder, I raised the issue of sex offender registries. From this issue stems the point that these individuals should not be forced to be tracked by the government. They were convicted for an offense, they were subjected to their rights being revoked for the period of time that they were incarcerated, not for life.

The fact that the bureaucrats in Washington are now advocating/implementing a national sex offender database demonstrates their band-aid solution to everything. Government is "a series of tubes" with multiple holes in every tube; they run from one hole to another bandaging only to put pressure on another location and ultimately cause it to fail.

Life is risky, stop trying to legislate risk. We expect government to do things because they "need something to do" being as large and as costly as they are. However, the solution is not to give them MORE things to do, it is to reduce their numbers so that they have enough to do what they SHOULD be doing.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

bialy, you illuminate the problem with letting government rule your life. The "best and brightest" are not the ones going into government work. The government is inefficient; the government is bloated; the government tries (when it tries) to apply a one-size-fits-all solution that addresses the "average person" in whichever group they have targeted. Ultimately, there is no "average person" in that group and the solution misses everyone. Societies are diverse and while government claims to try to enhance diversity, it does just the opposite. It atomizes society, categorizes people by labeling them with a small number of titles and then develops policies for these artificial categories.

And sorry, haven't seen the movie, but I avoid comparing people to fictional characters drummed up from the mind of an artist. Categorization simply encumbers people with baggage that doesn't apply to them and tramples on individual thought and innovation.

0

barnhardt01 8 years, 1 month ago

I enjoy reading some of these comments, a bunch of people sitting around the computer taking about something they know nothing about. My question is have any of you been sexually abused (besides sweetpea)? I spent 11 years being raped by my father. I had a abortion when I was 11, due to his acts.

My father wasn't a ignorant man, he was very intelligent. He knew what he was doing. He also understood the law of the land. Pretty much over the history of society child have been considered someone's property. I was my fathers property so per the law he could do what he wanted. Nobody wanted to get into someone else's family business. Schools, teachers, police, no one wanted to tell a man what he could do in his own home to his children. No one opened their mouth.

The lawmakers don't care about kids. My father raped 4 kids, my brother, step-brother, me and my 2 month old baby step-sister, yes 2 months old. My step-brother has since committed suicide. My brother has molested a child himself. And I spend countless hours studying the faces and addresses on the predator list so I don't put my children in danger.

These animals do re-offend. Why you ask. The acts they comment have nothing to do about sex, but everything about power. They can't control their life, their jobs, their wives but they can control their children. Through the fear of God and the thought that "Daddy wouldn't do anything to hurt his little girl", he control them.

Take a look around, within a block from your home you probably have at least 2 sexual offenders, not on the registry. Why because their children or wives are to afraid to say anything.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

does this mean you do not want him out around people? Sorry for pain and loss you sound very strong.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 8 years, 1 month ago

barnhardt01 not trying to hurt you sorry if that is how that last post came out.

0

barnhardt01 8 years, 1 month ago

He should of been locked away for good. He only served 10 years @ Ellsworth, allowed to leave jail to go work in the community. He was released in 2000 and since then has live with my grandmother, within a football field length of the High School I graduated from.

Has ruined my life, not a day goes by that I don't wonder if I am going to turn into the same monster. My mom knew the whole time what he was doing, but was afraid of him. As a mother of 3 children myself, I don't see how she could of stood by and did nothing.

When my step-mother filed the charges against him 1988, it was like everyone in the community knew. They couldn't find anyone to sit on his jury. It was never put in the paper, just swept under the rug, "not in our town" Marysville Kansas.

He is not on the registry because his crime was committed before 1990. Thousands of Kansas sexually predators are not on this registry because they haven't been caught committing a new offense since the registry was put into law. It doesn't mean they are not offending, it just means that no one is speaking up. We as adults need to speak up. I wish one of my teachers would of spoke up when I came to school with black & blue marks across my face or a new broken bone, but they didn't.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

barnhardt, you make a compelling case for the worthlessness of sex offender registries through both of your posts. I still wonder what value people see in them. For every one that is on the registry, there is one that was convicted that was not, and probably more than one not convicted that is also not on the registry. Restricting the proximity of a residence to a school is simply an empty, worthless feel-good move that adds to bureaucracy, taxes, and the workload of law enforcement. Sex offender registries are also feel-good tactics that do nothing but feed voyeurism; the same voyeurism that keeps they myriad tabloid magazines raking in huge profits and feeding the stalkerazzi. Why should police be knocking on the doors of people's homes looking to see if someone lives there if the individual is not being investigated for criminal activity? You, as a citizen, have no RIGHT to know where someone lives.

Again I ask, what GOOD comes from these registries and residence restrictions for people that have paid the societally sanctioned sentences? Stop taking others tax dollars and threatening other freedoms for your agenda.

0

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

I was sexually abused by three different family members by the time I was 16. Family, the people that kids expect to protect them from danger, not cause it.

Did any of them ever serve any time for it? No. In those days, the shame of it was basically put on the victim (you should have stopped it), and in an effort to keep their reputation intact, most families swept it under the rug.

That's just the way it was back then. It wasn't publicized much, and when it happened in your family, you thought you were the only one who had ever been through it. No one talked about it.

Did any of the three ever re-offend? One did, numerous times, the other two did not. I don't know what that means about the stats. This is just from my own experience.

I have no sympathy for child molestors. But whether or not you try and protect your children from them has nothing to do with looking at a registry. You have to assume EVERYONE IS A POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTER, whether their names and faces appear on a registry or not. And knowing that a registered sex offender is living down the block from you shouldn't make you any more or less vigilant than you should already be.

There are, however, people who are on the registry that have been wrongfully convicted. People who are accused of child molestation have been found guilty on remarkably little evidence. Sometimes it's just a "he said, she said" thing, and I'm sure we all have known children (especially teenagers) who have been angry at an adult and accused them of something they never did. Doesn't mean the person didn't get convicted anyway. How can you be sure?

We had a case here, where a teenage girl accused one of her teachers of sexually abusing her. The man was charged, but never convicted. Because the girl recanted later, saying she had liked him a lot, made passes at him, and he always said no, and it made her mad so she made the accusation. Why? Because there's so much publicity anymore, and kids know that all they have to do is call SRS and accuse someone when they're angry. It happens.

Even though the charges were dropped, the man's life was ruined anyway. There were so many people, especially the girl's parents, who thought that their little darling would never lie about such a thing, and even after she confessed to lying, they excused away HER behavior. There were still people who assumed he was a child molester, even after the truth came out.

Was she ever charged with filing a false report? Nope. She had no consequences for it at all. The man however, had to move out of town for his own protection, to parts unknown. I'm sure he's sorry he ever came to this place. Though I can't think of a single town or city where the same thing couldn't happen.

Do you all know that if you are ever reported to SRS for sexual abuse, even if it's found that it was invalid or unsubstantiated, that the accusation remains on record forever after?

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

crazyks, adding to the fact that governments are inefficient and simply do things to appease people by duping them (sex offender registries are completely worthless) into accepting worthless actions in return for the ever-dwindling dollar.

The words of your politicians: "Give us your money citizen (or we will ultimately forcefully take it from you after we garnish your wage) and we will be sure to take these scum-sucking pariahs out of your neighborhood (and send them to someone else's neighborhood, afterall you don't care about "the kids" you care only about YOUR KIDS, or do you, because you might take responsibility for their welfare if you did?) and protect your children (but of course have everyone who does not have children subsidize protection for your children) from the harm that only a pedophile can bring to your neighborhood. We will ensure (lie) that they live nowhere near (1000 feet or about 2 city blocks) your schools (but of course, we won't cut off their feet or take away their cars) and we will empower you with the knowledge of where they live (so that a few of you wackos can trespass and harass a free citizen) so you can avoid (what, are you going to up and move if you find that a sex offender lives across the street? If not, it must not be that important to you) his salacious voyeurism (but feed yours at www.internetsexoffenders.com) of your children (the one's you really don't care enough about to up and move once you are empowered with the knowledge of where a free citizen makes his home following completion of his societally sanctioned sentence)."

Thanks government. If you want a list of sex offenders, YOU pay for the site; YOU do the research; YOU assume the risk of making a mistake. Just don't make me feed your habit.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Your government at work- National Sex Offender Public Registry http://www.nsopr.gov/

"Using this Web site, interested members of the public have access to ... PUBLIC information regarding the presence or location of offenders, who, in MOST cases, have been convicted of sexually-violent offenses against adults and children and certain sexual contact and other crimes against victims who are minors. The public can use this Web site to educate themselves about the POSSIBLE presence of such offenders in their local communities."

It is only PUBLIC information because it is in a registry. MOST cases? How is one be on a sex offender registry if one hasn't committed a sex offense? (inaccuracy)

POSSIBLE presence? Admitting failure already? A person on the registry "may or may not" live in your neighborhood. A person who does not live in your neighborhood "may or may not" be IN your neighborhood. Yeah, real useful.

"The Department does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information contained in state Web sites regarding specific offenders or with respect to the omission of information about other offenders who may be residing, working, or attending school in the vicinity of any location that is the subject of any search using this Web site. In this regard, the Department accepts no responsibility or liability for damages of any kind resulting from reliance on this information or lack thereof."

They flat out tell you that this site is useless; it may or may not be accurate; it may or may not be up to date; and BINGO! there are other reasons why a sex offender might be in your neighborhood. And just for good measure, you can't sue them for putting something up that "may or may not be accurate." THEY ARE PURVEYING A WORTHLESS AND HARMFUL PRODUCT.

"It is possible that information accessed or obtained through this Web site may not reflect current residences, employment, school attendance, or other information regarding such individuals, and users are forewarned that it is incumbent upon them to verify information. Any user seeking more information or verification should communicate with the responsible state agency and/or the local law enforcement agency where the offender resides, works, or attends school, as appropriate."

can we say worthless another way? and what right do you have to stalk a free individual to locate their place of employment or school attendance? I love it, users are forewarned to.... basically do the research on their own. DUH!

"Any person who uses information contained in or accessed through this Website to threaten, intimidate, or harass any individual, including registrants or family members, or who otherwise MISUSES this information, MAY be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability under federal and/or state law."

MISUSE the information? What other value is there than to threaten, intimidate or harass? MAY be subject to criminal prosecution?

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Hey in case you hadn't thought of it, if you were a pedophile and you knew that society clearly doesn't approve of your interest, where might you find people that share your interest? Hmm, you got it, thanks government for creating a free internet service for pedophiles. I would rather my money not give pedophiles ease of access to other people who share their interests. See, when you put people together and they share a common interest or goal, they often come up with more clever ways to attain their goals than individuals in isolation.

The brilliance of government should never cease to amaze you.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Now you are suggesting that we (who exactly are the "they" you refer to, the state, supposedly acting on OUR behalfs) become parties to state-sponsored murder? No thanks; I object to the state killing in my name and opt-out of your state-murder plan. Kill them yourself and face the penalty.

And as for keeping them locked up ad infinitum; again, no thanks. I choose to opt-out of lock 'em up and throw away the key concept of justice for sex offenders. However, I support the concept of lock 'em up and throw away the key justice for murderers (see concluding remark of previous paragraph).

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Enforcer, NO you are responsible for watching your children. The state has no duty to protect you or any other citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. YOU have no expectation that the state will do anything to protect you.

Further, what scares me more than child molesters are citizens who want to use the force of the state to abridge the rights of free citizens. THAT is scary! YOU have no right to exert force on a free person. People who think that THEY should rule us all is what scares me. Leave people alone if you don't like what they do. Protect your life, your children and your property. No one is forcing you to interact with a child molester who has served his sentence (or even live next to one, but YOU need to move).

It is unconscionable that America has turned into a police state and people are sitting back taking the abridgments of their freedom with little or no retaliation. Now I see why, some of you like the use of force to oppress other people. Now that is sick and perverted.

0

emict17 8 years, 1 month ago

CASTRATION, PUBLIC HUMILIATION, EXECUTION... 'nuff said

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

First off Morion, as usual you twist things to fit your own sick, perverted view of the world. To cast my defense of a free person's rights and the absurdity of worthless sex offender registries as being "pro-molester" reflects how sick, demented and stupid you really are.

Second, given the new-ness of the story you linked to, there is absolutely no mention of him being a molester in the story! So, what are you talking about? Based on the information you present, there is no story of a "child molester." To suggest that I would find JOY in reading about a serial killer again reflects on how sick and demented you really are. And you call pedophiles perverted? Sir, you need to look in the mirror in the morning, you will see perversion looking squarely back at you.

And by the way, Marion, you probably do both. I know you have a loud mouth, so you likely slander, and you certainly type the words so libel away. You fool!

0

Jersey_Girl 8 years, 1 month ago

If you go to http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Asex+offenders%2A&match_type= they will give you a list of the sex offenders living in Lawrence. The list they gave me had 12, most living in cheap student apartments just off campus.

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Congratulations Jersey Girl, now what will you do with that information? How does that website change your daily living? How do you know it's accurate? How do you know it is up to date? Did you see my previous post from the Fed? They acknowledge that sex offender registries are inaccurate, not up to date, and that the information is just flat wrong. While your link APPEARS to be a private site, it is simply based on the state sex offender registries. The same one's the DOJ draws from on their site (the site with all the warnings of inaccuracy.) What is worse, they charge for this worthless information.

"Be Aware, Be Alert, Be Safe" (Be unaware that for every one on the list there is another one not on the list, be alert.... duh? , Be safe... probably the biggest lie, knowing this information instills a false sense of security in people that they "know" where the molesters are living... no you don't! Wake up!!!

Marion, you need help, the lobotomy you received as a child is really starting to affect your fucntioning. I didn't even waste my time following your links...I am sure you are quite in-tune with the pedophilia sites out there, no thanks!

0

jayhawks71 8 years, 1 month ago

Enforcer, your ignorance abounds because you don't seem to get the point of my objections. My face will never be on a sex offender registry and your thinly veiled attempts to paint me as one reflect a feeble attempt to discredit my viewpoint.

I have repeatedly stated WHY sex offender registries are a bad idea (including that they make it easy for pedophiles to find people who share their interests!). I as a taxpayer do not want MY tax dollar going to fund something that misleads people into a false sense of security, facilitates pedophiles rather than reduces them, is inaccurate, provides a vehicle for hiring MORE law enforcement because they are out knocking on doors, and finally, because it violates a free person's right to liberty.

If YOU want a sex offender registry, YOU form an organization that hosts it and updates it and assumes the liability for it incorrectly listing a person. However, do not violate a person's rights to life, liberty and property to do it. You can take your police state and shove it.

You have an agenda. Every agenda out there has a hand out. This one is misguided and costly and does nothing. In case you still aren't clear on my stance, I have not suggested that the man in the story being release is a good idea, I find child molesters (and anyone who violates another person sexually or non-sexually) repulsive, nor have I suggested that you must welcome this person into your neighborhood with open arms. However, based on the PRINCIPLE (perhaps you should get some) that he is a free man, he should be able to live whereever someone will rent to him or wherever he can legally purchase property. He should not be chained to an ineffective and inaccurate system of tracking AFTER he has completed his sentence. Just because YOU think that he should be locked up for life does not make it so. As long as one is released upon completion of the sentence imposed, he is a FREE MAN. So much for Kansas being a historically free state.... I see the police state (oh protect us mr. policeman) has become your nanny.

0

sublime 7 years, 10 months ago

This is where I think our system has failed.Putting an offender in a hospital???You can't "rehabilitate " a monster.Public hangings for first time offenders.Saying that this monster is no longer a sexually violent predator is completely ludicrous.These child molsters know that in the event that they are caught ruining the lives of children,there is no severe punishment.They all tell the same bleeding heart stories about how f***ed up thier childhood was.Then they get offered plea bargains,do minimal sentences,and back out on the streets they go.The punishment for child molesting should be so severe that no one would even think about crossing that line.The ones on the streets should have a brand on thier forehead .Sex offenders are the cancer of this society .They all need to die!!!!!!!!

0

manyblessings 7 years, 10 months ago

Someone who has done this to a child even once should never get a second chance. I will never understand why known pedophiles are still out living in people's neighborhoods anyway, causing the need for a " sex offender registry ". These people don't belong out in civilization or anywhere there are children. Even if they never offend again they have ruined at least one child's life forever.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.