ACLU fights child molester 'banishment'

[spdirty]

This is for all you good liberals who send money to the ACLU

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...606010463/1006

ACLU fights child molester 'banishment'
Suit argues it is almost impossible to travel in county without being near a prohibited site

By Richard D. Walton
richard.walton@indystar.com
A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday pits the need to protect children from sexual predators versus sex offenders' rights to move freely in society after serving their sentences.

RECENT CASES INVOLVING THE ACLU OF INDIANA

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, formerly known as the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, has recently been involved in a number of high-profile cases. Among them:

• The group represented inmates in a class-action lawsuit that said a state prison policy prohibiting visitation between child sex offenders and minors violated the U.S. Constitution. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to that policy.

• In November, in response to a suit filed by the group, federal Judge David Hamilton barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ, or endorse any specific religion, from opening the daily session of the Indiana House. Speaker Brian Bosma has appealed that ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

• In April 2005, the group sued to overturn the state's voter identification law, arguing it would drive the poor, elderly and others away from the polls. The law was upheld in both state and federal court.

• With help from the civil rights organization, Thomas E. Jones Jr., a practicing Wiccan, successfully challenged a 2004 ruling in Marion Superior Court that Jones and his wife, who were divorcing, could not share their religion with their son.

-- Compiled by The Star Library

The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit challenging a new city ordinance that fines child molesters caught near city playgrounds or other gathering spots for children.
Calling the ordinance passed in mid-May unconstitutionally vague, the group said it would make law-abiding citizens unwitting violators of the ordinance and hinder their ability to work, vote and worship.
The ordinance prohibits sex offenders convicted of crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming pools, sports fields or facilities when children are around. One exception to the ban is if the offender is accompanied by an adult with no history of sex crimes.
Anyone who violates the ordinance commits an infraction punishable by progressive fines: $600 for the first violation, $1,000 for the second and $2,500 for subsequent violations within the same year.
The ordinance goes beyond a bill passed this session by the Indiana General Assembly. That law bars sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a public park, school or youth programs center.
Supporters of the local measure say it is necessary to safeguard society's most vulnerable.
"You see all the stories almost every day about a child falling victim to a molester," Democratic City-County Councilman Vernon Brown said. He said this was one of the few things the council could do to save at least one child "from that horror."
According to Doug Gosser, of the Indiana Sheriff's Association, between 6,000 and 7,000 people are on the Indiana Sheriff's Association's Sex Offender Registry. He said the registry database does not break down how many of the offenders abused children.
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.
Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."
The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance.
There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.
Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says.
Falk said that even the ordinance's exemption -- lifting the restrictions if the former offender is accompanied by an adult with no record of sex crimes -- is problematic.
Falk said the term "accompanied" is not defined in the ordinance. "If you're within five feet, if you're within 10 feet, if you go with someone and they have to go to the bathroom, do you have to go to the bathroom with them?" he asked.
Democratic Councilman Greg Bowes, one of two council members who opposed the ordinance, also questions the practicality of enforcing the law and thinks it does little to protect children.
Many child molesters abuse children in their families or other children they know -- not strangers, he said.
Though it's every parent's worst nightmare, "we don't have that much trouble of people grabbing children out of parks."


Call Star reporter Richard D. Walton at (317) 444-6289.


Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It obvious those laws are vague and not thought out.

• In November, in response to a suit filed by the group, federal Judge David Hamilton barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ, or endorse any specific religion, from opening the daily session of the Indiana House. Speaker Brian Bosma has appealed that ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

That's the correct ruling.

• With help from the civil rights organization, Thomas E. Jones Jr., a practicing Wiccan, successfully challenged a 2004 ruling in Marion Superior Court that Jones and his wife, who were divorcing, could not share their religion with their son.

Also the correct ruling. Damn the ACLU for championing parents rights to teach their children religion, eh sp?

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It obvious those laws are vague and not thought out.


That's the correct ruling.

Well then, send more money to them

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by spdirty

Well then, send more money to them

How come you didn't mention this ruling?


Quote:
• With help from the civil rights organization, Thomas E. Jones Jr., a practicing Wiccan, successfully challenged a 2004 ruling in Marion Superior Court that Jones and his wife, who were divorcing, could not share their religion with their son.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

How come you didn't mention this ruling?


Quote:
• With help from the civil rights organization, Thomas E. Jones Jr., a practicing Wiccan, successfully challenged a 2004 ruling in Marion Superior Court that Jones and his wife, who were divorcing, could not share their religion with their son.

I did. Its in the article I posted isnt it?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by spdirty

I did. Its in the article I posted isnt it?

So you don't think the ACLU did good here?

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So you don't think the ACLU did good here?

I don't think so, because they wouldnt have fought this hard if the ruling dealt in christianity.

I don't know, I guess technically its the correct challenge to the ruling because it deals in freedom of religion and if it isnt a religion that physically or emotionally hurts the child it should be protected I suppose.