News-Record.com

Doug.....Oh, Doug....

We know you're out there somewhere in the safe (Buncombe Co.)pasture to which you've been relegated, ( probably by your own self-preservatory employment instincts-and that's cool. I doubt if the powers at the paper actually have bound and gagged you).

It's just that your column today seems to be about the courage of people to weigh in with their opinion-even though it may not be popular.

Believe me, a conservative political columnist with a history of jumping on a race-railroad case like Duke to not at least weigh in on the Wray affair is like a 800 lb. gorilla on the couch. I don't know if you think people aren't noticing, but it's kind of obvious.

Even if you agree Wray had to go, at least weigh in.

I know it's nice out there in the pasture. (I hear there's an endangered salamander in the French Broad river you may want to check out) but come on.

p.s. if things are that bad at the N&R that you don't even want to respond to this post, just sort of whisper a secret code word...like "SELIGMAN" or something, and we'll let the matter drop.

Excellent post, Doug.

Thanks, DFL. Any buzz about this case in your Raleigh legal circles?

Savage, I addressed that at your prompting on another strand the other day. When I want to say more, I'll write a separate entry.

Doug, I tried to make it easy. You could have just said "Seligman".

We obviously know it's a no-win situation for you, as it is for everyone in Greensboro and GC.

If you agree Wray had to go, you'll get accused of being brainwashed. If you say Wray was railroaded and your paper that helped railroad the guy-also not good.

Maybe you can stay purely in the hypothetical ie:
like pose the question: what would happen if Wray happened to be black and a powerful white lawyer politician went into the town manager and said he was not treating the white officers right and he had to go and the town manager complied. How would the N&R react.

Stuff like that.

It might hurt her if she runs for re-election in 2010, but I think she got it right.* Doug

I don't think the judge has a problem in 2010, unless she is caught in a men's restroom with a truckload of Republican political preverts. You are aware they are bigger threat than the party in the appeal?

"It might hurt her if she runs for re-election in 2010, but I think she got it right."

This is the concerning thing about electing judges: they are subject to losing their jobs for doing precisely what they are supposed to do -- decide cases based on the constitutions and laws and not based on what's popular.

Thanks for an excellent post, Doug.

Thanks, Lisa.

I appreciate judges who go the extra mile, even at potential political risk, to make the right call. That's what struck me as extraordinary about Geer's dissent in this case.

This case has real potential for political harm, not only because "taking the side of sex offenders" just won't sound good in one of those third-party attack ads. If the Supreme Court affirms the appeals court majority opinion, Geer also will appear to be wrong about the law. Face it, she'll be conclusively shown to be wrong -- not a good position if someone wants to highlight this case in an election.

I agree with you about electing judges. It's the wrong way to go. But even if you have a system of merit selection and retention election, a campaign to unseat a judge could exploit a case like this. Bottom line, you need judges with enough strength of character and integrity to call 'em as they see 'em, regardless of potential political consequences.

"Bottom line, you need judges with enough strength of character and integrity to call 'em as they see 'em, regardless of potential political consequences."

Word.

And newspaper columnists too.

Hate to tell you Doug, but the town of Kernersville has a similar ban on sex offenders in city parks. This practice is probably more widespread than you think, as city governments do what they can to keep sexual predators away from children. The judge may have ruled as she sees it, but I disagree with her decision that registered sex offenders don't present any significant threat to young children. Data suggests the opposite, as the recidivism rate for child sex offenders is very high. As far as I am concerned, if one child is saved from a bad experience with a child sexual predator, it's worth it. As far as the sex offender's rights being violated by this law, that person forfeited their rights to go where they choose when they committed the first offense. Sorry, but I am for protecting the kids, rather than protecting sex offenders rights.

Stormy,

You're on safe ground, backed by the majority in this opinion. However, I would encourage you to read Geer's dissent in full if you haven't already.

I agree that we should take all reasonable measures to protect children and the public in general from predators of all kinds. Does that mean, however, that everyone who's been convicted of a crime should be forever banned from public places because of the chance he might commit another offense?

Any individual who is deemed to present such a particular risk should be either still locked up or monitored very closely. If you ban this person from the park, then it's more likely he'll commit an offense somewhere else. Can you figure out where that's going to be and prohibit him from going there?

Stormy: Take a look at the case. The judge doesn't say sex offenders aren't a risk. She says that the government can't impose these kinds of restrictions without showing exactly how the restrictions are supposed to actually address the issue. From the opinion, it looks like the only data the town provided actually indicated that the ban would have been completely ineffectual at addressing the problem of sex offenders. (The sex offender in the case was actually not registered for a sex offense against a child -- which is not to say that that makes him ok, just that it underscores how the restriction wasn't really tailored to address the issue of child sex offenders.) Maybe they can actually establish a real link between the ban and some positive effect on safety, but the opinion indicates that they didn't do that.

The danger is that people are given the impression that the government is "doing something" when in fact it's just a knee-jerk reaction based on a generalized fear. It's easy to hate sex offenders, but it gets scary when you consider the logical extention of letting every local government impose whatever restriction they want on citizens, without any need to demonstrate that it's geared toward the actual problem. Can the Town of Woodfin deny someone the right to drive through the town if they've ever had a speeding ticket? I bet recidivism for speeding is pretty high.

It's an interesting issue in these interesting times.

Lisa,

Tell a parent whose child that has been abused by a sex offender that this is an interesting academic exercise, and see what happens. I'm sorry, but I am of the school that we do not do enough to protect children from bad people these days. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. Are we concerned enough about their right to live safe and secure?

Moving away from an academic exercise then, I would question why a parent so concerned for his child's safety would let him or her roam around unsupervised in a park.

An ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from entering public parks isn't going to make that park safe. Remember, most sex crimes are committed by people with no previous record of sex offenses (according to data entered into the record in this case).

Lisa's example of barring convicted speeders from city streets is apt. It's not an academic exercise but a real question: How far are you willing to take this approach in the name of safety?

Stormy, I am with you completely, and this is not just an academic question. I think there is a whole lot we can and should be doing to make the world better and safer for kids (including mine, who is extremely naive & trusting). What that means to me is that we need to figure out real ways to protect them, and not just come up with things that look good to voters but don't actually help anybody. It's just lip service of the most dangerous kind, and I don't think we ought to be willing to let that slide.

Doug,

Willie Sutton was a notorious bank robber, and once he was asked why he robbed banks. Sutton simply said "That's where the money is". Well, I guess the reason that I would ban him from parks is "that is where the kids are".

"If you ban this person from the park, then it's more likely he'll commit an offense somewhere else. Can you figure out where that's going to be and prohibit him from going there? Why is it more likely that he'll commit an offense somewhere else if banned from a park? What are the odds of that?

Kids are also in schools, and we don't allow registered sexual predators work as schools do we? Do we give them the two or three bite rule before we ban them from schools?

If he's kept out of the park, the odds that he'll commit an offense somewhere else are 100 percent -- assuming, as you are, that he is going to commit another offense.

So all you have to do is ban him from going anywhere else, and you have the problem beat.

But, if you have information that an individual poses a clear and present danger, you should tightly restrict his movements and slap a monitor on him. Confine him to home if that seems necessary.

The legal issue is whether you can do the same for everyone in the broad category of registered sex offender.

Case - United States Court of Appeals, Robert Brown vs. Michigan City, IN September 5, 2006

Granted the facts of this case are not identical, but check the three items from the court ruling at the end. Note, that the court said that children are susceptible in parks, and cities have a duty to protect them. This is the essence of my argument in this matter. If cities don't take action to ban sexual offenders, they are likely to find themselves in court defending themselves, as they failed their duty to protect children in areas where they tend to congregate.

And, we have seen that children as old as 15 or 16-years old can be the object of sex offenders. Doug, I would find it difficult to hold parents responsible for allowing their 15 or 16 year old children to "roam around a park unsupervised". Did you always supervise your children at this age?

Park ban on molesters upheld

A federal appeals panel ruled this week that a convicted child molester can be banned from public parks, raising hopes among child advocates that a new Indianapolis ordinance restricting the access of sex abusers can withstand a court challenge.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a decision by a federal court in Hammond that barring Robert E. Brown from parks did not violate his constitutional rights.

Officials in Michigan City had observed Brown viewing people through binoculars and “driving by very slowly” at a children’s day camp. Although no evidence was presented that he was stalking children, the Michigan City Parks and Recreation Board judged that he posed a threat.

The ACLU of Indiana brought a legal challenge against a resolution banning Brown, arguing his right to due process had been violated. But the 7th Circuit held that, as a practical matter of ensuring public safety, Brown was not “just another patron” of the parks.

“He is a convicted child molester whose frequency of attendance and atypical behavior while in the park justified the concern of those public officials charged with ensuring the safety of members of the public who visit the recreational site,” the judges said.

COURT’S FINDINGS

In upholding a resolution banning a convicted child molester from Michigan City parks, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found:

• There is no fundamental right to access to public parks.
• State law grants municipal parks discretion in setting conditions on public entry.
• Children are susceptible to abuse in parks, and cities have a duty to protect them.

Stormy, I don't think we disagree to the extent it first appeared.

The case you cited had to do with a specific offender. That's very different from the Woodfin case. If one person is deemed to be a threat, I agree it is justified to take action to reduce that threat. What Judge Geer is saying, based on past court rulings, is that you have to demonstrate the specific threat. Otherwise, why don't you decide that a certain category of person -- perhaps based on race, age and gender -- is statistically more likely to commit crimes and ban all persons of that description from all public places.

""Bottom line, you need judges with enough strength of character and integrity to call 'em as they see 'em, regardless of potential political consequences."

It's possible for judges to have such strength of character and integrity to call 'em as they see 'em, but that doesn't mean that they are right when they do.

Personally, I'd rather have a judge who is like an umpire that says ""There's balls and there's strikes, and I call 'em like they are." This umpire exemplifies the Enlightenment view that there are objective truths about the world, and that they are waiting to be discovered. When the pitcher throws the ball, the pitch results in either a ball or a strike, depending upon if it is in the strike zone. If the pitch goes through the strike zone, it is a strike, even if the umpire calls it incorrectly. There is a fact-of-the-matter in every situation.

"Otherwise, why don't you decide that a certain category of person -- perhaps based on race, age and gender -- is statistically more likely to commit crimes and ban all persons of that description from all public places."

I'd say that a person that has committed a sex crime before is statistically more likely to commit a sex crime again, and that is a very good reason to prohibit them as a category from places that children tend to congregate.

Doug, I see that this discussion is fruitless, as they usually are, so I'll just take a pass on any more discussion.

Thanks for the discussion, Stormy. As I said earlier, I would guess you're expressing the view of most people and maybe most judges.

It's quite a tricky issue to have judges who call them as they are. If that were possible, you'd only need to have a Supreme Court of one, as long as you had the right judge (although the right judge in the opinion of some would be the wrong judge in the opinion of others). The founders recognized, however, that honest, learned judges could still come to different conclusions about the law. That's why we have nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, seven on the N.C. Supreme Court. Often we get unanimous decisions from these courts, but a whole lot of times we don't. It seems to me as a layman that it's not always easy to determine which precedent most closely applies to a certain case, or exactly what the legislature intended when it passed a law that may be somewhat ambiguous in its language.

I agree with you about electing judges. It's the wrong way to go. * Doug

As usual Doug! Who watches the unelected corrupt judical, besides more unelected establishment legal corrupted judical types? Has it ever occure to you that a consitutional republic is in the hands of the " We the people" instead of " We answer to no one except us tyrants"

Doug,

I was informed by a reliable source from Kernersville tonight that since passing their city ordinance that three sex offenders have been found in city parks and charged. So, I guess sex offenders do hang out in parks after all. Can you imagine that?

The issue isn't whether sex offenders "hang out" in parks. They might "hang out" at grocery stores, malls or even churches, too. What's special about the park? Did the discovery of these individuals in a Kernersville park prevent likely sex offenses? Had these individuals committed sex offenses in parks before or is the reasoning simply that we don't want them to be somewhere they might commit a sex offense? The trouble is, that might be anywhere. So what we really want is for them to be nowhere.

If you search the NC Sex Offender database it will specifically allow you to search for sex offenders who have offended again sexually.

There are SEVEN in the state of NC...out of 12,000 registered sex offenders. 2-3 of those are in jail, the others are monitored by GPS along with the others classified as predators.

Most of the quotes you hear about sex offenders are using the figure of approx 50%. That is a scare tactic, but as with all statistics, that is a manipulated figure. That included ALL crimes ever committed by that person including parole violations, etc.

Interesting fact is that number is LOWER than many other criminal classifications. Other studies specifically on this issue show the re-offend rate for sexual offenses is 7% (that is one of the highest rates quoted), many others backed up by registrations is much lower, usually UNDER 1%!!

Update on above post, since I looked at this last a couple months ago NC updated their software, now shows 92/12000 = .0076

20 of those are in jail, so 72 in the state reoffended again sexually.

There are 5 actual sexual predators in the state, 1 is in jail.

http://ncfindoffender.com/

You can search and confirm those for yourself, scarlet letter laws make for interesting math.

I don't know if Anonymous' figures are correct or not, but I think the larger point in the Woodfin case is that there just wasn't any real analysis done of actual information -- it was based on generalized fear. It's easier to demonize those who have offended before than to try to deal with the hard numbers.

The figures quoted by Anonymous only reflect those CAUGHT re-offending.
Sex crimes are drastically under-reported by victims. How many have not re-offended because they were banned from using a public park as their lair? We'll never know.
How many have re-offended and we don't know about it because it was not reported? We'll never know.

Jaycee, so maybe we should close the parks down altogether because there is also lots of unregistered offenders who have never been caught or reported and since they are unregistered they ARE allowed in the parks!!

We should all stay indoors with the lights off, no wait a minute MOST sex offenses are committed BY family members at home so we should ban offenders from living indoors...or...

But again those crimes are "DRASTICALLY" underreported so maybe NO-body should be allowed to live in homes since thats where most of these crimes occur...

Or the fact that Federal and State law already have statues in place to prevent offenders from being in places where children routinely gather, we leave it up to THEM to create the laws instead of every mom/pop town council member who has every read anything scary on the internet!

Jaycee, so maybe we should close the parks down altogether because there is also lots of unregistered offenders who have never been caught or reported and since they are unregistered they ARE allowed in the parks!!

We should all stay indoors with the lights off, no wait a minute MOST sex offenses are committed BY family members at home so we should ban offenders from living indoors...or...

But again those crimes are "DRASTICALLY" underreported so maybe NO-body should be allowed to live in homes since thats where most of these crimes occur...

Or the fact that Federal and State law already have statues in place to prevent offenders from being in places where children routinely gather, we leave it up to THEM to create the laws instead of every mom/pop town council member who has ever read anything scary on the internet!

Stormy,

Are all sex offenders child molesters?

Given the extraordinarily broad range of crimes that subject one to registration, it seems overbroad to bar any such registered person from what is, in fact, a PUBLIC amenity.

A person can become a registered sex offender as a 17 year old if his 15 year old girlfriend's father catches them in the back seat of the Chevy and gets angry about it. You want to bar that kid from parks for the rest of his life?

I'm not saying there's no legitimate concern, but I agree with Judge Geer that the government needs to narrowly tailor restrictions on personal freedom - and this seems not so narrow.