I can’t really get upset about this

A guy who is a convicted sex offender is abot to go to jail for life here in Georgia and ABC News is appalled.

The guy was convicted in North Carolina of felony indecent liberty with child and he moved to Georgia. He is homeless and registered a phony address with the state. So the state is sending him to prison for life.

ABC News places the blame on Georgia’s law that

prohibits offenders from living and working within 1,000 feet of not just schools and day care centers, but also churches, public or community swimming pools, public or private parks, bus stops and any other places

13 comments

  1. jm says:

    Its hard to defend the sex offenders, but the DeKalb sheriff was against the law as well. Basically, no spot in DeKalb is a viable location for sex offenders. It increased the amount of work his office had to do, regarding issuing eviction notices and making sure the sex offenders followed through. So rather than having them register with the sheriff, the sex offenders go underground, still living in DeKalb, but with no incentive to register. Now the sheriff is faced with an impossible task instead of a manageable one.

    Second, I think that it is bizarre to force someone, even a sex offender, to sell their house, move away just because a new daycare has been built or the school district has added a bus stop. To me, that seems unconstitutional. The smarter thing to do is create prohibition zones where sex offenders live, and restrict the development of activities involving children. These people need help, and we as a society are better off knowing where they are than having no clue.

    Case in point: in South Georgia, a boy was killed recently, you may remember the huge search for his body. The boy lived 400 feet from a sex offender, who eventually abducted him and killed him. How did that happen? He was forced to live there because his father was a sex offender as well.

    Sorry, I’m going to side with the sheriff on this one.

  2. Paul Shuford says:

    There are also a lot of problems with what offenses get you listed as a sex offender and put on the registry. Peeing in an alleyway behind a bar should not get you listed as a sex offender and put on the registry, but from what I understand, it does under the “indecent exposure” charge.

  3. Doug Deal says:

    I am with Grift on this one.

    People love to show how much they hate the hate-able, where they know that they will not be challenged for it.

    If these people are a danger, they need to be locked away in the first place. The answer is restricting the ability to get out of prison in the first place for the truly dangerous.

    You are many times more likely to be abused by a friend or family member than a known sex offender who lives down the street. Not allowing family members to have any access to your kids is more likely to protect them from abuse than harassing the easily hated.

    I am not defending their actions, and I believe in tougher penalties for child abusers, but if we let them out, we should only be letting them out because we believe they will not commit such acts again. If we are letting out high recidivists, the law needs to change to make life sentences the default, not harass people who may have only made one mistake in their past and for all we know are just trying to live a life.

    Smiling with glee at the misfortune of others is a disgusting thing, even if the person deserved his fate.

  4. griftdrift says:

    “If these people are a danger, they need to be locked away in the first place. The answer is restricting the ability to get out of prison in the first place for the truly dangerous.”

    I agree with that fully.

    Oh my. Did Doug Deal and I just agree? Did the earth just move?

  5. bowersville says:

    If the prison this offender will live in is within a 1000 feet of a school bus stop, how many life sentences will he be subjected to annually?

  6. CHelf says:

    A sex offender cannot live or work near a church but can they attend church? If not, there goes freedom of religion. If so, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? What gives?

  7. grabbingsand says:

    For those who (like me) weren’t clear on just what “felony indecent liberty” meant in this case, here’s the NC law.

    Indecent Liberties with a Child (adult perpetrator) [GS 14-202.1, Class F felony]
    Indecent and lewd acts with a child under age 16 by a defendant at least 5 years older.

    Appears to fall under the same category as statutory, without the specificity.

  8. Romegaguy says:

    Knowingly distributing copies of video tapes with children having sex depicted on it (consensual or otherwise) also gets you placed on the list. I wonder how close DA McDade’s house is to a church or bus stop…

Comments are closed.