Huntington Herald-Press: Sex offenders barred from most areas of city

The Huntington Herald-Press reports that a new state law that went into effect July 1st makes most of the residential areas in the City of Huntington off-limits to sex-offenders.

Offenders must live at least 1,000 feet away from schools, parks, day care facilities and churches with youth programs.

Karen Poling, an office deputy at the Huntington County Sheriff’s Department, has spent the past several weeks just combing through files, making phone calls, and informing sex offenders of the consequences of the law, which went into effect July 1. Poling couldn’t say how many sex offenders must uproot, but noted that from one of eight filing cabinets dedicated to storing sex offender information, 18 offenders were told they have to move.

“Every day, that’s just all I’ve done — I’ve been on the phone or they’ve been in the department,” Poling said. “It’s just so overwhelming. Some of these people have actually lived in their homes their whole lives, 30 or 40 years.”

Approximately 100 registered sex offenders in Huntington County. Some of them live and work here, but others may only work here.

Brent Myers of the Indiana Department of Corrections said that 54 sex offenders currently in prison will be returning to Huntington at some point in the future. Their crimes include rape or attempted rape, criminal deviate conduct, child molesting, sexual misconduct with a minor, and criminal confinement.

Comments

[J.Rabbit]

I tip my hat to Huntington. As far as pedophiles go there is no rehabilitation for them, they are always a threat...The safety and innocence of our children far outweigh the inconvenience this may cause the offenders, the offenders throw all rights out the window when they commit the crime.

[Brandon]

Of course, this is a cause of concern for libretarians and other privacy advocates, as well as people unwilling to succumb to the frenzied mania of "the safety of our children." That is a logical fallacy, and leads to a line of reasoning that can escalate out of countrol. I don't think that this is a step in the right direction in any way--either for society as a whole, who refuses to focus more on rehabilitation--or for precedents in general.

But, Indiana being what it is and all, I would hereby like to keep fat people out of all fast food resturants. I don't believe fat people want to lose weight, and the only way to keep them out of danger and temptation is to keep them out of resturants. They could also injure me or my children if, while standing in line for a 10-pice McNugget, they have a heart attack in the store, fall, and crush my family under their massive bulk.

So, it's proven that fat people can't control their weight, and this is a serious issue, so let's keep them out, okay? The same goes for alcoholics and liquor stores, and credit abusers and the mall.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to start banning people from places, yes, lets start with the child molesters, but don't stop there. It's just the beginning, I hope.

[Scott]

Whoa, J. Rabbit, are you sure about that last point? Are you really saying that the Bill of Rights, specifically the 6th and 8th amendments, don’t apply to certain accused and/or convicted criminals? “...all rights out the window"? Wow!

How about this scenario: a Huntington boy turns 17 and is caught having sex with his 16-year old girlfriend, whom he's been dating for a couple years. He's tried and convicted of 2nd degree statutory rape, and, after serving a few months time, is forced to register as "sex offender". In addition to forever having difficulty getting a job, a loan, an apartment, etc., and, if the recent Louisiana law is any indication of future Hoosier hysteria, having to carry an orange license with the words “Sex Offender” prominently displayed across the front and back causing almost daily embarrassment for the rest of his life, he now has to either move out of his parent’s house, possibly the house in which he grew up, or his entire family, siblings and all, has to relocate outside the city and possibly change schools, friends, jobs, etc. The list could go on. And all for two teenagers having sex?!

Is this really what you want? Is this justice? Or is this just plain lynch-mob hysteria? Whichever, it's certainly smacks of the "cruel and unusual" punishment the 8th amendment to the Constitution expressly forbade... for ALL citizens. No, knee-jerk, reactionary legislation serves nobody’s long-term interests. Sadly, this is usually only acknowledged in hindsight after many people’s lives have been ruined forever.

PS - And just in case you think my scenario is bogus, here's a real one I found on a website forum:

"I was convicted of csc3rd. I had just graduated high school when this happened, and I ripped from college and thrown jail. About two years earlier I taped my girl friend and I having sex. We were both under 18 @ the time, and when my so called friends who I showed it to teased the girl about it. She asked the cops what she should do. Well geuss who decided to pick up the case and prosecute? It didn't bother me too much when I was younger, but now I 'm getting to an age where it's all I think about. I can't get a job, apt., or go to certain colleges because of it. I'm no pedefile and I'm not rapest. I was young and I wanted to prove to my friends that I was having sex and that I was cool too. There should somthing within the law that provides hep or a way off the list. My whole life is ruined and theres nothing that I know that I can do about it."

[J.Rabbit]

Yes you both have opened my eyes that I am harsh in my judgement...and yes of course I want to clarify and defend myself, but for the most part I hold true - there is no reform for a child molester, and when they steal away the innocence and trust of small children and scar them for life - yes they should realize that certain rights will no longer be available to them.

We have a resgistered offender in our neighborhood. He breaks his probation and goes into the park and talks to the young boys. He is scary to all of the local kids. He lives directly across the street from a the park and beach. Is it right that we all have to watch him and warn our kids about him all of the time and the fact that we have had to have discussions with our kids that we really didn't want to have just yet in their young lives?

Everything is a two-way street and everyone has their opinions. I personally believe child molestors to be the scummiest of the scum and I am not talking about two teenaged kids who have made their decisions of their own free will....I am referring to small children who are forced to commit unspeakable acts and not tell anyone and bear the secrets and shame within. There is a difference. And it has nothing to do with fat people.

[Bob Jenson]

Scott,

Your scenario is not plausible. For one thing, there is no longer 'statuatory rape' on the books in Indiana. Anyone over the age of 16 can have sex with whomever they please, provided it is consentual.

[Mike Dooley]

Betcha Dick Worden, wherever his soul wound up, is getting a kick out of this.

[Scott]

@Bob: You're correct about IN's age of consent; it's not as bad as I thought in the Hoosier state. However, the scenario still holds in about 1/3 of the states that have higher ages of consent. And you can be sure Huntington, IN isn't the only city in the country adopting these draconian measures.

@J. Rabbit: I'm glad to hear you admit you're judgment is harsh. Unfortunately, you continued with that harsh judgment ("scummiest of the scum"). The apostle Paul was clear that before Law's demands, none are righteous (Romans 3:9), not you, not me, not the child molester. Indeed, he even claimed to be the worst of sinners! Of course he didn't say this to eliminate earthly justice, but he did mean to remove the “us vs. them” self-righteous mentality to which humans are so prone.

And re: your absolute assertion that there is no reform for the child molester, I'm not sure from where that comes, but I know it doesn't come from the Bible. Again, Paul was clear that there is hope for everybody, even the worst of sinners. He reminded the Corinthians of this when he said, "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

"...and such WERE some of you!" Past tense! They were not beyond redemption. Just like John Newton's experience:

Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I ONCE was lost, BUT NOW am found
WAS blind BUT NOW I see.

As for whether it's "right" that you have to watch your neighborhood criminal and warn your kids of him, I don't know. It's probably wise. But I do believe that, in accordance with Jesus' commands, along with any watching and warning should be love and prayer and good deeds toward him (Matt. 5 and Luke 6). After all, Jesus not only has a special place in his heart for children (Matt. 18:6)), he also has a particular desire to see the sick made well (Luke 5:30-32). And who knows, it could even present wonderful opportunities to talk with your children about how everybody, hurter of children and soccer mom alike, is lost and wretched and without hope save in the death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. That’s what’s so amazing about grace.

Please don’t get me wrong, though, I’m not suggesting that these are trivial matters with easy answers. They’re not, and I know that.

@Mike Dooley: Not quite sure who Dick Worden was.

[AWB]

Oh Jeese... I've got to chime in.

First and foremost, if you're convicted of a sexual offense against children the court takes ALL of the circumstances and facts into consideration BEFORE handing down a sentence. On top of that, the fact remains that a new law was passed and it needs to be enforced for the sake of our children's safety. Considering that Scott has three children I'm astonished he has such a liberal viewpoint about the rights of CHILD MOLESTERS.

To Brandon - hey - there is no such thing as rehabilitation for these whack-jobs. It's a proven fact that they CANNOT be rehabilitated - period. Watch Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" - how many of these creepy ass%$#@ have seen the show yet continue to prey on young children and show up at these events? Your analogy about fat people is a sick and pointless rant.

I have a lake cottage right across the street from the pervert that J. Rabbit is talking about. I've confronted this ass%$#@ once while he was sitting in his front lawn with a pair of binoculars watching 10-13 year-old girls play on the beach, (one was my daughter). These sick f$#ks cannot and will not change, it's a fact of life - get over it.

KUDOS to Bob Jensen who accurately pointed out that statutory rapes is an offense that is NOT on the books in Indiana AND if your of consensual age you cannot be convicted much less charged.

Sigh..

[Scott]

@AWB: Don't think we've ever met, but given the nature of your blog, I was wondering how long you'd let my comments go without responding.

I don't really have any response to you points; we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I assure you that I believe in earthly justice. About two years ago I even sat on a jury that voted unanimously to find guilty a stepfather who molested his stepson for years. He's now serving 25 years w/o parole. Justice was served, and I had no problem participating in that process.

My issue was primarily that sin resides in the heart of every man, and it is only the unmerited grace of God that differentiates me from your neighbor across the lake. And because I have been redeemed from much, I believe that others can be too. Notwithstanding your "proven facts", I choose to side with the Scriptures and believe that nobody is beyond redemption. Are there consequences for our actions? Absolutely. But ss change possible for those who truly repent? Absolutely.

This is a state law, not a Huntington law and its provisions are retroactive forcing people who have lived in the same home for 30 years or more to move.

[AWB]

Scott,

Let them be judged when they get there, which I doubt will have pearly gates. I'm certain (being a good Catholic) that the apostle Paul was was NOT referring to child molesters "none are righteous (Romans 3:9), not you, not me, not the child molester" as you stated.

These laws are to protect the children (yours included). No one is judging anyone. We are just protecting our children from these sick, twisted perverted freaks of nature.

When they laid their evil hands upon the children they molested they gave up their rights accordinging to the "laws of the land" here in INDIANA. I'm one who is glad he does not live in New York.

[Scott Greider]

@AWB: I'm not sure whether the fun (I hope) we're having is worth the frustration we're probably causing others, but either way, this will be my last post, regardless of how tempting a future post of yours might be. ;-)

1) Paul most certainly meant to include every single person who has ever lived or ever will live in the same category in terms of their standing before God. Without the UNMERITED grace of God (and as a protestant I'll have to disagree with you, a Catholic, as to whether we deserve that grace or even maintain it as a result of our good works) I and the child molester stand in the EXACT SAME position before God: guilty as charged and deserving of divine wrath! In other words, you got it half right, he is a sick, twisted, perverted freak of nature. No denying that. But the part you seemingly miss is... so are you! And so is everybody else who thinks that because they do good and play by the rules that they are therefore somehow - BY NATURE - better than someone who does the opposite. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), and "the wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23) You deserve death, I deserve it, just the same as the child molester deserves it. As I said before, the only hope any of us have is for God save to us by his mercy. "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

2) While you can of course make the case that more laws protect our children, it's far from an open and shut case. I, like you I'm sure, love my children and want the best for them. But I'm not so sure that draconian laws aimed at removing any and all risk from their lives actually accomplishes the goal. Their have been many examples throughout history of totalitarian states in which crime was virtuously no-existent due to the absolute power of the state. I'm one who would say that kind of "protection" from crime actually has the potential to hurt children, and people in general.

3) Not quite sure what NY has to do with anything, but since you mention it, I do think it's a great place to live and raise children, as is Indiana, for now...

You may have the last word now, and no hard feelings, I hope.

:-)

[Mike Dooley]

Scott: The late Dick Worden of New Haven was part of the Republican triumverate from New Haven (which included Phyllis Pond and our distinguished site host, Mr. Harper)that for years reprsented a large part of Allen County in the General Assembly. In regards to this topic, however, he is best remembered for his proposal to allow men convicted of sex crimes to avoid a prison term by submitting to surgical castration. The measure received one "aye" vote - his - when it came before the full House. To add insult to irony, the story cited here involves Huntington County, where a fellow named Ed Bodkin made news a few years ago when police discovered he was providing the service mentioned in Rep. Worden's bill to men who sought him out. Mr. Bodkin, authorities said, was so enamoured of his work he kept some of the severed glandular items in formaldehyde-filled Ball jars on his window sill. I don't know if Rep. Worden and Mr. Bodkin knew each other, but if they ever met, they certainly would have had plenty to talk about.

[J.Rabbit]

Perhaps with God's Grace a person can change. However, the mind of a child molester is not a mind I wish to test any of these theories on, not on the precious innocents. I choose instead to do all that I can to help protect the innocent children, and if it is being aware of my surroundings and my neighbors...then so be it; and if there are laws in place that will help protect these children, then let us all live by the law of the land and leave the final judgement to a higher being.

As AWB stated, the registered sex offenders have been tried and convicted in a court of law and such punishment is handed down according to the "law of the land." I too, am thankful to be living in Indiana.

[Scott Greider]

@Mike Dooley: Thanks for the clarification. And my apologies to Mr. Harper for not knowing his past connections.

[stealth]

I think we should carry this "protect the child'ern" even further, (I mean why should I watch over my own kids)

Traffic accidents cause children to be killed. And usually speed is a factor in most traffic accidents. So, I propose (for the sake of the child'ern, that we institute a database of all speeder, so that I can track were they live. And forebid them from every using public or publicly-leased roads again.

I mean they broke the law, endangered the lives of "child'ern", and have you ever seen someone who got cought speed every be reformed.

Lets ban every speeder no matter if its only 2 miles over...they are dangerous...

[J.Rabbit]

Stealth -

Naw, nevermind. Not even worth the effort.

[AWB]

Craig, (Stealth)

You really need a spell/grammar checker. Try F7.

As for your post, I think you're getting too many endorphins from all the running.
:)

AWB