This is a tough question, at least to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NCSue

Guest
I read a news story about a man in North Carolina who had served time for sex offenses. He says he found God in prison and that God gave him a second chance and is helping him to become a better person. (Read more details at acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2009/10/sex-offender-arrested-for-going-to.html if you’re interested.) The problem is that there’s a law in North Carolina that forbids convicted sex offenders from being within a certain distance of places where children gather. He found a church that was welcoming to him, but there’s a nursery and some other activities for minors at that church. So the police arrested him for attending services at that particular church, and he spent another 6 weeks in prison as a result.

What do you think about this? I’m very conflicted about the whole thing.
 
I read a news story about a man in North Carolina who had served time for sex offenses. He says he found God in prison and that God gave him a second chance and is helping him to become a better person. (Read more details at acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2009/10/sex-offender-arrested-for-going-to.html if you’re interested.) The problem is that there’s a law in North Carolina that forbids convicted sex offenders from being within a certain distance of places where children gather. He found a church that was welcoming to him, but there’s a nursery and some other activities for minors at that church. So the police arrested him for attending services at that particular church, and he spent another 6 weeks in prison as a result.

What do you think about this? I’m very conflicted about the whole thing.:confused:
 
It seems to me that such a law is unconstitutional. The man cannot be denied his freedom of religion. That said, he should avoid the nursery and other places that concentrate on youth. Perhaps a good solution would be to have a responsible adult stay with him at all times during the service, that is, monitor him from the moment he arrives to the moment he leaves.

Can you imagine the law denying you access to Mass? Or the confessional?
 
Kay_Cee said:
It seems to me that such a law is unconstitutional. The man cannot be denied his freedom of religion. That said, he should avoid the nursery and other places that concentrate on youth. Perhaps a good solution would be to have a responsible adult stay with him at all times during the service, that is, monitor him from the moment he arrives to the moment he leaves.

Can you imagine the law denying you access to Mass? Or the confessional?
Click to expand...
One’s constitutional rights are limited having committed a crime. One, theoretically, has a constitutional right to bear arms, yet felons are not allowed to do so. On the other hand, even prisoners have a certain right to worship, and have successfully sued over the deprivation of those rights (such as not being able to have a Bible).

I think the state would win this argument. The recidivism rate among sexual predators is notoriously high. I’m pretty pro-reform and pro-rehabilitation, but I do not trust a sex offender who says he has “found God” in the same way as I trust a car thief who says the same; sex offenders are afflicted with a sickness, not a moral weakness, and I think they have far less ability to control themselves. When it comes to protecting children from sexual assault or allowing this guy’s freedom of religion, the kids’ interests will win, assuming the state has good evidence that sex offenders in general are at all likely to commit their crimes again (and the evidence in this area is very strong).

Its very unfortunate, but I think it is unavoidable.
 
I think any kind of “branding for life,” as is currently done with sex offenders in the US, is incompatible with Christian values.
 
I do see your point, and am also aware of - and concerned about - the recidivism rate among sexual predators. On the other hand, I liked the other person’s idea of ensuring that the offender is supervised at all times while in locations where children gather. I guess the “sticky parts” of that are (1) who supervises, and how do we ensure that they’re responsible enough to be entrusted with this; (2) what about the other countless times that children may be near the offender without a consciousness of the potential danger and without responsible supervision? Short of continually keeping them under guard, how can we ensure that they’re never within sight of an unsupervised and unprotected child?

This is a question that is extremely difficult question that warrants prayerful consideration. I don’t pretend to have the answer.
 
I see your point, but on the other hand, there is strong evidence that the recidivism rate for sexual predators is extremely high. It would be naive to ignore that fact… and cruel and unchristian to condemn the person to a life of unforgiveness and a future deprived of the solace and guidance we can receive from regular contact with people of faith.

A very difficult question.
 
I also think it’s unconstitutional and could be viewed as unusual punishment. They don’t restrict convicted bank robbers from living near banks, or drunk drivers from living near bars/taverns. If you are going to punish a person for the rest of their lives, then you just keep them in jail.
 
Binary said:
I think any kind of “branding for life,” as is currently done with sex offenders in the US, is incompatible with Christian values.
Click to expand...
Yes, this… It voilates not just Christianity but also the very foundation of the US legal system (which oddly enough is based in Christianity). Unfortunetly you’ll have one heck of a time convincing anyone of this.
 
camerong said:
One’s constitutional rights are limited having committed a crime. One, theoretically, has a constitutional right to bear arms, yet felons are not allowed to do so. On the other hand, even prisoners have a certain right to worship, and have successfully sued over the deprivation of those rights (such as not being able to have a Bible).

I think the state would win this argument. The recidivism rate among sexual predators is notoriously high. I’m pretty pro-reform and pro-rehabilitation, but I do not trust a sex offender who says he has “found God” in the same way as I trust a car thief who says the same; sex offenders are afflicted with a sickness, not a moral weakness, and I think they have far less ability to control themselves. When it comes to protecting children from sexual assault or allowing this guy’s freedom of religion, the kids’ interests will win, assuming the state has good evidence that sex offenders in general are at all likely to commit their crimes again (and the evidence in this area is very strong).

Its very unfortunate, but I think it is unavoidable.
Click to expand...
It would seem to me that the legal question would be would this man be likely to slip up again.

In a practical sense, I’m sure something could be worked out where he would go to services where there are mostly or all adults present, and would not attend any social functions without an usher/chaparone or that sort of thing.

Or perhaps he could have the local parson visit hime at home, until such time that he has “proven” himself trustworthy.
 
The other side of the coin is that if he truly has “found God”, then he should be willing to follow the legal ramifications that resulted from his previous crimes. Forgive him? Yes. Forget what he did? No. Serious crimes, just like sin, result in some type of temporal punishment which can’t be disregarded even if someone has a change of heart.
 
I guess the problem with “proving oneself trustworthy” is this: Can one prove a negative? Can one somehow prove that “I have not committed an act of sexual deviance” unless someone is physically present and watching 24/7?

Very difficult. I feel great compassion for people who have made grave mistakes and served their time. I also feel great concern for innocent children.

I think the chaperone idea is a workable one.
 
He served six years (refer to original post for a link), so he has paid the legal consequences… other than being banned from church.

As I think about it, I imagine it would be well nigh impossible to find a church that doesn’t have children in it.
 
NCSue said:
I guess the problem with “proving oneself trustworthy” is this: Can one prove a negative? Can one somehow prove that “I have not committed an act of sexual deviance” unless someone is physically present and watching 24/7?

Very difficult. I feel great compassion for people who have made grave mistakes and served their time. I also feel great concern for innocent children.

I think the chaperone idea is a workable one.
Click to expand...
I agree, very difficult. Good thread.
 
well i think the law is badly phrased.

keeping a convicted child molester from being, say, the sunday school teacher… well thats just SENSIBLE.
keeping him from attending church? not good

i wonder if the news report is giving the full story here? it certainly seems very odd, i dont know any church that doesnt have children’s activities
 
Father_of_9 said:
The other side of the coin is that if he truly has “found God”, then he should be willing to follow the legal ramifications that resulted from his previous crimes. Forgive him? Yes. Forget what he did? No. Serious crimes, just like sin, result in some type of temporal punishment which can’t be disregarded even if someone has a change of heart.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a law can be unjust… One (extreme) example is the Nazi law declaring Jews to be a sub-human race. I submit that any law which brands for life to also be unjust.
 
I live in an area that has a very high percentage of sex offenders. What one evangelical church in my town did was put video cameras throughout the church. Any time they have services or the nurseries are occupied there are always a couple people with the children and at least one person watching the cameras.

We cannot, as Christians, disallow these people from the houses of God. We also cannot allow this to happen again. With the ridiculously high recidivism rate among child molesters, the only recourse is to be extremely vigilant when they are around. My sister still allows our child molester father (apparently I am still angry about that) to see her children, but he is not allowed to be alone with them and she is usually uncomfortable when he is around. But she says that he is trying to live a good christian life, so he (and by extension this segment of people) must be shown a modicum of charity and allowed to make this attempt.

If the attempt proves to be a front for something more sinister, the strong arm of the law should fall on them like a mountain and they should never, ever, be released.

FSC
 
crazzeto said:
Yes, this… It voilates not just Christianity but also the very foundation of the US legal system (which oddly enough is based in Christianity). Unfortunetly you’ll have one heck of a time convincing anyone of this.
Click to expand...
  1. … especially if you have children to be concerned about!
  2. Remember that it is a sin not to avoid the occasion of sin. If he is sinning, there is no fault in denying absolution!
Accroding to New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia):
It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution.
newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Protect our children from the predators!
“So be as cunning as snakes but as innocent as doves” Matthew 10:16
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top