Let’s say a guy was a convicted sex offender for crimes against children and later he meets a girl and has children of his own.
Is he allowed to keep them?
If so, then would he then be allowed to take them to and from school?
If not would he be able to visit them?
Then also if he keeps them would a social worker have to be involved or would they ge on their own?
Eeeh…
this may be an outdated concept, but in most countries, the amount of offenses that carry a life sentence is very limited. So is the amount of offenses that carry castration as the penalty.
I realize that there is many people who insist in carrying on with sentences that are already over. But once it’s over, it. Is. Over.
Should penalties be reviewed? Yes, for many kinds of crimes, for many reasons. I don’t think it’s right for a murderer to leave jail after 18 years on 20 different non-consecutive sentences for murder, 25 years each. I also do not think it is right for someone to be caught with drugs, go to trial 3 years later (at which point he’s been out of rehab and had a job for two years) and get condemned to a month, which he has to do in full because the judge hates drugs. Yes, both cases are real. But that is a different question. For the law, once the sentence is over it is over.
The answer to your question is: nothing.
Unless he is suspected, investigated, tried and found guilty of molesting his own children, then his is a father with every parental right and responsibility that entails.
In reality, he’s likely to remain higher up on the radar of both DCFS and anyone in the family and/or neighborhood that knows about his past, but legally he’s just another dad.
Most schools, however, will not hire him as a teacher or staff member, but they can’t stop him from picking up his kids, volunteering to help with the school play or running the bake sale.
Yes, that is the law… and it’s supposed to be the American way, once you serve your sentence (fair or not, in the eyes of the victims and/or society) then you are supposed to be a free person again.
However, that is no longer the case in this country or even most industrial countries. Felons in general are not reaccepted into society. Try finding a good job w/ a felony record. You can’t own guns. And in some states you’re not even allowed to vote!
Sex Offenders are the new Witchhunted of the new century. It is common practice to place S.O.'s at the absolute bottom of society, regardless of the actual crime or victim. And now, with every repeat offender, the war drums sound, to forever lock away ALL convicted persons… or at least forever label them. The federally mandated SOR’s are a slap in the face of our constitution… but as slavery was once, it is socially and politically encouraged to not only continue, but expand on the current laws.
As to the actual Question:
Once a sentence is completed… there are NO LAWS prohibiting having childeren… however, some states DO have laws preventing S.O.'s from being near schools and such, if they are still on thier SOR. Some have specific conditions as to if the person in question is labled “predatory”, but there is a wide varience from state to state.
However, state FIA offices (child protective services) are free to act however they choose, and should they learn of a S.O. having a child, they would merrily attempt to pull the child away and put promptly up for adoption. Especially if the S.O. in question has previously had a child taken away.
I do not know if ALL state FIA offices act in such draconian style… but i have read of many cases to that effect, esp. in Michigan.
one recent case in MI, FIA was attempting to take a child away from a man who was suspected of murdering his wife (horrible if ture, yes)… but the man had not been charged or even arrested for any such crime, but still they were attempting to take his child. If that isn’t draconian… i don’t know what is.
Oh, I think they would be well within their rights, if not in fact have a duty, to keep a convicted sex offender from being in situations where he might have access to children, especially on school grounds. They probably can’t stop him from picking up his own children, but they would be very easily able to bar him from school grounds for all other purposes and since the parent of any child molested by him on school property would sue the school into oblivion the school would be foolish not to.
Here in NC school volunteers do go through a background check. Presumably a sex offense is the kind of thing they are looking for. With a job, when something criminal is found on a background check it should be looked at with respect to the specific role the applicant is seeking. So volunteering to be, say, treasurer for a bake sale, the school is not on very strong grounds to bar the potential volunteer with a sex offense record. But for coaching the swim team, probably. (ironically, if the offense was embezzlement, it occurs to me that the decisions might be reversed…)
Ah. Here the volunteers for PTA events, bake sales, plays, field trips, etc. simply have to have a pulse. The schools are desperate for any help they can get. I’m not sure about volunteer coaching. Anything that gets you a paycheck requires a background check.
No one can stop a convicted child molester from marrying a woman who has children, or marrying a woman and having their own children. If he wants to molest them in his own house and it never gets out, the child can be subjected to years of torture.
The lead story in my newspaper was about 36 in New Jersey charged over video of rape. To quote: State police have charge 36 people…with dowloading and in most cases distributing through file-sharing networks the digital clips of a Georgia man raping a 5-year-old gilr. They include Andrew Friedman, an assitant hockey coach at Kinnelon high School; Jeffrey Patti, a Sparta attorney; and Ross Finesmith, a Morristown pediatric neurosurgeon.
The man in the short clip, James Bidwell, was sentence to 45 years in prison in 2002 for rape and aggravated child molestation in the assault on his 5-year-old daughter, according to court records.
how does that at all relate to the OP?
of course. anyone convicted of a sex offense is SURE to re-offend. So anyone convicted of ANY sex offence should automaticly face life in prison.
since nearly all sex offenses are committed by men, all men should be assumed to be sex offenders and therefore all men should be put in prison for life.
You are EXACTLY the type of person i was talking about.
Nobody but you is talkikng about sex offenders, you flaming #$#&%^. Everyone, including the OP, is talking about CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTERS. And yes, they are damn likely to reoffend – a lesson taught by long and bitter experience.
They can’t stop him from volunteering, but they certainly can decline to accept him as a volunteer.
How would you feel if your child’s coach or doctor was suspected of downing child porn?
And where did I say that all men should be in jail as sex offenders. CONVICTED sex offenders should be in jail. I do not think nor would I ever say that most men are sex offenders.
Recently in these parts, we’re realizing how hard it is to KILL a CONVICTED serial rapist/murderer. He gets the justice denied to his victims.
Maybe if you laid out the difference it could defuse this little tiff?
Actually, there was a somewhat relevant article in the NYT magazine just last week, which talked about some of the post-sentence difficulties.
jester, I think Annie’s point was that there are no legal barriers to a convicted child molester marrying someone with children (and yes, not all child molesters are male), the prospective spouse would have to know the high rate of recidivism and might make that event rather unlikely.
On the other hand, Annie, did you mean that you think there should be a legal barrier?
But even if they are convicted child molesters, once they have served their sentence, shouldn’t they be a free person again? Should a convicted child molester after serving his sentence not be allowed to marry and have children?
According to the law and our constitution, Yes and Yes. Which was what i was saying in my original post.
But as I alluded to in my original post, and pointed out in subsequent posts… many do not believe in either of those.
I hesitate to comment further or directly to any other posts, lest this become an out and out Pit and incur Moderator Intervention. But, i think the OP has been answered (unless someone has a disenting factual rebutal), it IS legal for a convicted child molester to get married and have children, at least provided his (or her) sentence has been fully completed.
Actually, sex offenders in general are the least-likely class of criminal to re-offend, going by recidivism rates.
That one bit of common knowledge is very false…
I’m glad someone else brought that up (I would have, but i probably would’ve gotten flamed for it). Of the actual research done (sorry, no cites. (the other reason i didn’t bring it up))… the numbers actually show a much lower rate of recidivism than most other crimes.
The media and police whould have you think that it’s near 100%.
Oops–I should have added that child molesters are even less likely then sex offenders in general to re-offend. So they’re the least-likely to get re-convicted in a class that’s already at the bottom of the recidivism list.
Huh, that’s interesting. I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true. Could you please point me towards some statistics/research in this?
Also, perhaps some critical research in regards to claims that I’ve seen splattered all over media like Westword that the average child molestor has something like 150 victims. Whenever I hear that I give a big :dubious: but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rational, objective research in this field.