British Expatriate Network

ACLU sues over sex-offender ban

Wed May 31, 335 PM ET

INDIANAPOLIS - Six sex offenders sued the city Wednesday to block a new ordinance that bars them from venturing within 1,000 feet of parks, pools and playgrounds when children are presen

The plaintiffs went to federal court to argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates their rights to vote and attend church, and prevents them from freely traveling on roads that may pass within 1,000 feet of the affected sites.

The ordinance was approved May 15 and took effect immediately. It carries fines of up to $2,500.

The law includes an exception that permits sex offenders to visit those sites as long as they are with another adult who is not a convicted sexual offender.

The six, who include convicted child molesters and rapists, are represented by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



thses guys are unbelievable . wanting child sex offenders loose .
on the public .


as far as civll liberties go you loss some of them when you commit a sex offence
CLICK HERE ...














http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_us/molester_ban

I saw an article the other day saying that its nigh on impossible to do anything without venturing 'within 1,000 feet of parks, pools and playgrounds'. They mapped out Columbus and the areas 'within 1,000 ft' of the structures and there was virtually nowhere that wasn't inside the area.

I'm in no way supporting the sex offenders, but I can see the problem here.

As most polling stations are schools and most churches have playgrounds I can see their point. However, I see that they are allowed to go to these places if accompanied by a non-sex-offender adult, and I think that really should be sufficient.

I feel they should be able to vote and worship at the church of their choosing, but I'm not entirely sure any human rights are being violated by the law ensisting that they are accompanied. That's the luxury they gave up when they decided to break the law in the way they did. They could always hire a companion who stays within visual contact but affords them a little privacy, if they have no friends or relatives willing to accompany them. Perhaps their churches would be willing to sponsor this service if they can't afford it.

A friendly priest, perhaps :twisted:

then they can *share stories * of there exploits :twisted:

I thought you weren't fond of stereotyping? ;)

Is that typing with both hands at once? :wink:

two hands ? ive just learnt how to use more than 2 fingers :roll:

So wheres the other hand when you're surfin' then? :twisted:

I used to use two fingers, but in America I find one sufficient.......

Americans are strange they " salute " you with one finger and eat "finger food " with two :roll:

Really?
As unlikely as it may sound, some sex offenders have a little problem maintaining such friendships after conviction.

I think the ACLU might point out, as Adshell did, that the law is unworkable. It is also unconstitutionally vague.