North Carolina is a proud member of the so-called Bible Belt of states that take their religion seriously. So some eyebrows were raised when James Nichols was arrested for attending church.
His offense? Nichols, a convicted sex offender, had chosen to worship at a church that has a nursery where kids play while their parents pray. Now Nichols, 31, who only recently got out of prison, is fighting back, challenging the legality of a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from coming within 300 ft. — nearly a football field's length — of any facility devoted to the use, care or supervision of minors.
More detail can be read by clicking HERE.
Apparently courts have already been involved with this issue. They have ruled in favor of the offenders, allowing them to volunteer in a church kitchen, attend Sunday School, and sing in the church choir. But should convicted sex offenders be allowed to do this? Would you mind if a convicted rapist was sitting in the pew next to you as long as he was praying?
*teri* ~Casual Chat Forum~Blues what blues..hey i forgot 'emThe sun and the sand and a drink in my hand with no bottom ~Kenny Chesney~
Dot
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain.
--Anonymous
>> Would you mind if a convicted rapist was sitting in the pew next to you as long as he was praying?<<
Not at all, though the chances of finding me in a church for anything other than hatches, matches and dispatches are pretty slim.
I would object to them having anything to do with the children though. However, never mind people on the sex offender's list, churches are some of the places where predators gravitate towards as generally people are trusting and it's easier to get access to their prey.
Casual Chat Forum
<<<His offense? Nichols, a convicted sex offender, had chosen to worship at a church that has a nursery where kids play while their parents pray. Now Nichols, 31, who only recently got out of prison, is fighting back, challenging the legality of a new law that took effect in December prohibiting registered sex offenders from coming within 300 ft. — nearly a football field's length — of any facility devoted to the use, care or supervision of minors. >>
hey Teri!
Odd choice he made, wasn't it...to choose a church with a nursery where kids play WHILE THEIR PARENTS PRAY?...blehhhhhh..IMO, if these scumbags are L-bent on going to church let them start their own and sleep in their own beds they made...I'll agree with others who have said, "Once a pedophile, always a pedophile!.
When Mark Lunsford and Mark Klass speak out favoring the appeal of this law, L just might freeze over, but in the meantime, I'm on their side!!!
Mr. Nichols can go pound salt !
<<<Don't almost all churches have a nursery to care for children while the adults are in church?>.
Not sure, Dot but I'm sure those pedos. could build one.
it would be my religious duty to allow and encourage convicted felons, including rapists, to embrace that religion and participate to the fullest.>>
But I wonder, just how many could really do that? I don't care how religious I was, I don't think I would feel very comfortable with a child molester next to me. What about a rapist who committed terrible acts of violence upon his victims?
churches are some of the places where predators gravitate towards as generally people are trusting and it's easier to get access to their prey.>>
True, and many a con artist has fleeced a flock <s> I could not sit next to someone who had harmed women and/or children. Too many of them are repeat offenders.
I'll agree with others who have said, "Once a pedophile, always a pedophile!.>>
I agree with that too, and I couldn't sit next to a child molester no matter where it was. And if it was some creep that had been convicted of raping women, I would want to spit in his face. And I can't believe that there are that many 'religious' people who would be comfortable with a sex offender attending their services week after week.
In the last week, there has been a huge rumpus in the UK about childcare. Two policewomen, good personal friends, were taking it in turns to look after the kiddies while the other was on shift. In the UK you are required to be registered as a 'childminder' if you are a 'childminder' (I imagine you have similar rules?) >>
Similar, but if you're watching kids from one family, it's not an issue. Add more families, and you have to be licensed. Which means your house has to pass an inspection, and be totally kid friendly and safe. No swimming pools (unless fenced in), no dogs, and lots of other 'stuff'.
Nobody should be released from prison if they are considered a threat to the public so by definition society no longer considers them a risk.>>
In a perfect world maybe, but ask anyone in law enforcement, they can pretty much predict who is going to offend again, and who might not. I don't know about anywhere else, but here, prisons are not about any type of rehab, they are for punishment. And until we wise up and do at least some basic types of rehab, we will keep recycling the prison population.
>> Anyway, policewoman A was told that she could no longer look after policewoman B's children, and vice versa! Seems utterly mad but there you go. That's good government for you :(<<
I agree with you LD, it's absolute madness. Their reason was that each mother cared for the other child for gain even though no money was involved.
but do you really think anyone is going to try to rape you, or even to feel you up, during a church service? >>
No, not during a church service in front of everyone. But being involved with a church often allows others access to personal info about you. Where you live, where you work, what time of day you might be found alone in the house, etc. A rapist could be doing just fine, enjoying his time in church, when a young woman (or child) catches his eye and stirs up all those weird feelings those people get.
If you were religious (and truly believed in the religion you identified yourself with), do you think it is impossible that a truly terrible rapist could repent?>>
I'm not truly religious so that's a hard question to answer. If I was, I think I would have to say yes. But how many chances are you supposed to give a person? How many does god give them? They raped once, came to church, repented, and then they raped again. Do you forgive and assume (or believe) all is well, or do you look upon that person with suspicion? I sure as hell would not be willing to give a convicted rapist a second chance and take a risk with my safety or my life (or that of any children).
but if they were truly religious, I'd expect to see a different attitude.>>
And I would call those people naive. How could any woman not only sit next to a rapist, but allow him access to the personal details of her life, and not worry?
But there are alternatives - some drugs can reduce sexual urges to a minimum>>
Last time I read anything about this, they had been used with very limited success. If they worked well, we would be using them more I'm sure. Even castration (and we have some sexual predators here that have volunteered for that procedure) has not helped. It's hard wired in their brain, not their 'other parts'.
and electronic tags can help to track people>>
And we use that method here alot too. Not just for sexual offenders, but many minor crimes instead of locking people up. It's cheaper, and the offender is supposed to pay for all associated costs. But that doesn't always work well either. There isn't someone watching what the person does at all times (that would raise the cost and require more manpower) and the data is downloaded usually once a week (sometimes less often). So that will tell authorities where someone has been at a given time, but not necessarily prove they committed a crime, or prevent one.
so what's the problem other than a feeling of distaste at sitting next to such a person?>>
Personally, I consider that a big problem. It's stronger than a feeling of distaste sitting next to someone who has been convicted of a violent crime against women (or children). And statistically, the odds are that they are going to repeat their crime. I sure as hell don't want it to be with me.
You could ban them from busses and cinemas, too, on the same basis.>>
And if I were queen of the world, I would. I would ban them all to their own island, surrounded by man eating sharks and devoid of women or children. Let them rape one another.
there is a big difference between someone who simply has thoughts and emotions, and someone who acts on them.>>
Well, if someone had only had thoughts, and never acted on them, then they haven't been convicted of them. In a perfect world, they would have the good sense to seek some sort of help so that they never did act upon those sick thoughts.
Maybe not a lot but I am always very careful not to let myself be alone with Annabels, and that's how I avoid inappropriate behaviour. I guess that's what most of us do? >>
Yes, that's exactly what should be happening. You value your wife, your marriage, and your not willing to risk losing those. So why can't a rapist or child molester do that? Because it's hard wired in their brains, and that's not an easy thing to overcome, if it can be done at all.
Suppose that we start to have seriously inappropriate thoughts? Desires for young children, desire for violence, and so on? What should we do? What would we actually do? I think that most of us would try to repress those inappropriate thoughts. We would tell ourselves that this is unacceptable and give ourselves a mental beating. Others don't have the presence of mind to do that and they act on those feelings. If you can get that across to paedos - and I assume they try to - then the paedo could live safely in society, with only him and his God knowing what he is thinking.>>
I think there are plenty who are trying to figure out a way to "change" sexual predators. But it's not easy, and obviously they are not having much success.
The 'once a paedo always a paedo' attitude, while very understandable, isn't going to work and becomes increasingly dangerous as we head towards the ability to 'read'** peoples' thoughts.>>
I think it's dangerous NOT to think that way. I don't think 'once a thief, always a thief, or, 'once a drug addict, always a drug addict', or even 'once a murderer, always a murderer'. But when it comes to sexual predators, I sure do.
