Posted on 05/15/2008 10:50:44 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
From the Associated Press' Sex Offender Banned from Son's Graduation (5/10/08):
"School and law enforcement officials have told a St. Joseph man that he can't attend his son's eighth-grade graduation because he is a convicted sex offender and isn't allowed on school property.
"James Jones, 36, said he may go anyway although the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department has told him he would be arrested and face up to four years in prison.
"'I've already been punished for this. This isn't about me anymore. Now they're punishing my kids, and that's taking it a little too far,' said Jones, who served five years in prison after being convicted in 1990 of forcible rape of a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.
"'I'm always preaching education to my children. How does that make me look if I'm not there at graduation?'..
"Sheriff's investigator Shawn Collie said although Jones has argued against the school property restriction more than any other offender, he has signed an agreement acknowledging he knows about the restriction. That means he can't claim ignorance if found on school grounds, such as for the May 22 graduation.
"'We'll be there. And we'll arrest him if he's there,' Collie said."
A few thoughts:
1) Regarding the rape, he was convicted, so let's assume he's guilty. "Forcible rape" is pretty bad stuff, and it's real hard to feel sorry for a rapist. Yes, Jones was only 17, and that's young, but it's old enough to know it's wrong to cause other people pain. And I'm sure that two decades later the young woman he assaulted still suffers because of it.
2) Prison is supposed to be about punishment and rehabilitation. Rape is a terrible crime, but Jones paid for it with five long years in prison--upon his release, he's paid his debt to society and should not be subjected to further punishment.
3) The best thing for society is if criminals are able to be rehabilitated, and from what we see in the article, it sounds as if Jones is an excellent and admirable example of this rehabilitation. For this, Jones deserves credit, not exile.
4) It probably will mean a lot to his son for him to be at his graduation, and will be hurtful if he can't attend.
All in all, I side with Jones.
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
The post I responded to said he should be in jail. He already went to jail and served his time.
And, since you raised the issue, not every law is just.
Well, since he was released from prison, someone in the system deemed him no longer a threat. He was sentenced. He served his time. Lots of ifs without reason to suggest otherwise.
“If he isn’t safe around schools he isn’t safe anywhere public” why let him out then? I suppose we should just lock these people up forever.
What other crimes should people be in jail forever for?
Non sequitur.
He was released because his sentence had reached its statutory limit.
Just because someone is released from jail it does not mean that the prison administration believes that he is now "safe" and will not reoffend.
If someone does their sixth stretch for burglary and gets out, do you honestly think that is supposed to mean they will never commit another burglary?
What other crimes should people be in jail forever for?
People should do life for first degree murder, forcible rape and treason.
He did go to prison and since he did his time he is free to walk around but he should never be allowed anywhere near an underage minor period. He gave up that right when he attacked that poor girl years ago.
“He was released because his sentence had reached its statutory limit.” Which means someone in the system, the legislature, determined that was the sufficient amount of time necessary to shield the public from this person and the person to pay for his sins.
“Just because someone is released from jail it does not mean that the prison administration believes that he is now ‘safe’ and will not reoffend.” Of course not, it’s not their decision to make. They’re not elected officials. It’s the legislature’s. Hence, in your words, “statutorily limit.”
“If someone does their sixth stretch for burglary and gets out, do you honestly think that is supposed to mean they will never commit another burglary?” Me personally, no, but I’m not passing laws that express the policy reflecting that belief. Policy makers made a decision that this man served a sufficient amount of time. For the third time (not to you personally), I responded to someone’s post who said he should be in jail. He was in jail. He served his time. If people think he should remain in jail, they should pressure their elected officials to make the crime punishable by life in jail and assure such sentences are enforced.
“People should do life for first degree murder, forcible rape and treason.” Fine. Change the law then. That wasn’t the case when this guy was put in prison. Too late.
“People should do life for first degree murder, forcible rape and treason.” BTW, I do not beleive in bright line rules, so I disagree with this. Guidelines, fine, mandatory life for any crime, dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.