Iowa town bans sex offenders from local library

The Reader’s Shop writes “WCFCourier.com
reports that the City Council members of Oelwein, Iowa have voted to bar registered
sex offenders with a history of attacking children from entering within 250
feet of kid friendly public places. The list of kid friendly places includes
libraries, schools, parks, child care facilities, bike trails and recreation
centers. Sex offenders can be fined $750 if they are found to be in a safe zone.
Offenders with a “reason” to be in a safe zone are exempt.

Related Stories:
whotv.com, oelweingov.com.”

April 26, 2006 by Blake Uncategorized 7

shoe says:

April 26, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Can you say “Can of Worms” boys and girls?

What a can of worms they’ve opened. My feeling is the ones that are out have done their time by the letter of the law, and telling them where they can go after they’ve been incarcerated and released is impinging on rights. Not near a school zone… okay, that I can see. But the bike trails, other recreational areas, and libraries? Not so much.

What constitutes a “reason” to go to the library? Research? Okay. Will recreational reading cut it for these people? Using the computers? Who gets to monitor that they’re actually doing what they said they were going to at the library? If they came in to use the computers to get a goverment document, do you have to report them if they try to check out a book? Where do they draw the line?

I have seen the studies that say people who sexually assault children have a higher chance of being repeat offenders. And it’s not enough to say to parents, “Keep an eye on your kid in the library.” But to make these people jump through hoops and red tape to use a facility that’s designed to help get them back on their feet is a really cruddy move.

Reply
Brian G. says:

April 26, 2006 at 5:30 pm

Sounds like Court Battles Will be Coming
While I understand the problem and concern for child safety, it seems likes these new laws that keep surfacing are just too far reaching.

Are we now telling “past” criminals they can no longer improve and live a normal life? We will throw you in jail (like any criminal deserves), but when you get out we are going to keep taking things away until you are forced to live on an island with other sexual predators. Oh and this will occur even if you do not commit any more crimes. To make matters worse, some communities have the “sexual predator” status so broadly defined that many people get tossed into it. For example, there have been reports were a person got drunk and relieved themselves in what was considered a public environment, and are now considered sexual predators.

What ever happened to parental responsbility?

I just wonder of these laws a recreating a very dangerous slipper slope.

Reply
GregS* says:

April 26, 2006 at 6:09 pm

Re:Can you say “Can of Worms” boys and girls?
Yeah I actually agree. Prison is supposed to serve a purpose and once you’re out you’re out. This is getting absurd.

But just for the record, repeat child molestors should get the chair.

Reply
Fang-Face says:

April 26, 2006 at 9:42 pm

Re:Can you say “Can of Worms” boys and girls?
The thing is, in my not so humble opinion, is that pedophilia could be like unto an addiction (I consider it to be a fetish, myself). If it is, then you can seek treatment for it and go into recovery, but you can never be cured. Under this premise, a preferential child molester will always remain a threat with a heightened likelyhood to re-offend. If pedophilia is a fetish, as I surmise, then psychological counseling can break the conditioning that causes it, but, as with substance abusers, the victim has got to want to change. If this is the case, and a convicted sex offender does get such counselling and breaks the conditioning, they should not then still be considered a pedophile. Reversing their sex offender status, however, will prove difficult, if not impossible, in the face of all the screaming by the hysterics who are more interested in control than they are in justice.

Reply
tomeboy says:

April 27, 2006 at 7:24 am

I beg to differ Dr. Fang…
but that little thingy called the DSM contradicts your opinion. Fetishes involve inanimate objects to achieve sexual arousal; shoes, hair, …. Not children. Hence your attempt to mitigate criminal behavior is junk science.

This hysteric suggests you stick with your alternet education and leave the medicine for those qualified to practice.

Reply
leeb says:

April 27, 2006 at 8:26 am

Put them away for good!
I fully agree with the library banning these people or any other public place. They cannot be trusted around anyone, let alone children. Why worry about whether they will offend again by releasing them when you just put them away for good which effectively guarantees that they will never offend again?

Reply
Fang-Face says:

April 27, 2006 at 3:16 pm

Re:I beg to differ Dr. Fang…
The DSM is not founded on the laws of physics, it is founded on psychiatry’s best understanding of mental illnesses, and it has been subject to updating and occasional correction.

I can understand why hysterics wouldn’t like to consider that, however, as it degrades their ability to blindly persecute certain types of people under the assumtion that they are guilty by association.

The DSM definition of fetishes not withstanding, I see pedophilia as being caused by the same process that fetishes are. But, then, I take the time to consider matters on their own merits, and not on how they pander to my prejudices.

Oh, and by the way, processes are not subject to the definitions that are meant to categorize them.

Reply