A few points, the state registry exists for people to use IF THEY CHOSE TO, and that includes EMPLOYERS. When the media starts going around and playing Media Community Notifier that is stalking and violates the registry; media vigilantism. It is clear from the other story (see link) that nothing occurred at the place of employment nor was it used to make contact with the new victim. The world doe snot need to be force fed by the media when the tools are available for personal use!3-30-2011 Texas:
A few witnesses testifying in favor of Lon Burnam's bill to make sex offenders' employers private are saying that the media are the only ones who benefit from that info being public.
They say it's a reliable source of stories "on a slow news week" and that it was "sad" that one media outlet once did a check of all 93 sex offenders in their viewing area to see if they were working anywhere close to children - no doubt as a way to check up on how well the system works.
They're also saying that the sex offenders are already being held accountable for their crimes and their whereabouts because the DPS still knows where they're working - and is making sure they're working in the appropriate places.
This local story shows that may or may not be true.
In a case last year, an Austin neighborhood discovered that a sex offender was working at an Amy's Ice Cream shop when he was arrested on charges of molesting a third victim - he had already been convicted twice as a juvenile.
For molesting a 6-year-old and a 9-year-old.
A couple local TV stations got a tip and learned that he'd been working there - a place frequented by children. The owner of the Amy's Ice Cream was flabbergasted; she had no idea. The community was outraged that a sex offender had been allowed to work there. The sex offender registry hadn't been checked on that hire - thought that probably won't be omitted again.
Had that information not been made public, Amy's might never have known. The community - including nannies who were bringing their kids to get ice cream from a convicted child molester - would almost certainly have never known.
The DPS and the man's probation officer, clearly, didn't see any issue with him working at a place that sells ice cream to kids. The parents begged to differ.
Who's being held accountable in that situation? Who's checking up on the system? And who benefitted when the info became public?
In at least one instance, shown here, the public benefitted. Just sayin'. Thoughts? ..Source.. by Karen Brooks
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks