Skip to main content

According to GA Rep Sam Moore (R-Macedonia), sex offenders should be able to go anywhere they want in the state of Georgia.    

He submitted HB1033, which would overturn the crime of loitering and loosen restrictions on convicted sex offenders, enabling them to go anywhere they like, including schools, church youth functions, parks and playgrounds.

The bill prohibits law enforcement officers from forcing residents to identify themselves under any circumstances.  Needless to say, Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison is against it, saying the bill is "simply insane".  

Cherokee Superintendent of Schools Dr. Frank Petruzielo is against it, saying via email “The School District is strongly opposed to any legislation that would allow predators the opportunity to endanger our students, which it appears this bill would do".

And he has apparently irked his fellow colleagues.  Rep. John Pezold (R-Fortson) was quoted by the AJC: “I am shocked and appalled anyone would suggest that pedophiles should be allowed to loiter near day care centers, schools — the places where our children learn and play.

“If Mr. Moore’s mission was to come down to the state Capitol and alienate his colleagues by staking out positions that no one in their right mind could agree with, he can now hang a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner behind him because he has done just that”

http://cherokeetribune.com/...

AJC quote: http://www.ajc.com/...

Originally posted to StarbucksGirl51 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 12:40 PM PST.

Also republished by Kos Georgia.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  turn Georgia blue (6+ / 0-)

    Georgia is small and beautiful, and diverse, and should be turned blue.  Perhaps Sam Moore agrees and he's giving us useful information about why Georgia needs to vote them out?

    There are not many Georgians who would vote in favor of child molestation?    

  •  Where in the pluperfect hell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    is "Macedonia, Georgia?"  Sounds like some place in that northwest part of the state where the book and movie "Deliverance" was set, but I bet it's a suburb.  

    At any rate, I'm sure this is horrifying to the real Macedonians, you know, the ones in the "Former Yugoslav Republic of" with their capital at Skopje.  

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Kangaroo on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:03:11 PM PST

  •  I always wondered which legislators (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, schumann, jan4insight

    were in the pockets of NAMBLA.

    I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

    by CFAmick on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:03:37 PM PST

  •  Video !! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    Video !!

    Video !!

    Worth about 500,000 votes in Georgia.

    Easily 250,000 votes, each, in neighboring states.

    "Teachers: the Architects of American Democracy"

    by waterstreet2013 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:10:16 PM PST

  •  Is there a Convicted Sex Offender lobby (8+ / 0-)

    that is bribing this clown to offer up this bill? Otherwise, why would anyone who isn't a convicted sex offender, even a whore republican, submit such a thing?

    Throw away their school lunches? Sure.
    Allow coal companies to pollute their water? Absolutely.

    But submit a bill to restore rights to a sex offender is pure death (however, in Teabaggerstan, your mileage may vary).

    Oh my god, it's full of cheese! - 2001 first draft

    by sizzzzlerz on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:35:15 PM PST

  •  Just to be contrarian... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WorkerInUSA

    Where are the laws prohibiting murders and arsonists from being near these places?  Where are the laws banning DUI convicts from bars, liquor stores, Catholic churches?  Why do those convicted of drug offenses get to be near our children, our parks?  Why do we not have access to the criminal histories of everyone ever convicted of a crime?  Why are they not required to register with police departments and their photos kept on a website for us to check?  Can't we implant tracking chips in all ex-cons...with alarms that blare on our iPhones when they get near?

    All after they've done their time, of course.

    Of course...we just say "think of the children" and that permits anything, no matter how draconian, to seem reasonable.

    Roughly 3-6% of all child sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers.  That leaves the remainder for family, friends, neighbors, teachers, preachers, coaches.

    I say the only way to guarantee children are not sexually assaulted is to remove all of them from their homes and put them in a secure center monitored 24/7 via webcams.  That might sound extreme...

    ...but think of the children!

     

    •  reply (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sajiocity, OldDragon, rduran

      because they make a habit of it

      Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison called the bill “simply insane.”

      “In my 34 years of law enforcement I have never heard of such an insane law having been introduced,” Garrison said Friday. “Sexual predators are one of this country’s most violent (type of) offenders. If there’s any equal it would be an out-and-out serial killer.”

      Read more: Cherokee Tribune - Bill would allow sex offenders at schools

    •  SoCalSocialist: you're stating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rduran

      something that's obvious -- but indefensible.

      If we're gonna protect kids we damn sure ought to ban murderers and arsonists and dope dealers from functions where kids go.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 01:55:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am not a sex offender (0+ / 0-)

      but the sex offender list is cruel and unusual punishment.

    •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

      Extensive monitoring of at risk members of society is considerably less draconian, and far more effective, than the ritual of outrage and torture porn that currently describes our justice system.

      It amazes me how a small thing like a jury verdict is where we we choose to draw the bright line on human dignity.

  •  stark contrast (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidMS

    To the front page say no to the checkbox[are you a felon checkbox on employment applications] diary a little while back as well as the story of the Austin woman arrested for refusing to give ID to the cops.  I guess you want the sex offenders to never become upstanding members of society?  To be forced to live in tent cities under a bridge because everywhere else is too close to a park/playground/school/church?  If these people are so dangerous why aren't they still in jail?  Life sentences for all; that'll teach them.  That doesn't actually help society in the long run?  Oh well, at least you have a happy feeling thinking about the suffering of others.  And if failing to help them reintegrate into society just causes them to re-offend?  Who cares.

    •  So rather than find some balance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaso, sajiocity, DavidMS

      people like Moore want to simply eliminate all oversight of sex offenders. Or else want to make the laws so punitive that convicted felons have no choice but to become homeless scofflaws, unable even to access their parole officers without violating the terms of their parole.

      The fact is that many sex offenders don't necessarily pose any sort of threat to minors. For example, until recently, in many places gay men who were convicted of public lewdness (having or even just soliciting sex with other adults in public) were declared to be sex offenders and covered by the same restrictions that apply to individuals who molest children.

      The way some laws that restrict the rights of convicted child molesters are written in such a way that they are impossible to comply with. But rather than find some way to both protect children and to help those previously convicted to become reintegrated into society, law makers would rather let them become homeless scofflaws than to observe that, regardless of their crimes, they still are human beings who should be given the chance to show they can clean up their acts and become decent, law-abiding citizens.

      •  And I want to be really clear here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DavidMS

        Nobody can or should condone the sexual abuse of minors or, for that matter, of adults.

        •  Hey why not welcome them into your (0+ / 0-)

          neighborhood?   What could go wrong?

          We are not powerless!! "Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet."– Alice Walker

          by nocynicism on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 04:15:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so to be clear (0+ / 0-)

            You are in favor of the tent city under a bridge option?  Or the let the poor neighborhoods deal with them because they don't deserve what I deserve option?

          •  Well here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

            In most cases, people get convicted of a crime, they serve a sentence in jail, they leave jail, on probation or parole for a period of time and then...well, they rebuild their lives as best they can (or else jump on the recidivism wagon).

            The idea generally is that you serve your sentence and that's that. In some cases though it seems that the sentence is a defacto life sentence, along with the sorts of limitations that don't even apply to convicted murderers. Nobody should suggest that convicted sex offenders be treated better than those who are convicted of other serious felonies but why should they be treated any worse? Put people on parole and then make it impossible for them to see their parole officer because they can't go anywhere near where the parole officer works? Can't live anywhere where they might be able to find a job? Can't go to a store? What's the sense in that?

            •  Well Bob unfortunatly the rate of recidivison (0+ / 0-)

              Is very high for child molesters.

              We are not powerless!! "Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet."– Alice Walker

              by nocynicism on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 07:19:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's undoubtedly and sadly true (0+ / 0-)

                Some pedophiles are remarkably resistant to any sort of therapeutic intervention or even to punishment. However not all of them are, so why should not each individual be dealt with based on their willingness and ability to change, rather than treating every one based on the behavior of the very worst? Meanwhile, regardless how loathsome they may be and how vile their behavior may be they nonetheless human beings and citizens. As human beings some of them are very badly damaged and some are arguably seriously mentally ill. Those most likely to perpetrate abuse are the ones who were themselves abused as children.

                The most disturbing thing about this entire conversation is that it is impossible, seemingly, to point out the fact that pedophiles are also human beings without, it appears, being labeled as some sort of apologist. This has the effect of shutting down any sort of conversation as to how best to treat these individuals unless one takes that the attitude that they all, without exception, should simply be flushed down the the legal toilet.

              •  And if they can't attend an AA meeting because the (0+ / 0-)

                Church basement that the meeting is held in is across the street from a school, do you think that makes recidivism more or less likely?

                Look, no one thinks that people convicted of molesting children should be allowed to work with children, but how does making it illegal for a guy convicted of soliciting a (adult) prostitute to live within 3 blocks of a public park promote public safety?

  •  you conveniently left out the main point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madmojo, DavidMS, rduran

    that state rep. moore very clearly made, in introducing his bill: if these people are so dangerous, that they need their names and pictures posted on a "special", publicly available register, after they've completed their jail sentences, maybe they shouldn't be out of jail at all.

    sex offender registries only just barely withstood judicial scrutiny, under a "public safety" standard, deemed sufficient to override the offender's double-jeopardy rights. this makes sex offenders a "special" class, whose punishment continues, long after they've served their jail sentence. as well, there is no uniform set of offenses, that qualifies one as a "sex offender", it differs from state to state. a sex offender needn't have actually committed an offense that most people would normally think of as being "sexual" in nature. getting caught peeing in a bush, after leaving a party, will get you tagged as a "sex offender" in many states, with a requirement that you register on that state's sex offender registry, for the rest of your life, even though your actual offense had nothing whatever to do with sex.

    obviously, we don't want sexual predators running loose, but there's little objective, quantifiable evidence that sex offender registries, and legal restrictions on where they can be, has any measurable affect on recidivism, which I think is the point that rep. moore was trying to make.

  •  It's hard to know whether this is good or bad. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran

    Restrictions on sex offenders that sweep so far as to prevent offenders of participation in society (thereby excluding them from the institutions and societal support that helps criminals avoid recidivism) can be counterproductive.  And loitering laws are often unconstitutional.

    Whether this guy should be criticized or praised depends on the specifics of the laws he's suggesting should be repealed.    

  •  Just to add a tiny bit of food for thought, does (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran

    anybody know what % of so called sex offenders, especially in the south, are child molesters and rapists, and wht percentage are gays and others caught violating innumerable blue laws? I have no clue, but I'd guess that the vast majority are so called "perverts" and not child molesters and rapists.

    Think aboout it.  Also, anybody busted for peeing up against a wall (indecent exposure).

    This is a bad law, but the sex offender rolls need to be purged, big time. Maybe, just maybe, that could be the point?

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Feb 21, 2014 at 04:58:39 PM PST

  •  Two questions: (0+ / 0-)

    One, which of Moore's donors is a sex offender, and two, seriously which of Moore's pals is a sex offender.  I mean come on this "bill" is tailored for someone and it's not America's kids.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site