Talk of banning persons forced to register as sex offenders from bars
Every day we scan news headlines, appellate court decisions and legislative filings to learn about current events impacting people on the registry. During our daily perusal, we came across this article, which questioned whether persons forced to register as sex offenders should be barred from entering places which serve alcohol. The supposition for the story was that Brock Turner (a Stanford student who sexually assaulted an intoxicated fellow student) was seen at a bar recently. Since he was convicted of sexually assaulting a drunk female, should anyone with a sex offense ever be allowed in a bar again?
The title of the opinion piece was “Brock Turner spotted at Dayton bars, should sex offenders be forced to identify themselves?” and my initial thought was, ‘wow, this is a very long stretch’! I mean, so much of the fear mongering has been focused on schools, parks, playgrounds and such, here’s a location that almost by definition is a place where children CAN NOT congregate. When presenting the question of whether people on the registry should be allowed in bars, this writer’s opinion was “the answer to this question is a resounding no. In an ideal world, people like Brock Turner would be prevented from entering alcohol-serving establishments.”
Whoa! Not just a “no” but a “resounding” no. Really? It seems like a very, very broad generalization, especially when I would venture to say that the circumstances of Turner’s case are not common to the overwhelming majority of the people on the registry. However, the danger is so many laws are passed in the wake of rare but highly publicized occurrences that they fail to consider the sanction is completely unrelated to most that it applies to or that such a law would not have prevented the crime for which it is being enacted (Turner and the victim were at a party in a fraternity house and Turner was not on any registry).
This idea naturally begs the question, why don’t they ban anyone with a DUI from ever entering an establishment that serves alcohol? Or for that matter anyone who committed any crime while intoxicated? That would certainly save more lives than banning registrants. It also begs the question, if you ban registrants from establishments that serve alcohol, what restaurants will be left to dine in? Chuck E Cheese?
This really speaks to the heart of the issue with the registry. they want to label everyone on it as the same with a blanket Ban. which in the legal system makes no sense. in a court of Law the determination of punishment, ie. time, restitution, probation or other is decided because of the circumstances of the crime. so it is not a one size fits all system. but here we are, an easy target because we are on the registry they feel like they can control our lives and force us to not be a part of society. This one size fits all banning makes no sense. and correct what about those convicted of a drug or alcohol related crime should they also be banned, of course not because they aren’t on a list that can be viewed by the public and attached a scarlet letter for all to see. The DMV should not be allowed to label your driver license with such a mark. this will only cause more problems and create fear mongering in the public, because they don’t have any idea of the circumstances of your situation, and if you are even a threat. Should an alcoholic have a Mark on his or her license? no, or any other convicted person. NO. this is very scary that people think like this
You beat me to it. I was just going to say that it would make more sense to ban someone convicted of a DUI than someone who has a conviction for a sex crime.
Allowing alcoholics into a bar, but not registered persons is akin to handing a lighter to an arsonist.
That’s how we know how vindictive, stupid, and ineffective registries are. I always thought that the probation requirement of avoiding alcohol as stupid. Are DUI probationers told to stay away from places where children congregate or porn? Hell, bars and similar are the places where kids aren’t suppose to be!
‘Make sex offenders do their drinking at home!”
This measure will definitely prevent Brock Turner from ever committing a crime.
Pass the Stop Brock Turner From Re-Offending Act
I believe there was also a big push for this in possibly Atlanta, Georgia or elsewhere in Florida when a female bartender was murdered by person forced to register. Her boyfriend was pushing for some sort of legislation against PFRs.
At sentencing, the judge ordered me to stay away from places where children frequently congregate. He didn’t mention bars because he wanted to appear tough on sex offenders by keeping me and others away from kids. Well, kids don’t frequently congregate in bars. I go to bars and often sit quietly by myself consuming only non-alcoholic drinks and listen to some live music as a brief escape from reality of the living Hell my life has become. No bars, no problem. I’ll just find another happy place to hang out, like a theme park!
The whole registry was started because the Supreme court said it was not punitive. Then the states started using it to ban us from schools then ban us from working a decent job then from living in a decent area if anywhere at all(see Dade county) and so on and so on. Banning us from bars is todays step back tomorrow it will be grocery stores and so on and so on
I disagree – the FL registry was enacted in 1997, Smith v. Doe wasn’t decided until 2003. The registry had to exist in order for SCOTUS to opine on it, but Smith v. Doe did give states a blank check to modify it however they want.
While we are at banning people who cause harm in an establishment, why don’t we ban grocery store robbers from buying groceries, or bank robbers from have a checking account, or shooters from going into a sporting goods store, or reckless drivers from buying gasoline, etc., With each day the ‘witch hunt’ gets more and more ridiculous. It was easier to get a good education from the Howdy Doodie show than it is from most of today’s politicians and do-gooders.
That’s the logical progression isn’t it? Residency restrictions for DWI/DUI. 2500ft from any place that serves alcohol. People will be opening up ABC stores to keep their neighborhood safe.
DOJ to the AG-” Well, you should be happy now, because you’ve made enough laws that every registered sex offender violates at least one or more after they are released from prison and end up back in jail, so we don’t need you to make any new sex offender laws anymore, so that aspect of your job is now over. Well done!”
AG to the DOJ- ‘Uh… what?? NO MORE NEW SEX OFFENDER LAWS!?”
“We need to start letting sex offenders out of prison so I can start making new sex offender laws again!”
In my state RSOs are not allowed to be within 1000 feet of a school. There is a high school 850 feet from the interstate that runs through my city. On my way home each day, and to avoid driving past the high school at 65mph, I have to exit the interstate two exits before the high school, drive through residential neighborhoods at 20mph for several miles, then get back on the interstate two exits past the high school. And so do YOU if you are ever driving through my city and want to legally pass through. You cannot simply drive through my city on the interstate… if you want to legally pass through, the rules in the sex offender registry dictate that you must get off the interstate and drive through residential neighborhoods. All this is to “protect” children??? Good grief.
A reminder that there are even worse registry schemes than Florida’s.
That is the most bizarre restriction I have heard today. That is actually in writing? I’d like to nominate that for a Shittake Award.
Mig, hard to believe there is no exception for roadway travel. Do you have a link to that law/ordinance?
This is nothing more than a hit piece on a subject sure to get people’s attention in the hope that the writer can jumpstart his writing career.
The byline states “Danny Murnin is a sophomore studying journalism and an opinion writer for The New Political.”
As an aside, his obsession with the post-conviction activities of Turner border on stalkish, IMO.
So we’re beating up on an out-of-state student newspaper, which we have just amplified.
Can’t we find a better target?
Any idea on how to respond to this opinion piece that appeared in The New Political? I don’t see a comments section or where one can submit. I, am not on social media. This opinion piece touches on several hot button issues for registrants. Markers on driver’s license for one.
“Since he was convicted of sexually assaulting a drunk female, should anyone with a sex offense ever be allowed in a bar again?”
Should anyone who robbed a bank be allowed in a bank again? Or must they have cash stashed in their pillows? Good grief!
First of all, this article is written very poorly, even for an editorial. Second the lack of knowledge demonstrated by the assumption that all sex offenders committed the same crime is scarily ignorant.
I hope the author learns about research and fact finding as he finished his journalism degree.
I try to explain to people that this is the natural progression of an out of control Government that feeds on the fear of the public. I am not the least bit surprised by this as I am sure many of you aren’t either. For any of you out there that think your going to be able to sit this fight out, make no mistake, these types of suggestions and laws are coming to your door step. Find your voice, get involved, and stand up for yourself any way you can. You have paid your debt! This “Bar” ban has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.
It’s just a student’s opinion piece in a campus newspaper.
This school paper does not itself represent responsible journalism. I realize the Murnin article was printed as an opinion piece, which allows much more journalistic latitude than does a news piece or an editorial. I find it galling that most people and all organizations such as FAC are not even allowed to respond, thus perpetuating the idiocy. The following is from the paper’s contact page.
“To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at execedit@thenewpolitical.com. All letters must be from an Athens resident, Ohio University alumni or Ohio University student/faculty member…. Letters from political organizations or other interest groups will not be accepted.”
More cynically the paper pompously states:
“For guest submitted letters, it is critical they be vigorously fact-checked to ensure there is no spreading of misinformation within them.”
I guess the new journalistic standard is to spread misinformation wrapped in the cloak of an opinion piece. I wish Danny Murnin and the paper’s editor would have the professional ethics to express their opinions as an editorial which would be subject to vigorous fact checking.
BTW, I sent the post to the paper’s editor. I think all FAC members should similarly express their opinions even though they won’t be printed.