@ Robert Yes,you are right. It is reelection year time for” Get tough on crime” game. Hmm the deck is shuffled and ….Oh my gosh the sex offender card gets pulled from the deck of 52 similar card that has the sex offender agenda. You must be wondering was the playing card a red diamond or black spade but to the politician it was green as money. Like I tried to post in the Rolling stone comment box The registry does nothing but get people killed and and the other thing that is has accomplished was destroy families and hearts!

I don’t know the details in other parts of the country, but in Michigan where I live, when you are placed under parole or probation supervision, you HAVE to sign a paper promising to abide by all of the rules, one of which is the catch-all provision that gives the probation officer the authority to place any reasonable restrictions on you that he feels are necessary. You have the right to appeal it. You have the right to refuse to sign, and go to jail instead. But (in Michigan at least) the courts leave the details and conditions of parole and probation in the hands of the probation department. The complete details are not spelled out in the statutes because every case is a little different. MANY laws are carried out like that. When you sign the paper, it forms a binding contract. It’s undoubtedly why the Halloween rule we are discussing is only being applied to sex offenders on probation, and why probation agents are overseeing them that night.

All of this is difficult to address if we don’t have access to any of the affected offenders’ judgement orders. Either something in them allows GA probation to do this, or they are exceeding their authority and breaking the law. It’s hard to know. What we do know is that the mayor has little to take credit for other than setting aside council chambers as a jail.

Sorry, not buying even that. I know it was said with sarcasm but even that stretch of imagination wouldn’t justify a move like that.
I asked the poster to link something, anything, to back up his comment but apparently he was unable to do so.
It bothers me that posters would believe things of this nature to be true.
As another post touched on, ONLY the judge may impose new conditions of probation and that is only upon a proven violation.

@ Debbie thank you for the article… This the crap the politicians and parents allowed children to watch on t.v. All the child does is rehearse of what they seen or listen… now it is stuck in their into immature subconscious minds I grew up watching Cheers on t.v. I had started to drink alcohol around the same time I watched cheers…and I would go to bars in Orlando and knew everyone’s name….. I say let them not be charge but the their parents for failing to watch and be part of their life.. now I gonna get some feed back on this and I welcome the dialog,,, bur from experience I rather had love and attention from my parents then throw a Sega and Atari at me back in the 80’s Maybe just maybe if my Parents would have be involved in my life.. I would not have been looking for love in a bottle of Jack or woman at bars. Perhaps I would not have made it on State Sex offender Registy

The fact that they would even consider charging these 2 little girls as adults also shows the state of this country. They need psychological help, not prosecution. They got the idea from watching horror movies. Kids are also becoming more sexual at young ages because of the media they are exposed to. The government knows that kids are having sex at a young age, yet their response is to increasingly criminalize the behavior. A lot of kids are being dragged into the justice system because of revealing selfies, and it’s just not right to treat them like criminals.

Would love to see how Grady Judd would of handled this since this juat happened in his own county.

https://abc13.com/2-girls-accused-of-plan-to-kill-classmates-and-drink-blood/4548968/

The same children he claims to protect, can be killers with some serious issues. Pretty disturbing stuff.

SC, I have scoured Georgia statutes and not found a specific law that governs what they are doing. Gee, maybe it’s because the Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”