Comments on: Sex Offenders & The Church

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 13:25:22 +0000

No follow up is necessary. You provided the info for Legal Aid. Legal Aid handles only certain types of cases for the indigent and the types of cases were listed on their site. I’m quite sure it’s not that they don’t help sex offenders, but that they don’t handle sex offender issues. If an indigent registrant had an issue with domestic violence they would likely not exclude them. Similarly, if a non-registrant had an issue involving commercial litigation they would not take that case either.

Respectfully, Cherokee, many of your posts get deleted because it seems you consistently write inflammatory comments where it seems you personalize things too much. Your complaint about legal aid is analogous to going into a hardware store and asking for a turkey sandwich. You would write that the business refused to serve you because you’re on the registry, when they probably just didn’t make your sandwich because they are a hardware store.

By: Connie

Connie — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 03:25:19 +0000

In reply to Bo. Bo, we'll said and written, Thank you! Maybe, if you are not already, you should volunteer for the media committee with FAC.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 00:12:56 +0000

In reply to CherokeeJack. If there are services that they normally provide that you need, I imagine they would be able to discuss those with you. I just don’t think they’d be in a position to handle niche services that are outside their normal area of legal expertise (such as registrant-specific services offered by the Ron Kleiners of the world).

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 22:33:35 +0000

In reply to Jacob. Jacob Because the public defender did not go on tv and offer to "Help all with free services", but the service did. When I called them, apparently, they state they help everyone but do not mention until you call that they do not help sex offenders. I sent FAC the name of the group as they requested but no follow up.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 20:58:39 +0000

There are more than enough people accused/ convicted of sex offenses to be able to house them separately from others. Creating separate housing wouldn’t be difficult. In jail is a wing or pod. In prisons, especially like wakulla correctional annex, the dorms and yards are already divided into four areas.
I believe department of corrections houses sex offenders right in with murderers on purpose. It’s their way of continuing to ‘stick it’ to people convicted of sex crimes. If only they’d consider the problems they’d save themselves by separating them.

My two cents. (And because there will be no more pennies, it may be even more worthless. Lol.)

By: EdC

EdC — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 20:56:45 +0000

In reply to Bwj.

@Bwj
This information about the author was at the bottom of the article. FAC, please let the email address through.

Scott Williams
http://www.bigisthenewsmall.com/
Scott Williams served as a key leader and Campus Pastor for LifeChurch.tv. He is the Chief Solutions Officer for Nxt Level Solutions, a consulting company he founded to help businesses, non-profits and individuals with both internal and external growth. Scott is speaker, strategist, consultant and developer of leaders. He is an avid blogger at BigIsTheNewSmall.com, and leverages Social Media to make a Kingdom impact. Scott is passionate about leadership development, organizational growth and diversity. He is the author of “Church Diversity – Sunday The Most Segregated Day Of The Week.” Scott is married, a father of two, and lives in Oklahoma City, OK.

By: Bwj

Bwj — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 20:54:16 +0000

Has anyone who wrote Mr. Williams received a response?

By: EdC

EdC — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 13:04:35 +0000

In reply to DG.

When I was released in 2017, I began attending a local Catholic church. I spoke with the monsignor regarding my situation. His response was the the Catholic Church was about “forgiveness and redemption.” Although, he did express his relief that I did not live in the zip codes for that parish because there were some busybodies (not his term) who consulted the registry. Years later, I was asked by some of the greeters/ushers if I could fill in when needed. After taking online safety training recently, I received a query from the archdiocese and then a call from the monsignor who told me I was approved as an usher despite my background.

DG, I’m very sorry that you had a different experience. I suspect that your school problem was driven by the church’s insurance policy. As with many people and institutions, it is much less trouble for insurance companies to make blanket decisions than it is to investigate the truth or to assess individuals. Having written all of that, I will say that I would never attempt a position anywhere that involved children. Registrants are in far greater danger from children than children are from registrants. Any misperception or vindictive false accusation would be tantamount to being guilty.

By: mbgodofwar

mbgodofwar — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 06:03:36 +0000

In reply to CherokeeJack.

CherokeeJack
I’ve heard of free consultations, but think that any “free legal services” must require one to hire their services for them to sign off on anything. *Well, some free services might be let someone know the steps in a will, what forms are needed for a marriage certificate, etc.

Now, did you call the “free legal services” folks up because of the sex charge, for something not related to your conviction, or what? After my “special knock,” I called around various law firms; some only handled marriage, civil, or traffic tickets, while a few dealt with felony charges.

By: Bo

Bo — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 05:59:17 +0000

I wrote this to Scott who is very inarticulate on this subject: I’m not sure your information is entirely accurate. Much of what’s written about sex offenders, particularly in relation to churches and insurance policies, may be outdated and misleading. Public perception has been shaped by a lack of responsible leadership, allowing the term “sex offender” to become synonymous with “monster,” “boogeyman,” or “pedophile”—regardless of the actual offense.
Alarmists often claim the public has a right to know who these individuals are, but this rhetoric fuels shaming and vigilantism, despite the fact that law enforcement already maintains detailed records, including fingerprints and DNA. Many individuals—especially first-time, non-violent offenders—have completed treatment programs and pose little risk of reoffending. In fact, comprehensive studies show that sex offenses have among the lowest rates of recidivism, second only to homicide.
The term “sex offender” itself is deeply problematic. It encompasses a wide range of behaviors, many of which are non-violent and contextually misunderstood: public urination in remote areas, nudity at beaches or in the wilderness, streaking, consensual underage relationships, possession of illicit images unknowingly downloaded from the internet, and prostitution. A 19-year-old can be arrested for consensual sex with a 17-year-old girlfriend, or a German youth visiting his American partner can be criminalized for behavior that’s legal in his home country.
Of course, the category also includes serious crimes—rape and sexual assault—but these are statistically more likely to be committed by individuals not on any registry: strangers, acquaintances, or family friends. Yet lawmakers continue to pass increasingly punitive legislation in order to look “tough on crime” that undermines the ability of men and their families to reintegrate into society.
Sex offenders are not abstract threats—they are fathers, sons, brothers, grandfathers, and veterans. They are sinners, victims of their own poor decisions, but they are still human beings. They need spiritual support, community, and a path to redemption. Unfortunately, families are often torn apart not by the severity of the crime, but by the stigma of the label. Restrictions prevent them from living near children, visiting parks or beaches, or even greeting a child in passing. Some parents are barred from seeing their own children—not because of danger, but because of fear.
We must recognize the damage caused by bad laws, uninformed lawmakers, and a culture of fear. Former offenders and their families are being shamed into homelessness, isolation and ruin. If we truly believe in justice, rehabilitation, God’s forgiveness, and grace, then we must confront the consequences of these policies and the narratives that sustain them.