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?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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!
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.
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?
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?
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!”
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.