Walt Disney World bans sex offenders from theme parks

[arthropodtodd]

Does anyone know if this "database" that Disney is using to "ban" these people are only used for scanning male subjects only? Are they including females in this scan? Females can be predators too

Correct! However it is a much smaller and very different population.

 

[arthropodtodd]

The problem with the registries does not lie with the state employees and the elected officials, except that they fear for their job. The problem lies with the people, us.

A vast majority of Americans want even tougher registries. In conversation they talk say that certain offenders might not belong, but in my experience, that is not reality. I have seen state and local officials get dragged through the mud any time their a problem with an offender living somewhere. They are told they are protecting child molesters and people campaign against them stating that. No one wants to be shown as pro-child molesters and anti child. Judges sentence men (and women) to prison who do not belong there because they do not want to be voted off the bench.

In general I find that we are a lazy society. We follow the sound bites and talking points of our family, political party, religious group, friends, etc. rather than look into a matter ourselves. It is just easier. Those who are even more lazy might just be too apathetic to care one way or another, but they don't want to be anti kid, so hang the child molesters.

Now one other fun fact that I thought about was, if an offender is still on parole, he will have to a get travel permit to leave his state. If he is in a county for more than 3 days he is usually required to alert the authorities of his presence. I do not know if this is true post-parole or not as I do not deal with the registry aspect of things. But if it was true, then Disney could possibly know every time a registered offender is in the county for more than 3 business days and would know to look out for them.

I would wonder if there could be other safe guards and policies that Disney should be looking at. Many colleges and megachurchs require offenders to register with them so that they can give them some guidelines to keep potential minors safe. Telling someone what they can and cannot do sometimes works better than just kicking them out. Perhaps with these new Magicbands they could use those to track people in the parks, particularly any convicted felon. I have always reminded my clients who were placed on GPS, that it was for their own protection more than anything else.

Final thought, for now. Also note that juvenile offenders do not register on public sites in many states, so they would not get blocked, and some of them are worst than they adult males I have dealt with.

 

[goofy4tink]

Well I knew that Vigilante Justice*, the term that is used when a person has no real facts to support their point of view ..would show up soon!


As to curl your hair..............Sure.....I agree....... I have found that all over the country.........guess what.....some people are stupid! However the point was would this policy make people let down their guard..............NO...........those same drunk people by the pool will be doing that no matter what Disney does!


I don't believe anyone talked of a Disney data base......the states have the data base, Disney need use it like anyone else in the country.


Again this is a start........just because its not perfect, doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say forget the whole thing!........we can't get them all so drop the matter all together!


Following your logic............why bother having drunk driver laws...............since some drunks have not been caught.......lets just not have police looking for them.


As you mentioned before..........don't leave out all the details.............Disney has the names and addresses of AP, resort guests, 3rd party ticket sales, etc....etc , not to mention the state predatory sites.

Repeat........no its not 100%, but no system is 1005.........its a start and a good one.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but calling others vigilantes because they don't agree to not right!

AKK

Don't remember calling anyone a 'vigilante'...just mentioned vigilante justice. When you say your family's safety is more important than someone else's freedom to come and go, just because it happens to be a place where kids are found? Sorry...that seems somewhat vigilante to me.

Evidently you are the only person here that has all the facts and you are the only one that understands how things work. Anyone that doesn't share your opinion? Stupid, ill informed, whatever.
I'm pretty much done with this thread. I care deeply about our children. I have been CORI'ed many times. I attend a church that follows all the safe church procceedures. My schools are all locked and the need to be buzzed in exists. I know what I need to do in order to protect my children. And I will continue to do with with other youngsters. I refuse to depend on someone else, even Disney, to keep me safe. There are plenty of 'bad people' out there, just waiting for a chance to pounce. I really hope and pray this doesn't happen at WDW, or any other park...where kids and their families are trying to have some carefree fun.
That's my position and I stand by it. Not even returning to this thread to check out how it goes. I enjoy a good discussion but this is ridiculous.

 

[spidet1964]

Does anyone know if this "database" that Disney is using to "ban" these people are only used for scanning male subjects only? Are they including females in this scan? Females can be predators too

The national sex offenders registry list sex
offenders regardless of their gender. Also you no longer get on there for the things some people have mentioned such as public urination. For anyone doubting that this could work. I guarantee it is a good system. The 3rd month ours was in effect we turned away 35 people. Also if a person is over legal age and they have sex with someone under the legal age even by a year it is still a sex offense. If they can't wait that year then they deserve what ever happens to them. There s no room to be leanient here.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Don't remember calling anyone a 'vigilante'...just mentioned vigilante justice. When you say your family's safety is more important than someone else's freedom to come and go, just because it happens to be a place where kids are found? Sorry...that seems somewhat vigilante to me.

Evidently you are the only person here that has all the facts and you are the only one that understands how things work. Anyone that doesn't share your opinion? Stupid, ill informed, whatever.
I'm pretty much done with this thread. I care deeply about our children. I have been CORI'ed many times. I attend a church that follows all the safe church procceedures. My schools are all locked and the need to be buzzed in exists. I know what I need to do in order to protect my children. And I will continue to do with with other youngsters. I refuse to depend on someone else, even Disney, to keep me safe. There are plenty of 'bad people' out there, just waiting for a chance to pounce. I really hope and pray this doesn't happen at WDW, or any other park...where kids and their families are trying to have some carefree fun.
That's my position and I stand by it. Not even returning to this thread to check out how it goes. I enjoy a good discussion but this is ridiculous.

*sounds like vigilante justice* I took it to mean just that anyone who is for keeping the predators away from our families our a vigilante!


I don't know every detail, it fact arthropodtodd has made some excellent points and changed my mind some!


However no need to rehash it all now!

AKK

As I said................the freedom of others after they have committed these types of crime(not counting the minor stuff like teens and peeing in a bush) is 2nd to anyone else safety!

 

[Colleen27]

If followed the thread, yes I feel sorry for your friend.........The lists are being updated and the things like this one and peeing in bushes and teenagers having sex with 2 years difference, these are being changed.


Since Disney didn't announce this policy themselves, but rather the news did.........how does it become a PR thing?

Those things aren't being changed in my state. If anything there's a push to make these things stronger... Right now I'm aware of petition efforts to create registries of domestic abusers and animal abusers.

Disney doesn't have to hold a press event for something to be a PR move. They can reasonably expect the Orlando press to pick up on their doings, and from there the hotter topics and bigger moves go national.

Yes your friend's case is a good example of registries needing more work and making sure if reflects one risk's. Not knowing your friend's case, but having clients with similar details, we would focus less on sexual re-offense and ask the questions about impulsivity, and sexual preoccupation. Why would someone hook up with someone they barely know. Why be involved with someone sexually your barely know. I had a client who dated a girl for 3 months before he found out her real age. When he found out he broke it off, she got angry and called the police.

Well, we were 19/20 and stupid. I think that's all the "why" there was.

The problem with the registries does not lie with the state employees and the elected officials, except that they fear for their job. The problem lies with the people, us.

A vast majority of Americans want even tougher registries. In conversation they talk say that certain offenders might not belong, but in my experience, that is not reality. I have seen state and local officials get dragged through the mud any time their a problem with an offender living somewhere. They are told they are protecting child molesters and people campaign against them stating that. No one wants to be shown as pro-child molesters and anti child. Judges sentence men (and women) to prison who do not belong there because they do not want to be voted off the bench.

In general I find that we are a lazy society. We follow the sound bites and talking points of our family, political party, religious group, friends, etc. rather than look into a matter ourselves. It is just easier. Those who are even more lazy might just be too apathetic to care one way or another, but they don't want to be anti kid, so hang the child molesters.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Those things aren't being changed in my state. If anything there's a push to make these things stronger... Right now I'm aware of petition efforts to create registries of domestic abusers and animal abusers.

If that is the case in your state I would suggest you work to get them changed. I would be very surprised if there are no groups or sympathy groups you could work with. Having a registry is not the problem, making the list correct and fair is the important part. I see no problem with a registry for domestic abusers and especially no problem with animal abusers, as they cannot defend themselves.


As I have stated many times, this is not a PR thing for Disney, based on the facts previously stated.
AKK

 

[Pseudacris]

Why I think the thread should be shut down. Sexual assault is a hot topic. Most of the public cannot begin to grasp what goes on in an offender's mind that can allow them to offend particularly against minors. (Sadly, i do. and at times it haunts me.) So we are ready to burn the castle down and the discussion frequently turns into shouting matches because no one ever wants to listen. Read through this thread, people are practically calling each other out or calling each other liars. This is a topic that gets heated quickly like religion or politics because of the strong beliefs on it.

I agree. It's not something you can really have a true debate about because so many people (myself included) have emotional, almost instinctual responses. While, intellectually, I find it interesting to learn about the psyche of violent criminals, practical discussion is different. At that point it's less "slippery slope" and more "I don't want my kids to have to go through what I did, and I don't care if it's not perfect". For those of us who were hurt as children, especially if not protected by other adults (whether by sinister reasons or lack of knowledge), it becomes an almost compulsion to tick off everything on your mental list of things that will prevent your own kids from being hurt.

 

[robinb]

As I have stated many times, this is not a PR thing for Disney, based on the facts previously stated.
AKK

No, is is your opinion you have stated many times. NOT a fact. You are certainly entitled to that opinion as the rest of us are entitled to ours.

Just because they don't trot out Mickey in front of Cinderella's Castle to announce that they are banning sex offenders doesn't mean that it is not a public relations move. Many of us believe that Disney is doing this to cover their butts in case something happens on Disney property. It lays the foundation for the PR in case something horrible does happen.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

No, is is your opinion you have stated many times. NOT a fact. You are certainly entitled to that opinion as the rest of us are entitled to ours.

Just because they don't trot out Mickey in front of Cinderella's Castle to announce that they are banning sex offenders doesn't mean that it is not a public relations move. Many of us believe that Disney is doing this to cover their butts in case something happens on Disney property. It lays the foundation for the PR in case something horrible does happen.

Well of course its my opinion, based on the facts........Just as it your opinion. Where did I ever say you or anyone else was not permitted a opinion???

You can be snarky, but the facts are just that......if they wanted public opinion they would have announced it and let the world know and the vast majority of people praise them for protecting their families from the real predators (which likely does not include everyone on a registry list).

I think you better go back a read the posts, there are some that believe its PR, not many.

Now will it do 2 things at once...............help get out predators from the parks and Disney property......YES, that has been proved. From a purely legal
point of view YES, Disney would look better god forbid anyone is hurt.

IN closing I wish to point out that NOT ONE PERSON has said they wanted Disney to stop the program, whatever their semantics opinion on PR.

AKK

 

[tjkraz]

At the end of the day, I don't see why the motivation matters.

With any procedural change, there is going to be cooperation between legal, park operations, park management and even executive leadership in the company. Hard telling which department initiated this change and/or pushed the hardest for it to happen.

Of course parents still need to watch their children. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can watch the kids every moment they are in the parks and/or can intervene before anything can happen. (Sorry, folks but you can't protect your 13 year old from being mildly accosted as you're moving through theme park crowds.)

Readers can apply whatever personal "spin" they wish. There's really no value in debating whether the glass is half full or half empty. Personally I really don't care whether this was initiated by park security, legal, public relations or Tom Staggs' worries over his children's safety.

At least 75 known, identified threats have been removed. The parks are safer WITH this policy than WITHOUT. Who really cares about the motivation?!?!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

At the end of the day, I don't see why the motivation matters.

With any procedural change, there is going to be cooperation between legal, park operations, park management and even executive leadership in the company. Hard telling which department initiated this change and/or pushed the hardest for it to happen.

Of course parents still need to watch their children. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can watch the kids every moment they are in the parks and/or can intervene before anything can happen. (Sorry, folks but you can't protect your 13 year old from being mildly accosted as you're moving through theme park crowds.)

Readers can apply whatever personal "spin" they wish. There's really no value in debating whether the glass is half full or half empty. Personally I really don't care whether this was initiated by park security, legal, public relations or Tom Staggs' worries over his children's safety.

At least 75 known, identified threats have been removed. The parks are safer WITH this policy than WITHOUT. Who really cares about the motivation?!?!

Well Said Tim

 

[robinb]

Well of course its my opinion, based on the facts........Just as it your opinion. Where did I ever say you or anyone else was not permitted a opinion???

You can be snarky, but the facts are just that......if they wanted public opinion they would have announced it and let the world know and the vast majority of people praise them for protecting their families from the real predators (which likely does not include everyone on a registry list).

First of all, I am not being "snarky". Quite frankly, I am getting tired of your little ad hominem digs at people you don't agree with. There was a whole section of the thread that was removed due to personal attacks.

My point is that there are facts and there are opinions. We all have the same facts, but how we understand and process those facts are different. When you say that your opinion is "based on the facts previously stated" it gives your opinion a sense of, as Stephen Colbert says, "truthiness" while it implies that differing opinions are not based on facts.

 

[Minnies Boy Toy]

Just because they don't trot out Mickey in front of Cinderella's Castle to announce that they are banning sex offenders ...

Now that would be worth the price of admission. "Hey Kids, guess what?"

 

[robinb]

Now that would be worth the price of admission. "Hey Kids, guess what?"

Kinda gives a whole new spin on your username, doesn't it .

 

[Minnies Boy Toy]

Kinda gives a whole new spin on your username, doesn't it .

ROFL! Well, truth be told, Minnie definitely wooed me way back when I was underage. I hope the statute of limitations has run out on that - I'd hate for her to get into trouble.

 

[Magic Fanatic]

Lots of opinions on this topic. Here is a timely story from CNN that addresses the down side of these lists. Warning, long article... http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/living/juvenile-sex-offenders-rights/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

[Colleen27]

If that is the case in your state I would suggest you work to get them changed. I would be very surprised if there are no groups or sympathy groups you could work with. Having a registry is not the problem, making the list correct and fair is the important part. I see no problem with a registry for domestic abusers and especially no problem with animal abusers, as they cannot defend themselves.

While I think it is a good cause, it isn't one I have the time, energy, or motivation to take up. I oppose registries on philosophical grounds - either a person has served his time, is rehabilitated, and has earned his second chance at freedom or he is still a danger and should not be free in the first place. Creating an in-between status, particularly when it isn't narrowly targeted to identify only those who are high risk to re-offend, is wrong in my opinion and it blows my mind that it has held up to legal scrutiny.

You can be snarky, but the facts are just that......if they wanted public opinion they would have announced it and let the world know and the vast majority of people praise them for protecting their families from the real predators (which likely does not include everyone on a registry list).

But a big announcement would open the door to a mainstream version of the discussion we're having now, whereas doing it quietly draws applause from those interested enough to follow the issue while going under the radar of those who might object to the move.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

While I think it is a good cause, it isn't one I have the time, energy, or motivation to take up. I oppose registries on philosophical grounds - either a person has served his time, is rehabilitated, and has earned his second chance at freedom or he is still a danger and should not be free in the first place. Creating an in-between status, particularly when it isn't narrowly targeted to identify only those who are high risk to re-offend, is wrong in my opinion and it blows my mind that it has held up to legal scrutiny.

The problem is just because they did their time doesn't mean they are rehabilitated, it only means they did there time. I don't believe that all the registries are perfect and based I a lot of comments made here, I more strongly feel they need to exist and they need to be revised and made more reasonable and fair.



As for animals abuse................sorry if your going to injure, abuse or neglect a animal, you need your name on the registry to try and keep you form ever o\having another animal under your control.



But a big announcement would open the door to a mainstream version of the discussion we're having now, whereas doing it quietly draws applause from those interested enough to follow the issue while going under the radar of those who might object to the move.

I really don't believe there would be anything but a vast majority of people applauding and in favor of the policy.

Even here with the few that are asking how its being done, NOONE is saying to stop the policy!


The PR issue is really not the point and just a game of semantics, as another poster just recently pointed out.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

First of all, I am not being "snarky". Quite frankly, I am getting tired of your little ad hominem digs at people you don't agree with. There was a whole section of the thread that was removed due to personal attacks.


Just because they don't trot out Mickey in front of Cinderella's Castle to announce that they are banning sex offenders *hominem digs*

I my opinion the above is about as snarky as they come, however you are welcome to your opinion.


My point is that there are facts and there are opinions. We all have the same facts, but how we understand and process those facts are different. When you say that your opinion is "based on the facts previously stated" it gives your opinion a sense of, as Stephen Colbert says, "truthiness" while it implies that differing opinions are not based on facts.

I stated quite clearly and politely that is was my opinion, based a\on the facts., and as you have pointed out repeatedly when your not agreed with, everyone has a opinion and mine is based on a common sense understanding of the facts. The truthiness is because the facts support my opinion in a solid way.

In short everyone may draw there own opinion from the facts.

AKK