Walt Disney World bans sex offenders from theme parks

[Tonka's Skipper]

I do believe WDW is cross-referencing AP/season ticket holders. For the first time in 10 years, I could not have my nickname on my pass but had to include my full legal name. No big deal but it took me back for a minute.

Food for Thought
Why didn't Disney target the cruise line first where proper ID is required of all guests (of legal age)?
What happened that has caused Disney to feel the need to take this step when the databases have been easily accesible for ages? What problem does this solve?

How do we know the cruise line isn't doing just that?

How do we know when Disney started this?

It may not be in the news, however that does not mean it isn't happening.

AKK




AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I agree with this .....my friend is married to a sex offender and the only reason why he is a sex offender is her dad had him put in jail when she was 16...they are now married with a child...so i dont feel all sex offenders should be put in the same class..they are not are child rapist ..

Hello,


It has been pointed out there are many different sex /abuse crimes, measured in degree of the crime and the degree of danger.

It is also noted that the some/most/all/ states are reviewing the lists and often changes are made.

Your friends story is a important one, as the idea of teens a couple of years apart having sex should be removed from the list and as it is reported that in some states peeing in public can be considered a sex crimes.....silly !

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I am with daddio at this point. You can't have an honest debate of opinions with someone that will not consider the honest opinions of others. I also no longer have the time or energy to discuss this...you win! I'm out.

I have considered other points and opinions' and have debated the ones I disagree with and have pointed out why I have disagreed.


You told me you didn't need ID to buy tickets. In the next post I accepted your statement and stood corrected..........what more would you want?

The last point Daddoi made was *we don't know if they were repdators.*

I reviewed the articles and it said most people refused admission were child molesters.............Now we know and in my opinion they should be kept out of the parks.

I have the right to my opinion just as everyone else.

AKK

 

[dadddio]

The last point Daddoi made was *we don't know if they were repdators.*

I reviewed the articles and it said most people refused admission were child molesters.

For the benefit of others who read these threads and assume that everything that is stated is 100% accurate, the articles actually stated that most were convicted of crimes involving children. We don't know whether that means the individuals were child molesters or merely teens in relationships with younger teens like laddysnoop's friend.

 

[druidia]

Interestingly enough, FDOC (FL Dept of Corrections) indicates that Sex Offenders have a high recidivism rate.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2011/violentoffenses.html

The interpretation here is not entirely accurate. Recidivism refers to conviction of ANY subsequent crime, not necessarily a crime like the original offense. SO's are typically monitored pretty closely during probation. Depending upon their PO, they could be sent back for many re-offenses such as curfew violations, drinking, drug use and possibly crimes like robbery, etc. They are more likely to re-offend for many reasons related to their sentence itself. Because of their status it may be tougher to become gainfully employed, yet they are required to pay monthly probation expenses and registration fees, therapy fees, etc. This could lead to trouble itself if the money can't be found to pay these things.

So recidivism numbers don't always break down the total picture. I could be wrong, but I would bet that those SO's that re-offend with a sexual offense are in the minority.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

For the benefit of others who read these threads and assume that everything that is stated is 100% accurate, the articles actually stated that most were convicted of crimes involving children. We don't know whether that means the individuals were child molesters or merely teens in relationships with younger teens like laddysnoop's friend.

To further make sure all is correct:

I went back and reread the article.........Daddoi is correct......but in my thinking that is the same as child molester and the article further stated *they are registered as *predators*


I would find it really hard to believe that as reported, most of the 75 that were refused entry were teenagers having sex (with a willing partner 2 years or so of difference in age)...The articles stated.


Since Disney was centering their search on child molesters, as the results indicate, It would likely be predators, as in old people going after kids.

Qoute:

Of the records obtained most of the warnings were issued to people convicted of crimes involving children.

Some, like Jason Dennis Adams and Jesse Alan Kennedy, are classified by the state as predators.

Adams was removed from Epcot on Dec. 24. Kennedy was removed from Disney’s Hollywood Studios on March 7.





AKK

 

[TheShea's]

The interpretation here is not entirely accurate. Recidivism refers to conviction of ANY subsequent crime, not necessarily a crime like the original offense. SO's are typically monitored pretty closely during probation. Depending upon their PO, they could be sent back for many re-offenses such as curfew violations, drinking, drug use and possibly crimes like robbery, etc. They are more likely to re-offend for many reasons related to their sentence itself. Because of their status it may be tougher to become gainfully employed, yet they are required to pay monthly probation expenses and registration fees, therapy fees, etc. This could lead to trouble itself if the money can't be found to pay these things.

So recidivism numbers don't always break down the total picture. I could be wrong, but I would bet that those SO's that re-offend with a sexual offense are in the minority.

I understand that recidivism could be for offenses entirely unrelated to a sex crime. That doesn't excuse the fact that these people, while maybe not committing sex crimes, are still finding it difficult to make good decisions and follow the rules of society. They lack the skills to exercise good judgement and fail to acknowledge the consequences for their actions. So if a a SO on probation gets arrested for posession or shoplifting or "fill in the blank", that's their choosing and they go back into jail/prison.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

The interpretation here is not entirely accurate. Recidivism refers to conviction of ANY subsequent crime, not necessarily a crime like the original offense. SO's are typically monitored pretty closely during probation. Depending upon their PO, they could be sent back for many re-offenses such as curfew violations, drinking, drug use and possibly crimes like robbery, etc. They are more likely to re-offend for many reasons related to their sentence itself. Because of their status it may be tougher to become gainfully employed, yet they are required to pay monthly probation expenses and registration fees, therapy fees, etc. This could lead to trouble itself if the money can't be found to pay these things.

So recidivism numbers don't always break down the total picture. I could be wrong, but I would bet that those SO's that re-offend with a sexual offense are in the minority.

I agree


If you go back and read some of Arthropodtodd posts who has a good background in dealing with sex offenders/abusers.

He has changed my mind on some of this as well.

The bottom line is the policy is to keep out sex offenders (in my mind predators) and if even 1 threat is kept out , its a good policy.

AKK

 

[GWS]

The bottom line is the policy is to keep out sex offenders (in my mind predators) and if even 1 threat is kept out , its a good policy.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Minnies Boy Toy]

Sexual predators are not the only people Disney could choose to ban from the parks as a threat to the safety of others. I mean, snotnosed kids can infect people; it is statistically proven that people with tattoos are more prone to deviant behavior; heavy people are more of a risk to accidentally sit on my children and hurt them; ugly people could scare my children and emotionally scar them for life; foreigners from third-world countries are strange and carry rare diseases; those with mental illnesses are unpredictable and unstable; homosexuals could influence my kids to be gay; I mean, the list is endless.

Yet Disney seems weirdly fixated only on sexual predators. It's really disgusting how little regard the company has for my family's safety and wellbeing, letting all those other dangerous people into the park. It really should only be available to people I personally approve of, because I love my family more than ANY of the rest of you. But no matter how much I stamp my feet the Mouse just won't listen. It's an outrage.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Sexual predators are not the only people Disney could choose to ban from the parks as a threat to the safety of others. I mean, snotnosed kids can infect people; it is statistically proven that people with tattoos are more prone to deviant behavior; heavy people are more of a risk to accidentally sit on my children and hurt them; ugly people could scare my children and emotionally scar them for life; foreigners from third-world countries are strange and carry rare diseases; those with mental illnesses are unpredictable and unstable; homosexuals could influence my kids to be gay; I mean, the list is endless.

Yet Disney seems weirdly fixated only on sexual predators. It's really disgusting how little regard the company has for my family's safety and wellbeing, letting all those other dangerous people into the park. It really should only be available to people I personally approve of, because I love my family more than ANY of the rest of you. But no matter how much I stamp my feet the Mouse just won't listen. It's an outrage.

I don't believe mocking this is productive.

The sick and heinous nature of sex crimes and abusive crimes. The physical and mental harm can and often does last a lifetime. In Connecticut, 45% of assault victims are children on 12 years of age. not anything to laugh about. It is my understanding other states have a similar figure.

I can only hope and pray no one in your family is ever attacked in this manner.

AKK

 

[arthropodtodd]

I understand that recidivism could be for offenses entirely unrelated to a sex crime. That doesn't excuse the fact that these people, while maybe not committing sex crimes, are still finding it difficult to make good decisions and follow the rules of society. They lack the skills to exercise good judgement and fail to acknowledge the consequences for their actions. So if a a SO on probation gets arrested for possession or shoplifting or "fill in the blank", that's their choosing and they go back into jail/prison.

There is more to it than someone "finding it difficult to make good decisions and follow rules of society." In many ways sex offenders are just like any other felon. In fact their general recidivism according to Florida, seems pretty similar, following the same pattern. But their offense does throw a scarlet letter on them, and they will be under the microscope for longer and more often because our our need to protect our children.

All felons have hard time finding work, stable housing, etc. as they all usually have to report to a potential employer that they are a felon and their PO will be calling to confirm. But for a sex offender, whose name is on a registry even after parole, it is even harder mostly due to the beliefs that many believe to be true about sex offenders. After all society tends to group all offenders with a minor victim as a child molester or pedophile or predator. Those words do not mean the same thing. Many of these guys have had a lot of treatment, and social/life skills development, unlike the rest of the incarcerated population. They do learn to make better choices, but when there are no opportunities, you feel defeated and it can be easy to pitch out the information and skills you have learned and get in old patterns. I could sit and write a long time about former clients who have succeeded and those who did not and what was different about them.

I think there is a lot that could be written about what makes one guy succeed and one guy fail, an inability to "make good decisions" or understand consequences would be on the list but would not be the only factor. Never mind that many of these guy are released with no real skills or training for the world outside the fences and walls due to continued budget cuts.

But as I have stated the deck is stacked against sex offenders and because it is, they are more likely to re-offend.

Disclaimer: I do like the Disney policy from a business and safety point. I do support "doing the time if you do the crime". But the corrections field needs to learn to think out of the box a bit if we are ever to lower the number of guys incarcerated and thus truly save some tax dollars.

 

[arthropodtodd]

To further make sure all is correct:

I went back and reread the article.........Daddoi is correct......but in my thinking that is the same as child molester and the article further stated *they are registered as *predators*


I would find it really hard to believe that as reported, most of the 75 that were refused entry were teenagers having sex (with a willing partner 2 years or so of difference in age)...The articles stated.


Since Disney was centering their search on child molesters, as the results indicate, It would likely be predators, as in old people going after kids.

Qoute:

Of the records obtained most of the warnings were issued to people convicted of crimes involving children.

Some, like Jason Dennis Adams and Jesse Alan Kennedy, are classified by the state as predators.

Adams was removed from Epcot on Dec. 24. Kennedy was removed from Disney’s Hollywood Studios on March 7.


AKK

And this might be more an issue of the writer's bias and less about what Disney says, which is nothing. The writer is using term child molester, but that tells us nothing about the offender and what happened. It is just a catch all for folks with minor victims. Most state registries just say "indecent liberties with a minor >16" they frequently say nothing more and therefore leave a lot for interpretation.

It is also of note that they only looked a certain amount of time to find these 75 folks. I would be interested if upon further research whether offenders with adult victims have been kept out. Some of the rapists I have dealt with scared the crap out of me more so than my "child molesters." I ran into one too many psychopaths who were rapists.

And out of curiosity I would love to know how other people got themselves kicked out of the parks.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

And this might be more an issue of the writer's bias and less about what Disney says, which is nothing. The writer is using term child molester, but that tells us nothing about the offender and what happened. It is just a catch all for folks with minor victims. Most state registries just say "indecent liberties with a minor >16" they frequently say nothing more and therefore leave a lot for interpretation.

It is also of note that they only looked a certain amount of time to find these 75 folks. I would be interested if upon further research whether offenders with adult victims have been kept out. Some of the rapists I have dealt with scared the crap out of me more so than my "child molesters." I ran into one too many psychopaths who were rapists.

And out of curiosity I would love to know how other people got themselves kicked out of the parks.

There is a lot of things I would like to know as well. I do know the reporters were asking other parks, how flat out said they don't discuss security.



If your drunk within the parks, fighting, acting rude or bothering other guests are some of the other reasons. The records the reports looked at didn't have anything about sex offenders, but they noted it could be just the way the reports were written.

I know I once I saw a guy somewhat unsteady on his feet with a can of beer in his hand on Main St, 2 plains clothes came out of a side gate and sweep him off.

There was a guy who was taking videos behind the scenes, putting them online, Disney caught up to him and banned him from any Disney property.


Those I can think of off the top of my head.


AKK

 

[Minnies Boy Toy]

I don't believe mocking this is productive.

The sick and heinous nature of sex crimes and abusive crimes. The physical and mental harm can and often does last a lifetime. In Connecticut, 45% of assault victims are children on 12 years of age. not anything to laugh about. It is my understanding other states have a similar figure.

I can only hope and pray no one in your family is ever attacked in this manner.

AKK

With all due respect, I wasn't mocking sexual crimes against children. I was mocking those who compete with each other in expressing outrage about issues over which people have no fundamental disagreements. Sexual crime against children is a horrifying reality in this world and we all appreciate reasonable efforts to stop it. But when I see people responding to an honest debate about the efficacy of Disney's policies with mantras about. "the safety of my children" as a trump card, I think it is fair to point out that people are often all too willing to expose their children to danger or health risks without objection unless it is something they can get all sanctimonious about. JMO

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

With all due respect, I wasn't mocking sexual crimes against children. I was mocking those who compete with each other in expressing outrage about issues over which people have no fundamental disagreements. Sexual crime against children is a horrifying reality in this world and we all appreciate reasonable efforts to stop it. But when I see people responding to an honest debate about the efficacy of Disney's policies with mantras about. "the safety of my children" as a trump card, I think it is fair to point out that people are often all too willing to expose their children to danger or health risks without objection unless it is something they can get all sanctimonious about. JMO[/QUOT



The heinous nature of sexual crimes is so far reaching and life long lasting, it trumps most other crimes. That is the reason for *the safety of my children or the *safely of my family*. You may not consider it important, but myself and many others here do.

There are of course other issues, but this discussion is about the subject at hand. To use them in the same mocking manner gives a disservice those issues as well.

To present a mocking tirade, trying to be funny is inappropriate and in poor taste.

You last post gives your opinion much more credibility. In fact, except for your opinion of the *safety* comment. We totally agree.

AKK

 

[Adventurelawyer]

People are on the sex offender list for offenses which include public urination, streaking, having sex with a prostitute, being falsely accused, having sex with a person a person younger then them....One person is on the list for a sex offense at age 18 because he had sex with a girlfriend one year younger then he was.

Some people claim only a fraction of the people on the sex offender list are clearly dangerous to kids and even less are predators.

People who commit other crimes aren't on any list. A person who killed someone (murder, manslaughter whatever) and either served time or was acquitted is welcome in WDW but a person who peed in public 20 years ago, as a teenager, isn't.

Doesn't affect me but it's really a PR move. Sex offenders who didn't get caught, or who cut a better deal and aren't on a list, can still enter WDW. A person who slashed someone with a knife can enter WDW. A person who urinated in public might not.

Not a policy which does much to make us safer.

Umm, yeah. First of all, states are required to register their sex offenders because sexual offense is a crime of recidivism (with crimes agains young children being almost 100% recidivist). That means those offenders will offend again. Most murders don't go out and kill again, while 99.9% of sexual offenders do.

Second, a person can be required to register ONLY AFTER CONVICTION. I capitalize that to emphisize that a jury of their peers have convicted them based upon the evidence.

Third, low risk offenders (eg., public urination and streaking) usually have their registration status limited or are not required to register IF the court found that it was simpley public urination and not a habit of public urination in front of an elementary school. Frankly, I don't want that person around my kid anymore than the guy convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor because he may just be getting up the courage (no pun).

So, I applaud Disney's policy. There are so many kids running around unsupervised or with limited supervision by parents who are clearly distracted (who wouldn't be) that WDW(et al.) are the perfect target for the perviest of the perverts. Since Disney knows this, I am sure one could craft a legal filing for a nice personal injury claim if something were to happen and Disney didn't at least make some attempt to locate, close with, and ban these super creepers.

No child should have to suffer that indignity. Its private property and the mouse is king.

 

[shiny1278]

...

 

[arthropodtodd]

Umm, yeah. First of all, states are required to register their sex offenders because sexual offense is a crime of recidivism (with crimes agains young children being almost 100% recidivist). That means those offenders will offend again. Most murders don't go out and kill again, while 99.9% of sexual offenders do.

Got source for that statistic? Yeah, didn't think so. In my work I have had one, just one person, get new charges and given his mental state, very low IQ, that did not surprise me. I have had many a hardcore pedophile in group and they know better than to re-offend. Why? Because a second conviction will prove they are a predator and then will never be released. So while they might have thoughts and urges, they learn to control for that reason alone in my experience.

 

[arthropodtodd]

I have been following this thread for a while now; ever since I read the article about sex offenders being turned away.
I have never knowingly been around sex offenders. I have only seen their photos on the database. In fact, only until recently did I even pay attention to the sex offender registry and the laws surrounding it. Mostly because two years ago I was placed on the registry myself.
I was 32 years old, in an AOL chat room for 30 year olds. The chat room is called "Thirties Friends". I was always socializing in chat rooms since 1999 when I first discovered AOL and I was definitely a computer nerd.
While in the chat room a girl advertised herself as wanting to engage in a sexual conversation. So being the computer nerd and horny I messaged her instantaneously. She was very aggressive and requests for photos were made but none were fulfilled. I wasn't about to send out a picture of myself for the world to see, and she wouldn't do it either. We ended up shifting the sexual conversation to something more normal. That is when I found out she was 14 and looking for an older guy. I spoke to her a few more times online, and eventually after two days I never spoke to her again.

A month later I was contacted by a detective in her home state asking me if I spoke to her. I said I did. I answered a few personal questions and that was that.
What had happened was her parents kept a log of everything she does on the computer, and they saved the transcript of our sexual conversation and delivered it to the local police even though the sexual conversation had not happened again since learning her age.

I traveled to the girls home state to turn myself in once I learned that an arrest warrant was issued for me. I was told that these crimes are punished hard, and since I have no proof of my conversations (I don't keep logs) it would be my word against actual proof that I engaged in a sexual conversation with a 14 year old even though it was before I knew her age.
I was left with two options: take it to trial and risk having added charges and at least 1 year in jail, or admit guilt and receive no jail time and just 2 years probation; but have to be placed on the registry.

The reason why one of my options included no jail time was because the detective handling the case against me recommended to the prosecutor that the case be dropped. When the prosecutor refused, he recommended no jail time; to which they agreed. I had also voluntarily been tested by two independent forensic psychologists to ensure that I was "normal" and not someone who is sexually deviant.

When I returned back to Florida; I was told that I was no longer allowed to live in my condo. A condo that I owned outright and had been living there since 2007. Since a law passed in 2005 preventing sex offenders from living within 2500 feet of a school, I was forced to sell my condo and find another place to live. My condo was 2100 feet from a school.
I could not move in with my parents because they lived a block away from a school, my sister lived within 1000 feet of a school, and most of my friends live near a school or a park.
I was told to get a tent and live under the Julia Tuttle Bridge. Luckily, I didn't have to do that as I was able to find suitable housing.

The reason why I am posting this is to illustrate how easy it was to be placed on the registry. I had no criminal history and I lock my car doors in bad areas just like everyone else. I don't rape babies and hide in bushes to molest people. I have never traveled to meet a minor for sex, and I have never attempted to abduct a child, or touch them inappropriately.

I finished my 2 year probation without any problems; not even a traffic ticket.
In terms of recidivism; it annoys me when people say all sex offenders re-offend when I am sitting here as proof that they all don't.

I love Disneyworld, I love the rides, and I love the atmosphere. Disneyworld is not just a place for kids. In fact, they made a commercial probably a decade ago specifically stating it isn't just for kids.
It is troublesome that I could potentially be turned away just because I am on a list. Yet, the drug dealer who sells pot to kids is allowed inside.

*sigh*

I have had clients like yourself in the past and I have also heard the stories of guys living in tent cities under bridges and swamps in Florida. I believe it is in Iowa where there is a very large tent city next to a rest stop in the interstate. Florida is a bit extreme in handling offenders.

I cannot speak about your case, but in similar cases I did the reports for I recommended probation, and treatment matching your low risk (monthly group ). Too many Judges and prosecutors are always worried more about their jobs and need to appear to be tough on crime. So if her family got vocal a prosecutor would have to file charges just so they don't lose face.

I am not sure about your case, since I do not know Florida rules well or have seen the chat transcript, but in some cases when there is not a physical victim offenders have been able to go back to court after several years and have their records expunged and therefore no longer be required to register.