Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > Disney Rumors and News
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-06-2013, 06:55 AM   #181
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by swimfly View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:02 AM   #182
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by laddysnoop72000 View Post
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

Last edited by Tonka's Skipper; 05-06-2013 at 08:03 AM.
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 05-06-2013, 07:07 AM   #183
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Fanatic View Post
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

Last edited by Tonka's Skipper; 05-06-2013 at 08:02 AM.
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 08:42 AM   #184
dadddio
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,215

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
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.
dadddio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:27 AM   #185
druidia
I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.
 
druidia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Exactly 120 miles from the magic (and 147 from the Wonder)!
Posts: 541

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShea's View Post
Interestingly enough, FDOC (FL Dept of Corrections) indicates that Sex Offenders have a high recidivism rate.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidi...toffenses.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.
__________________
Disney Couple! Seabreeze Point ~ Epcot ~ French Island ~ April 2005 ~~ And now Mom of Twins!
druidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:29 AM   #186
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadddio View Post
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

Last edited by Tonka's Skipper; 05-06-2013 at 09:48 AM.
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:44 AM   #187
TheShea's
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 225

Quote:
Originally Posted by druidia View Post
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.
TheShea's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 10:01 AM   #188
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by druidia View Post
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
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 12:30 PM   #189
GWS
Earning My Ears
 
GWS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
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.
GWS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 02:30 PM   #190
Minnies Boy Toy
Keeping an eye out for Mickey....
 
Minnies Boy Toy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Two hours from the place you're thinking about...
Posts: 53

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.
Minnies Boy Toy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 02:51 PM   #191
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnies Boy Toy View Post
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

Last edited by Tonka's Skipper; 05-06-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 04:14 PM   #192
arthropodtodd
Mouseketeer
 
arthropodtodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: kansas
Posts: 207

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShea's View Post
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.
__________________
Todd

WL 2004 - Wedding and Honeymoon there
WL - 2006
WL - 2009
CR - 2011
WL - 2012
WL Club Level - 2013
WL - 2014 -Summer

Coming next:
POP & AKL 2014 - Winter

In the pipe:
2015 - fall
2016 - fall
arthropodtodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 04:26 PM   #193
arthropodtodd
Mouseketeer
 
arthropodtodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: kansas
Posts: 207

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
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.
__________________
Todd

WL 2004 - Wedding and Honeymoon there
WL - 2006
WL - 2009
CR - 2011
WL - 2012
WL Club Level - 2013
WL - 2014 -Summer

Coming next:
POP & AKL 2014 - Winter

In the pipe:
2015 - fall
2016 - fall
arthropodtodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 05:34 PM   #194
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by arthropodtodd View Post
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
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 05:52 PM   #195
Minnies Boy Toy
Keeping an eye out for Mickey....
 
Minnies Boy Toy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Two hours from the place you're thinking about...
Posts: 53

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
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
Minnies Boy Toy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: