Walt Disney World bans sex offenders from theme parks

[Minnies Boy Toy]

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.

As I said, there are some people here who have less interest in discussion the efficacy of Disney's policies than winning some sort of "most concerned parent" beauty contest. Repeating "my children's safety" as a mantra adds nothing to the issue at hand. We're all concerned with our childrens' safety.

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 have this habit of appointing yourself the arbiter of what is tasteful or appropriate. Forgive me, but I'll let the mods do that. If I've crossed a line, they will let me know.

You last post gives your opinion much more credibility.

Thanks. I yearn for your approval.

In fact, except for your opinion of the *safety* comment. We totally agree.

AKK

Of course we do. As I said, no reasonable person is going to be anti-child-safety. The discussion has been about whether Disney's policies are effective (as opposed to ham-fisted), and if so, to what degree. So it may surprise you to know that people can love their children just as much as you do yet still believe that Disney's policies and the manner in which it administers them could be improved so they do not inadvertently exclude people who are no more a risk to our children than you are.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

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.

Hi Todd,

I was wondering and your the expert here, given the story facts as presented what would have been his chances if he went to court? Seems this fellow was only guilty of making a bad first choice of chatting.

None of us know what we would have done in his place, until faced with the same choices. But at first look I would have got to court and made a fight of it!

This is one of those things that needs to be changed on the list.


AKK

 

[druidia]

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.

That's what the media tells you to believe, but recidivism numbers do not actually bear this out entirely. Regsitered sexual offenders may go to prison again, but it's not always because of another sex crime. See previous discussion above in the thread.

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.

Wrong. At least in the State of FL, many people have to register as a condition of accepting a plea bargain. A common offer to first time offenders is 5 yrs probation, mandatory counseling and RSO requirement; no jail time. As a lawyer you know that doesn't include a trial by jury or judge. As a lawyer you also know that prosecutors and judges much prefer pleas over trials as it is quicker, easier and saves money. So much for really caring about protecting the public.

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).

Probably true; it's often a discretion call by the prosecutor and/or judge. But if you're referring to "Levels" as they exist in other states, we don't have those in FL. You are either an offender or a predator, which is why it's misleading when those terms are used interchangeably in discussion. Being designated as a predator requires a specific proclamation from the judge in the case and is usually reserved for those offenders who have offended multiple times or are convicted of a particularly heinous crime. Predators as defined by the state are far more rare than offenders.

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.

Don't disagree here, especially with the distracted parents part. It amazes me how much of that you see when you're there and it's a little scary. I hope that we never act like that but never say never.

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

Also don't disagree but the lynch mob mentality associated with this issue can get a little distubring, and when people are just contributing to it with opinions passed as "facts" it doesn't help.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

As I said, there are some people here who have less interest in discussion the efficacy of Disney's policies than winning some sort of "most concerned parent" beauty contest. Repeating "my children's safety" as a mantra adds nothing to the issue at hand. We're all concerned with our childrens' safety.



You have this habit of appointing yourself the arbiter of what is tasteful or appropriate. Forgive me, but I'll let the mods do that. If I've crossed a line, they will let me know.



Thanks. I yearn for your approval.



Of course we do. As I said, no reasonable person is going to be anti-child-safety. The discussion has been about whether Disney's policies are effective (as opposed to ham-fisted), and if so, to what degree. So it may surprise you to know that people can love their children just as much as you do yet still believe that Disney's policies and the manner in which it administers them could be improved so they do not inadvertently exclude people who are no more a risk to our children than you are.

Based on your 2nd post and whether you like it or not, we do agree,

What I objected to was your mocking which was rude and snarky to everyone in this discussion trying to discuss a intense subject with varying opinions.


To compare over weight people, tattoos people, ugly people, even to promote your mocking joke, to sexual offenders was just plain rude and in poor taste.


As to what I feel is tasteful or appropriate is just that my opinion, one that I base on common good taste and facts as available.


AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

That's what the media tells you to believe, but recidivism numbers do not actually bear this out entirely. Regsitered sexual offenders may go to prison again, but it's not always because of another sex crime. See previous discussion above in the thread.



Wrong. At least in the State of FL, many people have to register as a condition of accepting a plea bargain. A common offer to first time offenders is 5 yrs probation, mandatory counseling and RSO requirement; no jail time. As a lawyer you know that doesn't include a trial by jury or judge. As a lawyer you also know that prosecutors and judges much prefer pleas over trials as it is quicker, easier and saves money. So much for really caring about protecting the public.

Probably true; it's often a discretion call by the prosecutor and/or judge. But if you're referring to "Levels" as they exist in other states, we don't have those in FL. You are either an offender or a predator, which is why it's misleading when those terms are used interchangeably in discussion. Being designated as a predator requires a specific proclamation from the judge in the case and is usually reserved for those offenders who have offended multiple times or are convicted of a particularly heinous crime. Predators as defined by the state are far more rare than offenders.




For the most part I agree with your statements, except in red, if you accept a plea bargain or are just pleading guilty and you plead guilty and that is the same as saying your guilty, the same as a conviction.


Maybe a bit of semantics there as well.


AKK

 

[arthropodtodd]

Hi Todd,

I was wondering and your the expert here, given the story facts as presented what would have been his chances if he went to court? Seems this fellow was only guilty of making a bad first choice of chatting.

None of us know what we would have done in his place, until faced with the same choices. But at first look I would have got to court and made a fight of it!

This is one of those things that needs to be changed on the list.


AKK

This would be something I would not be an expert at. Experience tells me that most of the guys I have either assessed or seen in treatment have gone to prison, the number who are just given probation is lower. I also had a very high number of clients who took plea agreements instead of going to court. Why I do not know, I assume because many of these cases are open and shut these days. Their either seems to be DNA or detailed witness reports or not. Guys also will plead to lower or less counts of an offense. One count of Aggravated Indecent Liberties with a minor is less time and 2 or 3 courts. The DA like it because it doesn't tie up the courts, the offender will be placed in treatment, and will have to register. But remember the number of offenders who get a conviction and even jail time is low.

In cases of rape, out of 100 rapes only 46 get reported to police and only 5 of that 46 are convicted and only 3 will do actual time in prison. So things need to be pretty cut and dry to get convicted of an offense.

Take this stat in regards to the 75 kicked out offenders (while the ratios are not the same with child molesters, they are in the same ballpark), this means there were 1500 offenders who walked right through because they were never convicted. I believe the 75 was over 6 months, so that come out to about 8 non-convicted offenders enter the parks daily.

Anyways, with internet offenders engaging in sexually explicit communication is enough for conviction. However, they like to prove that the offender started the sexually explicit talk. When you think about the guys caught on To Catch a Predator, many were released because the undercover victim engaged the sexually explicit talk first, entrapment. Around here the deputies just sit in a chat room with a fake profile waiting to be talked to. They save the entire chat log and bring it to court. One case involved a professor who just chatted the deputy for 11 months harmlessly until he made his move.

The other thing to think about is that many of these offenders are in denial of their offense all the way to prison. They will say they did not do it, and only took the plea because they did not want to risk longer jail time.

 

[Luvchefmic]

With all due respect..........on what personal experience or course of education do you base your statement on?


How do you now it would not work?..........Do you know how Disney proceeds in this policy?...how many have been kept out?

The term Security theater is cute and snarky but it is not factual or in any way supportive of your statement.


My experience is that the Theater term is used by posters who don't' have the support for there statements and used that is sound *real* and divert folks attention.


JMHO


AKK

AKK

\

THANK you I detest the term and agree with you 10000 % Most people have NO idea the training WDW Security undergoes and would probably be shocked to know what that Dept actually does to make things safer Of course anything can happen anywhere but thank you again for your post

JMHO too

 

[tiggspring]

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*

IF your story is true I sympathize with you. Under those circumstances you are not a pedophile just listed as one. (you might want to go back to court and try to get your life back. If the girl is and adult now and willing to testify you may have a chance.. minors often get coerced by authorities and parents in these circumstances). I also sympathize with those young men who suddenly find that when they turn 18 there long term High school sweet heart is suddenly a "child" to be avoided if they are under 16 or they risk being listed as an offender. For those of you not in the system this happens ALOT more than you would think and you need to look at the registry very carefully and read between the lines.

THAT BEING SAID, as a mental health worker who specialized in traumatized children and the wife of a forensic social worker that chose to leave working with victims to work with the offenders in hopes to prevent some of these terrible things, pedophiles have NO EFFECTIVE TREATMENT. Slips are part of the addictive process and while that is bad for alcoholics and drug addicts its is DISASTEROUS for children around the pedophile who, with 98 percent certainty, will offend again.

I am thrilled with WDW decision!

 

[dadddio]

THAT BEING SAID, as a mental health worker who specialized in traumatized children and the wife of a forensic social worker that chose to leave working with victims to work with the offenders in hopes to prevent some of these terrible things, pedophiles have NO EFFECTIVE TREATMENT. Slips are part of the addictive process and while that is bad for alcoholics and drug addicts its is DISASTEROUS for children around the pedophile who, with 98 percent certainty, will offend again.

I am thrilled with WDW decision!

Not that I want to resurrect thus train wreck, but you might want to read more of this thread as there was an expert on this issue in the thread who refuted your point.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

In order to be 100% correct, arthropodtodd will debate your 98%, but maybe not the rest of your statement.


He will also tell you rapist are known to scare him big time, at least from a repeat view!

You hit it on the head, the terrible trauma theses pedophiles cause to kids!

AKK

 

[tiggspring]

Not that I want to resurrect thus train wreck, but you might want to read more of this thread as there was an expert on this issue in the thread who refuted your point.

Looking back on his posts I completely agree on all his points except the repeat rates. Now you have to understand if you get three mental health experts in a room and ask them anything you will get three different answers depending on the research they are aware of, the discipline they come from (psych, social work, med) and there experience. I too have done Hospital, out patient treatment. None of which is important here.

What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down and the corporation is at high risk of lawsuit. This is also a backhanded protection of the client on the offender list. I have told clients I have felt are not offenders but caught in the system. People in situations like the poster above, to avoid at all cost places where you could be accused. No one would believe them if they were accused again. There are people out there that would like to get "justice" and would lie to get it. Is that rare YES. Unheard of no. For their own protection Megan's law clients should never go to a place like WDW. If they are a true offender it like having a drunk tend bar and being surprised they want a drink. If they were wrongly listed it is a place where a new accusation can easily made.

As a Mother I want them out..period. I don't have a predator detector so I can't truly know which offender in the system is ok and who is not. Since MOST get there for a VERY GOOD REASON thumbs up to Disney

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Looking back on his posts I completely agree on all his points except the repeat rates. Now you have to understand if you get three mental health experts in a room and ask them anything you will get three different answers depending on the research they are aware of, the discipline they come from (psych, social work, med) and there experience. I too have done Hospital, out patient treatment. None of which is important here.

What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down and the corporation is at high risk of lawsuit. This is also a backhanded protection of the client on the offender list. I have told clients I have felt are not offenders but caught in the system. People in situations like the poster above, to avoid at all cost places where you could be accused. No one would believe them if they were accused again. There are people out there that would like to get "justice" and would lie to get it. Is that rare YES. Unheard of no. For their own protection Megan's law clients should never go to a place like WDW. If they are a true offender it like having a drunk tend bar and being surprised they want a drink. If they were wrongly listed it is a place where a new accusation can easily made.

As a Mother I want them out..period. I don't have a predator detector so I can't truly know which offender in the system is ok and who is not. Since MOST get there for a VERY GOOD REASON thumbs up to Disney

My opinion and most others since the start......


AKK

 

[the who #3]

i fully agree with disney on this one.

i know that there are a few people on the list that may be only guilty of a minor crime, but the majority of the list is guilty of a major sexual offense. therefore if feel it necessary to protect our children in any way possible.

 

[Lewisc]

What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down

Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.

 

[jimsanfilippo]

Most don't belong?........where did that detail come from. Please give me the link? Even the experts who have been posting on the pages have stated most belong on the list and the number of sex offenders had very minor offenses and should not be on the lists, is a very small number.

I regret your more concerned about the predators and sex offenders and their rights then protecting our kids. Sorry but if your a sex offender, Disneyland or anything Disney or any other family parks or venues is not your land , you lost the right.

The Bottom line here is that the safety of my kids and the worlds kids come first.

I couldn't have said it better myself. We're really supposed to want to allow registered sex offenders into the areas or society with the highest concentration of children because a small fraction (and that's what I believe it is) might be on that list through some misunderstanding or because of a bad plea they made?

Are we really expected to put children at unnecessary risk because someone on that list might not deserve to be on it? I'm sorry, but that is their legal problem not the problem of the parents and children in a Disney park. Children in the parks should be protected to the fullest extent that they can be and a policy like this seems like a no-brainer to that end.

And lastly, the argument that some of these offenses might have occurred many years ago and, therefore, we should forgive and give people a second chance is laughable. Every study shows that sexual crime recidivism rates INCREASE as more time passes and you are farther away from the original crime. No one is knowingly getting their "second chance" with my children near them.

 

[jimsanfilippo]

Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.

Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit is bad? Tell that to the parents whose child is molested in a park by someone who would have been thrown out had the policy been in place.

"One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct." Seriously, does anyone in the real world believe that? You are obviously cherry-picking your "facts".

And as for the person on the list for adultery: 1) You're really going to make your arguments against the policy using the most extreme examples you can find? 2) As I said before, that is that person's legal problem, not the problem of the parents and children in Disney parks who deserve to be protected from all those legitimately on that list.

If you have a problem with who is on these lists and why then fight our system to make that list better. Don't use it as an excuse to allow sexual predators near children in Disney World.

 

[jimsanfilippo]

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*

"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." What were you thinking to continue chatting with a 14 year old AFTER you found out she was 14, especially since it started out sexual?

If you indeed were falsely accused or were the victim of an over-reaction that's too bad. But as I stated in other posts, that is your legal problem, not the problem of parents trying to protect their children in theme parks. And for every person on the list like yourself how many are on the list because they have compulsive urges that they sometimes need to act on?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.

Hi Lewisc,

Most states name their lists *sexual offenders list* and include crimes that are covered as the name suggests, sexual assault, rapist, child molesters, etc. Just because they may not be predators, doesn't mean they would not go after a child given the right circumstances/location. part of this becomes a semantics game as well.

The problem that has become the issue, you can sometimes end up on the list for nothing more the hiring a prostitute or being 17 and having sex with your girl friend of 16.

This is the reform that I was speaking of, the reports I have seen indicate that some states are waking up to the fact the lists sometimes go to far and they are in committees or whatever to change the offenses that go on the list and make it more fair.

This I totally agree with, but the safety of the children come first and foremost. While the Disney policy to keep out sex offenders/predators, would not in any way make any reasonable people or parent think any theme park or public venue is 100% safe, parents do need to under stand wherever they are, they have to watch and protect their kids.

As this Disney policy has shown, it has keep some predators, not just offenders out of the parks, even in limited numbers, I strongly hope it continues!

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

"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." What were you thinking to continue chatting with a 14 year old AFTER you found out she was 14, especially since it started out sexual?

If you indeed were falsely accused or were the victim of an over-reaction that's too bad. But as I stated in other posts, that is your legal problem, not the problem of parents trying to protect their children in theme parks. And for every person on the list like yourself how many are on the list because they have compulsive urges that they sometimes need to act on?

I totally agree, the stories that have been posted in this thread always seem to be missing facts or as you pointed out..*just what was that guy thinking to keep talking with a 14 year old after a chat that was sexual!.. It just doesn't make sense.

Now that said, I do believe there was some people that are on the list that really sure not be there, and as I also pointed out the is changes happened in various states.

AKK

 

[arthropodtodd]

Good grief how is this thread still going? Are we trying to beat a dead horse (or maybe just an offender).

Before I make my few comments, i am happy to say I am going back to work assessing sexual offenders risk next week. I took some much needed time off from my last position, which had me working with parole officers which was quickly becoming filled with some friction. Why? Because everyone thinks they know what is best in regards to offenders. Sound familiar? lol

I want to keep things short and simple instead of trying to quote folks. Here are a few updated thoughts on the matter.

1- Not sure where whoever got the 98% re-offend, but it is wrong, very wrong. I would be interested in knowing what statistical proof or what assessment instrument you are using to come to that number and would be curious who was included and not included in that 98%. I am assuming this comes from the Canadian study from 2004, which has been widely shot down for many, many reasons by the likes of Karl Hanson who is "the man" and master in this field. Myself and the company i contract with use, the following assessments, Static-99R, Stable-2007 and Acute-2007. You can Google if you want to learn more. This stuff has been used in courts and have been shown to be reliable time and time again.

2- To the the AOL guy. I have no sympathy for your case. I have heard the story what seems like a million times. It is one thing when someone lies about their age, but when you know their age? You kind of got what was coming to you. I do wish you wish well and I hope you have learned to understand your risks and have developed good interventions. As a former internet junkie (pre-marriage) I too "met" under age girls who were very sexualized and would try to get sexual with me online. I told them the same thing. Call me when you are 18 and out of High School. 16, while legal, is still too young. The human brain doesn't fully mature until around 25. Also, as you know whether right or wrong there will be continued consequences for your behavior beyond jail/probation/parole/registry. This will affect relationships, employments, etc, for a long time. If missing out on Disney is your biggest bummer due to your offense, count yourself lucky. Also, I know you are not one of my past clients, but they know better than to try to minimize their offense or current situation. They know it if their fault and their behavior that got there where they are.

3 - There was a statement about different states doing things differently as far as the registry. This can be frustrating for guys in my field, but I would rather let Iowa or Washington figure what is best for them, rather than the DOJ figure it out for everyone. There are states that have been looking to remove people from the registries, one wanted to remove internet offenders and one state was exploring folks like me to evaluate their risk and recommend their removal. I have not heard any traction on either of these recently.

4- My thoughts on the registries is always mixed. While I am sure they provide Mr. and Mrs Smith with some comfort of knowing who is living down the street, they do nothing to reduce the number of the re-offenses. (Total new offenses is on the decrease except for the area of child pornography.) People like to dispute this and pull out studies and discuss how valuable the registries are or how residency restrictions keep everyone safe, but most of these studies are small in scope and do look at offenders as a whole, just very small subsets like just incentors. I will still contend that many, even many with offenses involving minors, should not be on these lists. This comes from working with these guys and seeing them "get it" in treatment and finally be able to connect some dots in their lives. These lists cry wolf and in many ways prevent us from focusing on the worst as there are so many on the lists. There are real dangers out there and most of them are not even on the lists as they have not been caught. In fact I think the lists sometimes lull lazy parents into a state of comfort thinking they can let their guard down at home (when in fact in my experience, their guard is always down.)

5- In regards to Disney, this is and will forever be a PR move. They need to be able to show they are doing their best to keep your kids and my kid protected at the parks and resorts. They do not want negative headlines and they do not want lawsuits. This is not an in your face PR move, but the kind that once out to the public reassures their customers. However as pointed out, this move is flawed, as it does not catch all, and doesn't factor in the thousands of un-convicted offenders in the park and on staff. I would be curious what Disney does in this regards besides the many cameras and plain clothes security. I do worry about parents who will let their guard down as a result of this policy thinking their kids are safe there. I do worry about the rare anti-social offender who just wants to get in and create problems because they can. But hey it is their company and they can do as they like.

Finally, as a parent and as a professional in the field (still not an expert lol) I would say be less worried about offenders at Disney and be more concerned about those around you. A child is more likely to be offended by someone they know (family, neighbor, family friend) than a stranger. Strangers and predators grab the headlines, but they are not the real risk and do not commit most of these offenses. This from Ohio "A 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission said 93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators, over half the offenders victimized close relatives, and 93 percent of molesters had never been arrested for a previous sex crime." Be less worried about Disney.

Now can we finally put this thread to rest? lol