In Georgia, lawmakers stepped up to the plate with a firm stand against the deviates of society by making it harder for them to access their victims. This bold step is intended to curb the predacious instincts of known sex offenders. The sex criminals in question have a major problem with this law because it severely limits their access. With help from the Southern Center for Human Rights (an advocacy group for criminals), and the ACLU, the sex offenders are objecting to the new law, effective July 1, 2008, on the grounds that it “criminalizes fundamental religious activities.”

08 SB1/AP
Senate Bill 1
By: Senators Johnson of the 1st, Williams of the 19th, Hamrick of the 30th and Wiles of the 37th

AS PASSED
AN ACT

…Snipped for Brevity and Context…

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

…Snipped for Brevity and Context…

(b) No individual shall reside within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school, or area where minors congregate. Such distance shall be determined by measuring from the outer boundary of the property on which the individual resides to the outer boundary of the property of the child care facility, church, school, or area where minors congregate at their closest points.
(c)(1) No individual shall be employed by or volunteer at any child care facility, school, or church or by or at any business or entity that is located within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, a school, or a church. Such distance shall be determined by measuring from the outer boundary of the property of the location at which such individual is employed or volunteers to the outer boundary of the child care facility, school, or church at their closest points.
(2) No individual who is a sexually dangerous predator shall be employed by or volunteer at any business or entity that is located within 1,000 feet of an area where minors congregate. Such distance shall be determined by measuring from the outer boundary of the property of the location at which the sexually dangerous predator is employed or volunteers to the outer boundary of the area where minors congregate at their closest points.
(d) No individual shall intentionally photograph a minor without the consent of the minor´s parent or guardian.
(e) Notwithstanding any ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to Code Section 16-6-24 or subsection (d) of Code Section 16-11-36, it shall be unlawful for any individual required to register pursuant to Code Section 42-1-12 to loiter, as prohibited by Code Section 16-11-36, at any child care facility, school, or area where minors congregate.

…Snipped for Brevity and Context…

(h)(1) Any individual who knowingly violates subsection (d) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
(2) Any individual who knowingly violates any other any provision of this Code section, except subsection (d) of this Code section, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 30 years.
(i) Nothing in this Code section shall create, either directly or indirectly, any civil cause of action against or result in criminal prosecution of any person, firm, corporation, partnership, trust, or association other than an individual required to be registered under Code Section 42-1-12.”

Is this law going to far? Who are these pious church patrons that this law is threatening the freedom of? I’ve read blogs and news articles downplaying their crimes. I’ve even read just plain misinformation about what they were actually convicted of. So, let’s look at who these plaintiffs are and why they’re on the watch list anyway.

Wendy Faye Whitaker, born in 1979, convicted in 1998 of sodomy. At age 17, Ms. Whitaker administered oral sex to a fifteen year-old boy in the back of her high school classroom. sounds pretty innocent, doesn’t it? Does it sound so innocent if we are talking about a 17 year-old male providing oral sex to a 15 year-old girl in the back of a classroom? The fact is, Ms. Whitaker committed a crime which she was legally of age to be held accountable for. Teenagers can get carried away by their hormones, no doubt about it, but we’re not talking about two fifteen year-olds. We are talking about a legally “of age” female and an underage boy. We have laws in place to protect our children, even if they don’t want to be protected. We call them children for a reason. So, after her arrest, Wendy Whitaker never got in trouble again –after all, she was only doing what girls do, right? Wrong. Whitaker continued to get in trouble. She skipped required check-ins and violated her probation. Because of her continued rebellion against the law, her status as a first offender was revoked. She ended up with harsher penalties because she refused to cooperate with the system back then –and now that lack of cooperation continues. Of course, everyone from the teacher that caught her, to the system that punished her, is to blame for her misfortune.

Andrew Chester Norton, born 1982. His declaration states that he is being punished for a crime that occurred at the age of 12. He does not mention what that crime was, nor does he mention anything about his victim. The Georgia Bureau of investigation shows that he was convicted in 2002 of child molestation. In 2002, Andrew Norton would have been around 20 years old, right?There are some things I’m failing to grasp concerning this crime. In Georgia, you have to be at least 13 years of age to be tried as an adult for child molestation, at least that is my understanding. Unless the juvenile offender was more than 4 years older than the victim, the crime is legally considered a misdemeanor, not a felony –and not subject to felony sentencing and punishment. Also, a person does not have to register for a crime committed as a juvenile –unless that person was tried as an adult. So, why is Norton required to register if he committed his crime as a 12 year-old juvenile? Something about Norton’s story just isn’t right. What am I missing, here?

Omar S. Howard, born 1974, convicted of false imprisonment in 1993. In connection with the same incident, Howard was also convicted of possession of a firearm during a crime, aggravated assault, armed robbery,and burglary. Howard maintains that he has never been convicted of a sex crime and that he is only on the registry because one of his victims happened to be a teenager. Howard was 20 years old when he committed the above crimes.Should Howard be allowed to be around children? He committed a crime which, under Georgia law, required him to register as a sex offender. Why do we register sex offenders if we are going to allow them to engage in the privileges that they had prior to their conviction? He put a child in danger. He was an adult at the time. No one is telling him he cannot worship and practice his religion. We just don’t want to take the chance that he might harm someone, knowing that he has done so before. Why should our children be put at risk by allowing a potentially dangerous man to be treated as if he is not a threat? People make choices. Choices have consequences.

Lori Sue Collins, born 1962, convicted of statutory rape in 2002. Collins had sex with a 15 year-old boy when she was 39 years old. Is this one of those cases that fall into the “gray area?” Maybe it’s because she’s a woman and her victim was a boy that we’re supposed to think that this “isn’t that bad.” Unless you have the mind of a child, you know better. Collins is a sex criminal, she was convicted as such, and she is required to let citizens be aware of such. Should we rely on church members to supervise her?

Angela Christine Coffey, born 1973, convicted of sexual assault against a person in custody. In 2007, while employed as a school teacher, Ms. Coffey had sex with one of her students. Coffey, 35, wants only to “participate fully in the life of the church” because she believes that participation benefits both her daughter and herself. That might be true, but will it benefit the children who also attend that church, or will her attendance put more boys at risk? I don’t think that young people should be the guinea pigs in that experiment.

Those were just the ones who think that they pose no risk to church-goers. What about the other sex offenders that aren’t brazen enough to protest in such a public way? Will they reap the benefits of being able to mingle with the younger church members? It has been proven time and time again that many churches consider their members a society separate from the law. Perverts are forgiven and even allowed to socialize with the younger members –without so much as a word to their parents! Sometimes only a certain few members of the church are privileged with this private information concerning a sex offender, not the parents in the congregation. This is not an exaggeration. This is fact. Victims’ privacy does not have to be sacrificed in order to alert parents and guardians about offenders. We cannot rely on the discretion of our churches to protect our children. That is why we have the law. If citizens want the right and privileges of every day, law-abiding citizens all they have to do is abide by the law. Is that so much to ask?

I think that churches should let their parishioners know about child molesters in their congregation, regardless. However, it often seems that churches often do exactly the opposite. Silence and “forgiveness” are not real world solutions to dealing with sex offenders that are a part of groups church leaders are responsible for. I know this is not true of all churches, but it is true of too many religious organizations and congregations. Changes have to be made. I’m also aware that young people make mistakes and there may actually be cases of mandatory registration that may make it hard for someone who does not intend to harm anyone. I haven’t seen “borderline” cases in this lawsuit. The crimes that have been committed are horrible crimes that should not be downplayed in the interest of singing in a choir or baking pies for fellowship dinners. These are serious offenses here that should not be overlooked. Remember, this is just a sample of the sex offenders a defeat of this law would empower. While the threat the plaintiff’s pose may be questionable –especially since most know who they are and what they’ve done– there are many more offenders that will slip into the flock undetected. The plaintiffs in this case are not an example of “gray area” offenders that we should let off the hook. If anything, they are examples that prove that sex offenders come in all shapes and sizes.

Sources:

Georgia SB1/AP

Georgia Sex Offender Law Criminalizes Religion

News & Views: Cover Story