If a plaintiff is already required to have his name and address on a sex-offendry registry, available to all Hoosiers, including in an online data base, how much more potential harm can for him can there be in not letting him sue the state anonymously?
On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals will consider whether the Marion County man, convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, can remain anonymous in pursuing his suit or, as Plainfield maintains, must reveal his identity in making his allegations in court.The plaintiff sued the Hendricks County town over a 2002 ordinance banning people on the registry from public parks and recreational areas. Saying the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution, the offender claims disclosing his name would put him and his young son at risk of harm from vengeful citizens.
He was convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, and we're supposed to sympathize with his contention that the state might put his young son at risk? Neither does Ken Falk, Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, which is representing the plaintiff, who thinks the man's identity is irrelevant. "He could be any one of hundreds of sex offenders who live in or around Plainfield who might want to use the park," Falk said. Presumably Falk was just trying to make a legal point and wasn't trying to reassure Hoosiers when he reminded them of those hundreds of sex offenders who just want to be left alone to prowl the parks anonymously.
Comments
I think it's high time the city council consider legislation making it illegal for child molesters to be within 1 mile of a city park or school. In effect, this would ban them completely from the city - and until the courts start dealing w/ them appropriately I find this the next best option.
Perhaps a little NIMBY of me but at some point it's every man (or city) for himself...
what I want to know is what this man is doing having custody of his son! I agree, they shouldn't be allowed near parks, schools or anywhere else kids frequent. I have heard over and over they can't be healed from child molesting so that settles that. there are plenty of places to live that aren't by parks and schools. When he committed the crimes, he lost that right.
At some point we just have to stand still and say No to the most radical of those who would like to "normalize" their pet behavior. Let me rush to say that I'm not implying some narrow line that should be drawn just to the left of the missionary position; not at all.
I'm saying that people might as well understand from the jump that there is zero -- nada -- nil -- zip chance of legitimizing, normalizing, legalizing or equalizing "lying in wait" in parks, ambushing, pouncing, and other behaviors which are intrinsically out of the norm and predatory.
If a special interest wants a park to play in that badly, let them buy one, enclose it in a 12-foot privacy fence and charge adults-only admission at a private gate.
If, as is always argued, park activities of this nature are reasonable and non-exhibitionist, and the motives unremarkable, the "closed court" should not hinder the proponents in any way.
In a closed, designated area, nobody gets unwelcome attention, nobody gets ambushed, no kids get traumatized, no strollers get offended -- theoretically, anyway.
I suggest this fenced park notion not as a realistic proposal, but so that those who hold onto rationalizations straining to justify such behavior in public parks can trip over their own logic gaps. Don't pretend you're just being oppressed; the stuff we're talking about is indefensible.