I realize you’re asking for the sake of clarification….

It begs the question of what part of plain English do the courts, or our Congress or Legislatures fail to understand? If I want to go to church, there is nothing that Congress can do to stop me – period. It doesn’t matter how wicked, or evil I may be – the inherent human right to practice their religion in this context is inviolatable. The man simply went to church – he didn’t kill, rape, rob or do anything to anyone while there. Simply going to church in this context can not be a crime.

But you bring up precisely what is wrong with the country today – simple concepts (such as free speech & religion, that when the constitution says “people”, the meaning is consistent throughout, that one man is not entitled to live off the sweat of anothers work at the point of a gun, etc) are incomprehensible to too many people.

Bob

300 feet? I can think of a lot of ridiculous results from such a policy. The mall near my home when I grew up had (has?) a play area for children in the middle of it. I wonder if it’s forbidden for registered offenders to shop there.

Now i think about it, i would be willing to bet that there is a requirement of knowing or something like that.

you wrote: “The place is intended primarily for religious worship and related activities.”

i am sure the interpretation they are pushing is that the church and the daycare are two different “places” in that sense of the word and thus while the church is not automatically verboten, a church within 300 feet of a daycare is.

Personally i don’t have alot of sympathy for these guys, and yes, the recidivism rates are much higher.

And note there is some selectivity in the numbers Caldwell gave. for instance, rates of conviction is not the same as how often they committ crimes. further, the claim that victims are usually attacked by people they know can be very misleading. People take this kind of statement to mean you have to worry about friends and family more than anyone else. but actually it is much looser than that. for instance, in the context of murder, if one gang leader guns down another, it is not considered stranger crime in FBI statistics.

That all said, I would favor a limited exception here. a man should, within reason, be allowed to practice his religion. (i say “within reason,” or else soon you would hear people claim their crimes are their religious duty). Some Catholics, for instance, believe that they must gain weekly absolution via. communion. But bluntly i favor a prosecutorial discretion approach–i.e. we don’t make it a rule that you are allowed to go to church, we just don’t go after you for doing it. that way the perv knows to be on his best behavior.

Of course, that begs the question, is that what is happening here? When the police seem to be overreaching this way–i.e. busting an 18 year old guy for statutory rape of a 17 year old girl–you have to wonder if there is more to the story than we are being told. I suspect if we talked to the prosecutors and got the whole story, we would realize this guy needed to be locked up.

No one – not Congress, not a legislature can’t prohibit a person from attending a church of their choice.

The pastor and or the congregation may not want them there – and it’s there choice to invite the person to move along. But it’s not the decision for anyone in government to make.