Blanket sex offender bans? Judge says no

CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge in Chicago says a corrections department ban on telephone contact between a mom with a sex-crime conviction and her 17-year-old daughter should be lifted.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin says Tuesday’s ruling is in a lawsuit filed for Robin Frazier and four others. It argues automatic, blanket bans on all contact by sex offenders with all children sometimes defy common sense.

Frazier was convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old girl who wasn’t a relative. Frazier was an authority figure as the girl’s counselor, making the encounter a crime under Illinois law. Frazier recently began supervised release, when bans on contact kick in.

Defense attorney Adele Nicholas says a “generalized fear” sex offenders will offend again isn’t justification enough to ban phone contact in individual cases.

Source LMTonline

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #37869 Reply
      Avatar
      Maestro

      I just love how certain news media sites REQUIRE you to have a Facebook account in order to log into their news sites to leave comments on articles. Do they think they are stopping RSO’s from voicing our opinions because we’re banned from Facebook? Facebook is not the end-all-be-all of social media and they’ve got their own problems and lawsuits happening.
      There are tons of people with no criminal records who choose to NOT use Facebook. And because of that, they cannot comment on articles. Ridiculous!

      • #37965 Reply
        Avatar
        Anonymous

        This commenting thing is the best because one needn’t create an account to post, but still I prefer Disqus (which is very easy to set up on a website for free.)

      • #39087 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim

        FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Sucker-sucker berg-ville
        Mr. Zuckerberg was questioned recently by congressional members and was asked if his firm has engaged in quashing free speech. He, more or less, denied it. “Conservatives” especially seemed concerned.

        NARSOL has a FB ACCT though registrants are forbidden. This is why state demands electronic data. Emails can be read then. Emails used to enforce affirmative disability. All emails have tracking data including:isp#, date/,time, routsinfo. This is the info collected under 702(see eff.org). Call it metadata. It is users responsibility to withhold data from the net. If one banks online one risks PERIOD.

        WE HAVE not merely the right to speak but the DUTY. Mr. FB certainly does engage in blocking speech. Has the court and congress opened the door to civil suit?

    • #37931 Reply
      Avatar
      D

      It was only because it was a female sex offender anyway. The sexual Bias in the legal system is just as ridiculous as the unconstitutional activities.

    • #37959 Reply
      Avatar
      Saddles

      This blanket ban from what some say is unconstitutional. Two yrs. ago I had to take a suprise polygraph test, they told me the best thing it was free. So I’m takng the test and at the end of the test I mentioned I was on facebook to sign up to do telephone campaging for Donald Trump at the time. I’m not sure if I actually signed up when the campaign lady gave me the link to sign up but when I mentioned that on the polygraph test I was called to the PO’s office and we had a few words.
      Well that was a useless trip back to court because my PO said you broke my word and I’m wondering that they gave me use of internet for my business contacts but this signing up to do phone campaiging for trump sounded a bit too much for me to handle. I guess the PO is a person’s God in a way. Its like you follow my orders type of thing. Bottom line is authorities are always right or is this sword of justice going a bit too far in this perfect constitutional world.

      • #39088 Reply
        Avatar
        Tim

        Benefits of operating a database for political purposes control the vote. Felons under sentence may not vote. Registrants are more likely to be refellonised.

    • #38308 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim L

      No blanket ban????

      Illinois supreme court just upheld blanket ban on SOs in Illinios parks.The

      So which is it?

      • #39098 Reply
        Sandy Rozek
        Sandy Rozek
        Admin

        Each case is individual to the issue and the court. A ruling against a blanket ban on communication by one court does not equal a ruling against a blanket ban on proximity restrictions by another.

Viewing 3 reply threads
Reply To: Blanket sex offender bans? Judge says no
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">