ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/19 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

General NewsNational

IL: High court upholds ban on sex offenders in parks

The state’s criminal code completely bars child sex offenders from entering public parks, despite an exception written into a similar but separate part of the law, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled last week.

The 5-2 majority held that the exception in Section 11-9.3(a-10) of the Illinois Criminal Code of 2012, which allows child sex offenders to visit public parks with their minor children when other minor children are present, cannot be read into Section 11-9.4-1(b), which prohibits a child sex offender from “knowingly be[ing] present in any public park.” Full Article

Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How does banning anyone from visiting a park minimize risk? It doesn’t! Safety and security is an illusion. This ruling was decided only for protecting the local authorities from liability and embarrassment from a media blitz in the event “one of those people” snatches a kid from a park. That’s all!

Well this is all kind of nuts. So they create an exception that is apparently meaningless. And convicted a man on a matter of useless principle of the law for looking out for his child. They immensely hurt him while literally wasting tens of thousands of public dollars for absolutely zero gain in any measurable way.

I would have argued the laws conflict. One law is an outright ban, but another lifts the ban under certain conditions, which were met from my reading of the opinion. Longstanding precedence is that when laws conflict, the conflict is resolved against the government. The dissenting opinion should have carried, IMHO.

Further, constitutional or not, I think the ban is wrong. If the registrant pays taxes, he has just as much right to be there as anyone else. If the ban sticks, he should be relieved of paying the taxes that support the park, as well as any other government service he is denied due to his registry status.

@SR – waste public dollars means that they get to keep their inflated salary government jobs. Sometimes they will actually hire outside council as well who in turn, “return the favor” (wink wink).

To all sexofenders liveing in the state of ILLINOIS id either move or try your best to follow the blueprint Janice Bellucci and the ACSOL team has lad out for everyone City to city coast to coast.
If you feel your constitutional rights are being violated then stand up and fight back.

Is it me, or should this have been fought on the grounds of the statutes being unconstitutionally vague??? What a crock of crap!

So the dude was being a good parent, looking for his wayward son. And yet for those good paternal measures, he gets slapped with a(nother) conviction. That’s all in spite of the convoluted and twisted interpretation the IL SC made. I know it’s State laws in a State matter but I hope to heavens there’s some sort of Federal Constitutional violation that could be tossed up. Vagueness is no longer valid, since IL SC has just made it crystal-clear for citizen and TBL alike.

I guess they make the laws about S$x offenders not being allowed in any parks to keep the rate of s$xual assaults down on children by S$x offenders in parks – I mean look at all the articles you read about in the news on a daily basis of this happening all over the country where S$x offenders are allowed in parks etc.

Oh wait! We don’t see articles in the news on a regular basis about these kinds of assaults on children where s$x offenders are allowed in parks. I can’t remember when I read one the last time.

Sorry, I am confused? Can someone please shed some light on how a law like this does reduce assaults on children?

I know, someone will say the famous phrase –
“If it saves just one child it is worth it”. Darn! And I was thinking the same thing that children are in far more danger just riding with an adult in a car – chances of an accident and child being hurt are far higher than an assault in a park.

Awesome, they sure got their priorities straight. Meanwhile 104 people were shot on Father’s Day in Chicago alone as a result of gang and drug warfare. Keep up the good work leaders of Illinois.

Traveling to or living in places like Chicago are close to impossible to comply with the letter of the law. Just finding out what places we are banned from is difficult. I can somewhat understand probation restrictions of this sort, but for a free citizen it is hard to swallow. It would be interesting if justice Thomas L. Kilbride was in danger or distress in a park and he called out to a citizen for help and that citizen said “sorry, cant be in the park”. Better yet: drowning in lake Michigan- can’t walk across the sand to the water… it’s a park.
My PO when asked if we see a child is drowning and no one else is around what should we do…. the answer of course was call the police. As a person not on probation it’s mind twisting. I pray for the day a kid is saved by a registrant who subsequently is charged with some proximity bull****. That is or best chance for stupid law reform.
As a side note a friend of mine in SOT group was given verbal atta-boy praise by his PO for waiting out in the street 20+ minutes until his wife arrived home while his hurt child who had fallen bled in his garage. His PO had trained him well.

I wonder what would of happened if something bad happened to his son and he got charged with child abuse/negligence because of his club membership. These laws have always been unjust and abuse of power!! Government has gotten to big for it’s pants.

This is some bull shit. They can make our info public but they can also ban us from Public places?!?
How is it Not punishment and or any different from a type of incarceration when they remove a groups status as part of the public as a FREE CITIZEN?
This really angers me even tho I don’t live in this area. I know I don’t ever want to walk into a place minding my own fucking business only to be looked at as a threat or a goddam domestic terrorist. I’m a human being. How can anyone expect a person to learn from their mistake and grow as a person when they keep having their face rubbed in shit?

Well , You all in IL have a road map of how to change the law, its not the old traditional way as BLM has taught us.

I’m still confused about this park restriction. Can I as a convicted child sex offender (not registered) be present in a IL park with my 4 year old daughter? I understand not approaching or communicating with other children, my question is can I legally be present if there with my daughter? I’m so tired of IL, I have 2 states to escape IL from and get my freedom back and neither sounds too appealing…Georgia and Alaska are the only 2 truly free states for me to get my life back. I was convicted in 91.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x