Action Alert: Click “Yes” to Syracuse, N.Y. poll asking if registrants should be hired to work in the Dept. of Public Works
[ACSOL note: Please take the one-click poll. Let’s show them a lot of people (us) believe registrants deserve a second chance. Currently 88% clicked NO]
I have taken this one question poll and it took less than 60 seconds. Please join me in expressing our opinion on this important topic.
Thank you, Janice. I just took the poll. We’ve gotten it to 65% No and 35% Yes. Let’s keep voting folks!
Also, in the comments section, you can “thumb up” or “thumb down” the comments without being logged in.
The problem I see on the poll is how the question was worded/presented. ‘High Risk’ will undoubtedly will sway many to vote no unfortunately.
I just voted, still at 35% Yes, 421.4 out of 1204.
Notice how this guy’s job with the city had absolutely nothing to do with the offenses he is accused of. I’d like to see the mayor explain how the current offenses would not have happened had he been employed somewhere else.
Also notice that no registry violations were charged, indicating he was completely registry compliant. If what was reported is true, the registry was specifically enacted to prevent this sort of thing, and once again failed miserably. For that matter, can anyone cite one single example where the registry succeeded in its purported purpose?
Many will bemoan this guy and his conduct. It may be better to use these instances of recidivating registrants – the very purpose of the registry, supposedly – and highlight how the registry did absolutely nothing to prevent them.
What’s he going to do, groom a pothole? WTF kind of jobs are PFRs supposed to get, if they can’t sweep streets or clean storm drains? He did re-offend, which sucks but it happens (we all know non-PFR felons offend more than PFRs, but PFRs are gonna re-offend sometimes, that’s just life), and he did it on some stupid internet app, not through work. He didn’t leverage the immense power that comes with “public works employee” into a dangerous sexual dynamic with a vulnerable minor.
If I am reading this right he was already arrested once for a sex crime(s), and then was hired, and then committed more sex crimes, so this would not be a second chance at redemption, but a third.
The man is showing a pattern.
I believe in second chances of course, but in a case like this I would not want HIM to be hired again to a position like this again, because this kind of repetitive criminal activity is what makes us all look bad and exactly what some people and some lawmakers are looking for to push further for harsher laws against us.
People Love To Blame
Written by Quiet too long — 07/05/2026
There was a person who was given a legitimate chance at employment, and the responsibility for what happened rests entirely on them. Their alleged conduct involved meeting an under‑age child in a parking lot after digital communication on a digital platform that the child accessed without supervision, causing parental contributing to the delinquency of a minor as a part‑suspect; this environment creates opportunities for soon‑to‑be predators, predators, sting operations, vigilantes, and for minors who actively seek out adult or child interactions. While investigators find messages or place ages within messages indicating contact, it remains unknown whether this person portrayed themselves as an adult or whether the child initiated contact or other entities pursued the communication until confirmed. Regardless, the legal burden lies solely on the adult receiving and following through with the plan, whatever it may be. However, his/her actions do not reflect on the roughly 972,000 individuals compelled to civil servitude along with the millions of free public citizens who had no connection to him/her. If these cases were not job‑related or reported as such, not a collective failure, and not evidence against others, it is the isolated wrongdoing of one person who was given a chance and chose to violate it. If anyone insists on looking beyond the suspect, the only humans with any real proximity to this situation were the people closest to the suspect — family, employees, and if applicable parole or probation officers — and also the people closest to the child, the ones closest to the child who gave the child the device and did not supervise said child or the child’s digital activity, contributing to the delinquency of a minor as an addition, and that environment that made communication possible. Everyone else — including the 972,000 compelled civil servants and millions of innocent people who never met either of them — had no connection, no access, and no responsibility whatsoever. The crime was the suspect’s alone, and while the child’s digital access without supervision creates opportunities both for wrongdoers and for unsupervised children who seek out adult interaction or are deceived, the only circles that could have realistically noticed anything were the ones directly around the suspect and the ones directly around the child — and if the suspect used a company phone, or someone used their phone, then that circle tightens even further, because only the workplace contacts had any chance of seeing misuse, not the public or the compelled civil servants. And above all, every person involved remains innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; this is American law and a constitutional right, and if someone cannot articulate or accept that principle, then perhaps they are the ones who do not belong in the discussion.
Disclaimer: This piece is a general opinion essay and does not reference, accuse, or identify any real individuals. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is coincidental. Nothing in this writing should be interpreted as legal advice, factual reporting, or a claim of wrongdoing by any specific party.
I think if you put the same article in poll on the Florida action committee site we can overtake the YES answers