As other cities across the county are repealing their sex-offender ordinances following a court ruling saying they conflicted with state law, Orange will keep its sex-offender law as is. Full Article (Paywall)
City Council Hearing Video #9.2
Related posts
-
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children
Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23 NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would... -
FL: Revisions made to Hernando County Sex Offender and Sexual Predator Ordinance
Source: hernandosun.com 8/4/23 Last week, the Hernando Sun ran a story on recent changes to the...
Video worth watching…
Orange Mayor Pro Tem Whitaker: “What if we left them intact – what would the consequences be?”
See here: City of Orange Sued for Failure to Repeal Ordinance – https://all4consolaws.org/2014/06/city-of-orange-sued-for-failure-to-repeal-ordinance/
Action -> Consequence. Just like that!
Another quote: “It seems that nowadays the sex offenders have better attorneys than the children”. Not entirely sure what that means exactly but… you better believe it! Janice For the Win!
One can only hope that this lawsuit, at this point, includes damages beyond court costs and attorney’s fees.
Well, I see that there is one city that is opting for the fight and rather have a court mandated them to repeal their ordinance. I find it disturbing that it is seen as reprehensible for registrants to stand up for their rights. It is THAT kind of damning mentality that would try to keep people afraid, in the dark and living in fear that we must fight. These people are the real terrorist to our freedoms…those that promote the registry and the evil it stands for …a damnation where there is no redemption. Oddly, many of them DARE call themselves christian. Really? What is more anti-christian than a sex offender registry? It’s a false assumption that defending your rights and that of your family is in opposition to the protection of children. It was stated that there has not been a violation of the ordinance while it was in place. There’s no history of registered citizens harming children in parks so the justification doesn’t exist. TRUTH
I find it amazing that this group of intelligent (on the surface, at least) people are so ill informed that they set around talking about the subject of registrants like it’s still the 1990s. It’s sad that most people know about as much of this issue now as they did 20 years ago; next to nothing. I’ve racked my brain to come up with an answer as to why people are still acting on what has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be myth as though the myth was reality. I have some suspicions, but coming up with a concrete answer is like trying to find one individual in the entire nation that has been saved or helped by the registry; it’s impossible! If anyone can share some insight into this mass stupor this society is plagued with I would be very appreciative.
Orange Mayor Pro Tem Whitaker: “What if we left them intact – what would the consequences be?”
You mean besides losing the suit and needlessly costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars in a city already struggling financially?
Another statement by the city attorney, who apparently doesn’t do his homework.
“Parole is one year” Wrong again. Parole is for 3 or 5 years. Unless the registered citizen was violated and put in prison, then it might be only a one year supervision. If I was a citizen in Orange, I would be outraged over their stupidity.
It has always annoyed me that other prisoners, convicts, and felons say things like “the registered citizen was violated and put in prison”. The reality is that the parolee violated his or her parole conditions and was returned to prison. My parole conditions were perfectly clear. I knew what was and was not a violation. I did not violate my parole conditions. I served my three years on parole and was discharged without incident. The correct sentence would be “I was caught violating my parole and was returned to prison”. I also know that too often the correct sentence is “I was wrongfully accused of violating my parole conditions.” I think registered citizens would do themselves a great service if they used language that implied taking responsibility for their actions.
We highly recommend that you listen to the Orange City Council discuss whether or not to repeal its ordinance. The discussion took only 10 minutes and included a statement by the City Attorney that the city was “legally bound to do so”. The council noted that they had already been threatened with a lawsuit if they didn’t change the ordinance. Most shocking was the council’s disregard for an appellate court decision in the same jurisdiction which determined that similar city ordinances are preempted by state law. Perhaps the council members didn’t learn in school about the separation of powers.
SC,
I agree, it angers me when anyone would violate their conditions of parole, because it puts every registered citizen in a bad light. However, some conditions are not always made clear. Example: A parole officer telling someone they can access a computer, but will not put it in writing. If they are hell spent on violating someone, I am convinced that they can find a way. I am not a prisoner, convict or felon, just a concerned citizen and retired teacher, who has never even had a traffic violation. (So I take offense to your comment)I was just trying to get my point across as to how uneducated this city attorney and group of council members seem.
Just reading some of the comments about parole/probation conditions. My experience is that those conditions are very dynamic and open to broad interpretation by the parole/probation officer. Yes, the conditions people are subject to are in writing at the time of sentencing or release from incarceration, but there always seems to be added conditions depending on the whim of the legislature and ones parole/probation officer. We all know that the laws are ever changing and retroactive; we also know that some parole/probation officers think it’s their calling to violate a registrant or make their lives as miserable as they possibly can.
During my probation, I had four different PO’s and one of the four tried his hardest to violate me during and office visit. While my conditions were clearly written, he felt that they weren’t severe enough and wanted to violate me for seeing my adult son and his family, my grandkids. Fortunately, the supervising officer intervened and basically told him to eff-off. I calmly asked him a question based on his logic/interpretation: What if I saw a car accident with a minor child and I jumped out to help that minor driver. There was no one else around, so now I’m alone with a minor; is that a violation of my probation? He said technically, yes. My response was, then, based on your, YOUR logic, that minor is on their own because I’ll drive away, and their blood will be on your hands! I was assigned a new officer after that.
My whole point is that probation/parole officers cannot be trusted and whether its in writing or not, still do not trust them. Most do not want to help you.