Because it has a day care center:
RALEIGH, N.C. — Convicted sex offender James Nichols said he was trying to better himself by going to church. But the police who arrested him explained: The church is off-limits because it has a daycare center.
Now Nichols is challenging North Carolina’s sex-offender laws in a case that pits the constitutional right to religious freedom against the state’s goal of protecting the public from child molesters.
“I just started asking the question, ‘Why? Why am I being treated this way after trying to better myself?’” said Nichols, a 31-year-old who was twice convicted of indecent liberties with a teen girl and again in 2003 for attempted second-degree rape. “The law gives you no room to better yourself.”
At issue in Nichols’ case and a similar one in Georgia are day care centers and youth programs at houses of worship where sex offenders can come into proximity with children. Sex offender advocates agree some convicts should not be allowed around children, but they contend barring all offenders denies them support needed to become productive citizens.
“Criminalizing the practice of religion for everyone on the registry will do more harm than good,” said Sara Totonchi, policy director for the Southern Center for Human Rights. “With these laws, states are driving people on the registry from their faith community and depriving them of the rehabilitative influence of the church.”
Thirty-six states establish zones where sex offenders cannot live or visit. Some states provide exemptions for churches but many do not.
In December, North Carolina state legislators barred sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of any place intended primarily for the use, care or supervision of minors.
Three months later, Nichols was arrested at his home after attending Sunday services. He said he was “floored” to learn that he had been picked up because Moncure Baptist Church has a child-care center for families attending services.
This is just insanity.
Either these people have fulfilled the terms of their punishment, or they haven’t, and if it’s the second then they don’t belong out in public to begin with. Once they’re freed, though, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair to paint them with a scarlet letter to such an extent that it’s impossible for them to even try to live a normal life.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
You’re damned right. The definition of “sex offender” is so nebulous it’s ridiculous. In most states, it’s not about child molesters, but about a whole range of crimes, some of them decades in the past. I know at least one guy who was convicted once for ATTEMTPED sexual assault, which he changed his mind on and ran away from, and confessed as soon as he was caught, and it’s almost 30 YEARS later and he’s still a “registered sex offender” from when he was 18.
Not long ago there was a petition to try to ban registered sex offenders from using Facebook. What kind of insanity is this? Violent repeat offenders, those who go after CHILDREN (real children, not “nearly legal but not quite), sure, lifetime monitoring may be necessary, but we need SANITY on this too.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Especially nutty is the wide range of offenses that fall under “sex offender”, most of which have nothing to do with children (certainly not of the day-care age). And the fun part? Often times just the accusation, sans any hard evidence, is enough to get some poor slob on the list. Now this kind of crap? It’s ridiculous.
(No, I am not personally affected by this in any way.)
October 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
It’s a tool of the statist. Whenever you see something “for the children”, beware.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
He gave up some of his rights when he committed multiple crimes against children. You folks are clueless. If you read the other articles on this case, you will see he has had contact with 16 yr old girls, and may even have been text messaging with one of them. He can just go find another church. This is not ‘insanity,’ this is common sense. You must error on the side of protecting children!!!!