PDA

View Full Version : School Boards Debate Sex Offender Access


dannyboy
03 Oct 2007, 07:23 AM
link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_SCHOOLS?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=AMERICAS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

By JAMES MacPHERSON
Associated Press Writer


STEELE, N.D. (AP) -- School boards across the country are debating how to deal with parents like Cody Mittleider. The 28-year-old married father of three young children spent a year in prison for a 2005 rape conviction, but has since worked to become a respected member of the community.

He quit drinking, attends counseling, got a job at a potato farm and joined the volunteer fire department in this central North Dakota town of about 760 residents.

But as a convicted sex offender, Mittleider, is not allowed to attend his children's school programs or athletic events, pending a Steele School Board decision.

"It would punish my family more than it would punish me," he said. "I want to be a father - not a criminal. If I can't go to the school, I can't be the father I want to be."

A new state law, which took effect Aug. 1, allows sex offenders to be on school property if they are there to vote or attend a public meeting. It does not give them permission to attend extracurricular school activities. That decision rests with school boards.

School boards in most states now have policies dealing with sex-offender parents in schools, though they vary by state and district, said Cullen Casey, an attorney for the Alexandria-Va.-based National School Boards Association.

Some districts, especially larger ones, often do not have the resources or time to deal with decisions about parents who are registered sex offenders, so they are banned altogether, Casey said.

In Fargo, North Dakota's largest city, the district adopted a no-tolerance approach before the state law was enacted that regulates sex offenders on school property.

"Right now, they are simply not allowed in," Superintendent Rick Buresh said. "It's not a matter of punishment - it's an issue of protection. I am somewhat sympathetic if somebody's rights get pinched a little, but safety comes first."

The Mandan (N.D.) School District, adopted a no-tolerance approach last month that bans convicted sex offenders from schools even if they are parents.

"Right now, the safest thing to do is err on the side of kids and just say no," said Wilfred Volesky, the district's superintendent.

"If we need to take the policy and soften it, we can," he said.

Volesky said the new policy already has allowed the district to ban a convicted sex offender from attending high school football games. That person was not a parent of a student at the district, but parents of two of the district's 3,262 students are registered sex offenders, Volesky said.

Other districts are considering allowing school officials to make the call on a case-by-case basis.

Shannon Priem, a spokeswoman for the Oregon School Boards Association, said state law there requires background checks on volunteers who accompany students on field trips and other activities. There is nothing in the law to address sex-offending parents who want to attend activities at schools.

Her group, which represents 197 school districts, "strongly favors school boards making local decisions," she said. "A school board has to be responsible to its particular culture and community."

School principals in Georgia's 180 districts typically decide whether a sex-offending parent is allowed on school property, said Laura Reilly, a spokeswoman for the Georgia School Boards Association.

Steele Superintendent Ken Miller said the school board tabled a motion this month to adopt a policy dealing with sex offenders whose children attend school in the district. At present, Mittleider is the only one, Miller said

Later this month, the North Dakota School Board Association is slated to discuss the issue of sex offenders in schools, and how districts are dealing with it. Miller said the Steele School Board likely will craft its policy after that meeting.

Kathy Benson, president of the Steele board and a mother of four, said keeping the schools safe is a priority for parents. She said the sex offender policy has not been a major issue in the community, but board members will give it their full attention.

"We want to be cautious and we want to be very careful and take a good look at it," Benson said.

dannyboy
03 Oct 2007, 07:26 AM
I am somewhat sympathetic if somebody's rights get pinched a little, but safety comes first."

The story of the new millenium.

Duemellon
03 Oct 2007, 07:43 AM
I am somewhat sympathetic if somebody's rights get pinched a little, but safety comes first."The story of the new millenium.It's the same for sex offenders, Gitmo prisoners, airplane travellers, phone conversators, etc. Losing individual freedom to protect people from themselves. Now the individual can lose the idea of "individual responsibility" & leave their risks, poor planning/trainning, & other things up to the law community to straighten out after-the-fact.

doves
03 Oct 2007, 01:19 PM
...Losing individual freedom to protect people from themselves.. .
They are not trying to protect Cody from himself; they are trying to protect others from him.

Whether it is warranted or if it can be decided on a case by case basis seems to be the issue here. Especially since he seems to have done everything he can to become a contributing community member again...

Duemellon
03 Oct 2007, 02:03 PM
They are not trying to protect Cody from himself; they are trying to protect others from him.A symptom of laxness is growing. Originally it was thought the turning point was when the lady spilled the million-dollar coffee in her lap but it seems there was no return to sensibility & balance. Instead we continue hurtling down the halls of depending on the government for our problems, erosion of responsibility for one's self, & external blame.Was he a sex offender?
Yes he was but apparently he "recovered" from it.

Is he a threat to anyone?
He would seem to be less of a threat than the ones you don't know about, whether or not you ever knew he was a sex offender & banned him from anything.

What if you/me/they get it wrong &, in fact, he does go off & do something heinous?
Was preventing him from attending most school functions really the thing that would prevent a determined person from doing such things?Part of this personal responsibility lies with the individual with the kids. They have to own-up, take a role, talk sex, power, abuse, & give them ways to have confidence & make decisions. Television, media, & peers, all work against this. Those are major influencers in society.

How can anyone ask parents to raise kids in a way contrary to social pressures if you're supporting it?

But...
My statement was less about the danger of him committing a sex crime & more about the degree to which people want to just let their kids run around alone in a padded room filled with saftey toys just to come back in 8 hours of inattentiveness & think they're doing what's right. It's about people who vote for officials & let them off the hook while they're in office. It's about people who will sit & eat the mainline news outlets feed them artificially sweetened bullshit & not investigate or think for themselves.

People are just not participating in life. They want everything to be in a prepackaged & certified sterilized, yet safe for consumption, bubble so they can devour without thinking, trust without question, & live without genuine challenges.

markalot
03 Oct 2007, 02:22 PM
Golly, if only he didn't get drunk and rape someone in the first place.

STEELE, N.D. (AP) -- School boards across the country are debating how to deal with parents like Cody Mittleider. The 28-year-old married father of three young children spent a year in prison for a 2005 rape conviction, but has since worked to become a respected member of the community.

2005 rape conviction, 3 young kids, looks like he raped after having children. Sorry, not interested.

doves
03 Oct 2007, 02:33 PM
No explanation is needed as to why wanting the government to take care of what the community used to is needed, cause the gov't just seems to eff everything up. :cool:

Due, not sure what you mean about the 'individual of the kids,' but as children, developing humans, they do require the protection of responsible adults. Their physical strength, reasoning skills, and grasp of complex concepts is still in development. They can't and shouldn't have to own up; they are children.

After that I don't know any parents personally who expect they should be able to be "inattentive" to their kids. They want their kids to have an education and be safe while getting it. That doesn't make them bad, it makes them parents.

I don't agree with you that 'people' aren't participating in life; to the contrary, I think they are overwhelmed with everything and need all the help they can get. Not from the government; from each other.

berzerker
03 Oct 2007, 02:52 PM
I suppose that the problem I have is with the vagueness of the "sex offender" label. Granted - rape is a heinous crime, and should be punished...

But did this guy rape a child? Or an adult? If he molested a child, then he should by default be prohibited from going to the school, unless there are circumstances that weigh in his favor, which would warrant a reconsideration of that decision. And I'm glad I have no jurisdiction in that decision. Child molesters statistically have a high recidivism rate, and often just being around children, no matter the circumstances, can bring on a relapse.

If it was a rape of an adult, then I guess a different set of circumstances is involved... of course, there are always adults at school functions, but that's true of everywhere...

BigSugar
03 Oct 2007, 03:03 PM
Hedley Lamar: "NEXT!! State your qualifications."
Cowboy: "Let's see.....Murder...rape....arson...rape......"
Hedley: "Wait, you said rape twice!"
Cowboy: "I like rape....."
Hedley: "Kinky....here's your badge. NEXT!"

Dirk
03 Oct 2007, 03:05 PM
Golly, if only he didn't get drunk and rape someone in the first place.

STEELE, N.D. (AP) -- School boards across the country are debating how to deal with parents like Cody Mittleider. The 28-year-old married father of three young children spent a year in prison for a 2005 rape conviction, but has since worked to become a respected member of the community.

2005 rape conviction, 3 young kids, looks like he raped after having children. Sorry, not interested.
Except no where does it say he raped a child, so what exactly does keeping him from attending his children's schools functions have to do with keeping people safe? Once again it is an arbitrary punishment that only hurts people and helps no one. It's perfectly okay for a murderer to attend their children's functions (someone who commits manslaughter, or domestic abuse), but a rapist cannot come anywhere near children? It simply makes no sense.

berzerker
03 Oct 2007, 03:34 PM
Except no where does it say he raped a child, so what exactly does keeping him from attending his children's schools functions have to do with keeping people safe? Once again it is an arbitrary punishment that only hurts people and helps no one. It's perfectly okay for a murderer to attend their children's functions (someone who commits manslaughter, or domestic abuse), but a rapist cannot come anywhere near children? It simply makes no sense.

I agree...

doves
03 Oct 2007, 03:37 PM
Except no where does it say he raped a child....

I was wondering about that too. Like the sentence, "Boy intentionally sets fire that kills 3 people," doesn't say whether he set it TO kill the people or was just playing with fire and the deaths were a byproduct.

classicgrrl
03 Oct 2007, 04:18 PM
Seems like the real need is to change the definition of sex offender. everyone assumes sex offenders are such because of a child, which OFTEN isn't the case.

markalot
03 Oct 2007, 04:30 PM
Perhaps different levels of sex offenders should be identified. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between the types or not. Is someone who is prone to rape also prone to any violent controlling act, children or not?

Duemellon
03 Oct 2007, 04:49 PM
Due, not sure what you mean about the 'individual of the kids,'Indiv with the kids. Typo corrected.After that I don't know any parents personally who expect they should be able to be "inattentive" to their kids.
...
I don't agree with you that 'people' aren't participating in life; to the contrary, I think they are overwhelmed with everything and need all the help they can get. Not from the government; from each other.
[/quote]That's the thing. Being "inattentive" & being "a parent" are almost synonymous now-a-days. No one thinks they're being inattentive when they drop their kids off at extra-cirrucular events to do things, putting them in some after-school day care, or sitting them in front of a TV to watch a show they know about. In fact, those things are considered "good parenting" in our rushed world.

Unlike the days before, however, when communication & transportation were so limited that going on (what is now) a 40min trip to the mall was an "all day thing". Or kids were in by dark because there were no cell phones to summon parents like genies from a flip-top lamp. Now they want their child to be doing something "good" while they are busy doing other things. When the parents chose this "good thing" & release their child into that situation, they are no longer there. Even if it was to play in a sport, their child is doing that thing rather than spending time with the fam.

Does this mean sports, after-school things, & such are "bad"? Puhleese no! It does mean they're overused. Even though they're good, the parent, by the events' structure, is no longer a participant in that child's life during that time.

doves
03 Oct 2007, 05:13 PM
Perhaps different levels of sex offenders should be identified. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between the types or not. Is someone who is prone to rape also prone to any violent controlling act, children or not?

There is a correlation between animal cruelty and domestic abuse.
General cruelty, or controlling family members with threats against/violence to the pets...Children also included.

check out the circle graph here (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_1.html)

Although not all batterers are rapists . And batterers can go to kid's baseball games.

Duemellon
03 Oct 2007, 05:20 PM
Perhaps different levels of sex offenders should be identified. I'm not sure if there is a correlation between the types or not. Is someone who is prone to rape also prone to any violent controlling act, children or not?Generally speaking, if you have someone with "control" issues they'll leverage what they can to have this control.

If untreated those manifestations can turn out to be pretty heinous. It doesn't matter if they have a previous history of any crime or not. You see the same issues in school shooters, serial killers, & massacres. Same as compulsive muggers, kleptos, & liars. If a control issue goes unchecked, it can manifest itself in many terrible ways.

Now, after a control issue is addressed, regardless of the actions they've done in the past, that control issue will not manifest itself in such horrid ways (as long as the control issue is being addressed & not repressed, supressed, or redirected).

BigSugar
04 Oct 2007, 11:34 AM
actually, the word "rape" does tend to define the type of sex offense/offender in and of itself. it denotes penetration of the vagina or anus with the penis of the rapist, and can also help define the age of the victim if it is defined as "statutory rape" (ie: consent cannot be given due to age of victim). sexual misconduct, sodomy, sexual abuse, etc.... all define other types of sexual conduct that don't involve penetration of the vagina or anus with the penis (ie: digital penetration, oral sex, etc..).

what amazes me is that he's said to have committed "rape" in 2005, but he's out of jail and doing his thing in 2007? leads me to believe that maybe the paper got the terms wrong, or maybe he was charged with rape and pled to something lower and got minimal or no jail time. convicted rapists don't tend to walk free that quickly.

classicgrrl
04 Oct 2007, 11:38 AM
There is a correlation between animal cruelty and domestic abuse.
General cruelty, or controlling family members with threats against/violence to the pets...Children also included.

check out the circle graph here (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/ascione_1.html)

Although not all batterers are rapists . And batterers can go to kid's baseball games.

Don't know about sexual crimes but the "big three" as our criminal justice chair defined it is fire-pets-and I just NOW forgot the third. :o