David Hoyle's God Complex
Sometimes you just have to shake your head and cry, as I did this morning after reading comments coming from David Hoyle on a story in the N&O about sex-offenders.
Nichols, 31, had served six years in prison for indecent liberties with a teenage girl and attempted second-degree rape. He was released last September and started attending Moncure Baptist Church. He met with the pastor, disclosed his crimes and often sat in the front row for worship.
But after the Chatham Sheriff's Office investigated an alleged sexual assault by another person in the church parking lot in March, Nichols was arrested because he was attending the church, which has a child-care facility on its premises.
And what does the family-values man who sponsored the law have to say about all this?
"As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all their rights -- to go to church, to go to McDonald's to get a cheeseburger if they've got the slides," said state Sen. David Hoyle, the Gastonia Democrat who sponsored the law. "They have made that choice. They have imposed that on themselves. I didn't."
It's hard to say whether Hoyle is an idiot or an asshole or both, but I'm leaning toward the latter. He also seems to be dangerously confused about who writes and passes laws here in North Carolina.
I hope the ACLU gets involved in challenging this law, and perhaps even Bob Orr might want to consider doing something important for a change. If this isn't a fundamental constitutional issue, I don't know what is.
Tagged:
BlueNC is dedicated to making North Carolina a more progressive and prosperous state. If your intention is to disrupt this effort, please find somewhere else to express your opinions.
Like?
Comments
So a registered sex offender who goes to church is now "safe"?
I do not agree with you James. You need to look at the facts about registered sex offenders especially those with a history of crimes against children. The girl was a child.
If you find something that states that a registered sex offender is OK to trust once they attend church, I will be glad to reconsider my opinion.
He knows that he can not be around children....why would Nichols risk it? Especially less than one year after being released from prison. What level of sex offender is he listed as?
Did the preacher inform the congregation of this man's history so that they could be aware?
You could talk to Jessica Lunsford's Dad.
Again, show me some facts and I will be glad to look at them.
Show me your papers!
How many registered sex offenders are attending churches anonymously? Do we have to "show our papers" at the door to "prove" that we have a right to go to church?
Which is the greater threat to children, this Nichols guy who openly confessed his status to the pastor of the church, or the hundreds or thousands of pedophiles who attend churches every Sunday but have never been caught?
______________________________________________________________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. -- sign on Einstein's office wall.
And if it is a Catholic Church....pedophile might be the priest
He lost his right to go anywhere that children are or may be present. The ACLU should focus on the rights of the children in this case, not a racidivist sex offender.
Show yourself some facts
This blogging thingie uses links.
Typically on BlueNC, a link will show up as highlighted light blue (depending on your computers settings).
James has kindly linked to the relevant article (which contains comments and links itself).
This is the glory of blogging.
If you're having trouble viewing links on BlueNC, let us know.
Here's the cut and paste link
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1651551.html
We might as well...
...sentence all sex offenders to life in prison without parole.
I agree with James' point, that there must be some way to consider a debt paid to society for a crime. Otherwise, we could continue to find more and more types of perpetrators who are not worthy of redemption or rehabilitation. We would free them from prison, but with such restrictions on where they could go and with whom they could associate as to make any chance for a return to some kind of normal life impossible.
"Show us your papers" was a common phrase in Nazi Germany. I don't think any of us wants to be in a place where we have to prove to authorities that we have a right to be there. I realize that the "slippery slope" argument itself is sometimes dangerous, and used to justify all kinds of bad policy. But there really is the possibility of a slippery slope. Have you been guilty of three or more speeding violations? Then you are forbidden from driving through school zones -- you might hurt some kid.
______________________________________________________________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. -- sign on Einstein's office wall.
Someone with speeding tickets = recidivist sex offender?
GREAT! What a comparison. Let's just give all convicted felons a gun!
You've made a valid point
though I'm not sure it's the one you meant to make. Maybe it should be up to the church.
The problem with such laws...
...is that they can make it esentially impossible for the offenders to ever live anything approximating a rehabilitated life.
No one's saying that a congregation (or any other private organization) HAS to let someone like Nichols attend. But, if the congregation WANTS to do so and wants, as many congregations have, to set up guidelines that govern and monitor such a person's comings and goings and activities so that it can minister to the person in question, they certainly ought to be free to do so.
No one's saying that many offenders don't have mental health problems that require monitoring, etc.... Obviously, these are tough and complicated issues. The practical reality, however, is that if we make it essentially impossible for these people to live in society after they've paid their debt, we're simply adding stresses that will make recidivism more likely.
In this case, James' take on the law is correct: it is both unconstituional and dumb.
This sex offender is a habitual criminal and did not comply
Before I posted earlier this morning I read the "blogging thingie" and I researched this offender. The N&O failed to report that this man is a habitual criminal....his sexual acts against children began in 1999. He learned nothing with that arrest, and he was arrested again in 2001, then 2003. In my opinion he is a PREDATOR. When you read that a sex offender has actually served prison time, it should raise a red flag.
He was not arrested for practicing religion, he was arrested because he did not comply with the demands of the court. There are places he could practice his religion (and he has every right to do so) where he could worship and not be around children. It would seem that he would comply and with passing time and appropriate behavior, he should no longer be listed and could return to a normal life.
I think James' take on this law is wrong and Mr. Nichols is the type of sex offender (predator/recidivist) that this law is meant for....he does not need to be around children, period.
Baptize the little devil?
There are places he could practice his religion (and he has every right to do so) where he could worship and not be around children.* Republican Chaos
You might be right! He could worship in Rome with the Pope and be at the marketplace of weird religious rites with Altar boys! Would you be happy if a Religious order Baptize him with the standard Republican Waterboard rites?
Mad town Hall makes the sex offender the victim!
The ACLU should represent the children in this case, not the racidivist sex offender. You are forgetting who the victims (MULTIPLE CHILDREN!) are in this case.
Sexual Politics! A GOP curse?
Mad town Hall makes the sex offender the victim!* Total Chaos.....
Sure! Why not? Most Town Hall Republican lynch mobs don't care about constitutional rights nor the constitution of the United States.....So do want Micheal Vick to give 100% of his Eagle income to the " Save The Whales" instead of "Save The Eagles"
" The degree of civilization can be judged by observing it's prisoners" * Dostoyevsky, after doing a little time in a Russia Imperial prison
DEMOCRAT CHAOS says he could start his own church
Or you can let him come to your church!
A very complicated issue in American society
Comparing Michael Vick's offenses to Nichols' crimes is apples and oranges. However, both men have committed crimes and both have paid their "debt" to society. I was in favor of allowing Vick to go back into professional football because that is where he had the best chance of getting his life together and because I truly believe he's learned his lesson. Nichols' crime is in another category altogether. He committed a sexual crime against a youth. Few people are unaware that most (not all, of course) people that do this are found to have a propensity to do it again regardless of time spent incarcerated. Many of these people admit they are unable to control their urges. Those that defend them would not do so if one of these people moved next door to them if they had a 13 year old and a 16 year old daughter. They'd be scared to death. They may not make a "fuss", but you can bet they'd change their lives in a major way if that happened until the girls moved away from home.
What to do with sex offenders of our youth is now and has been a very heated debate in this country for a very long time. Making some point that Mr. Nichols was at church isn't the issue. If there were young girls there, it would be an issue for the parents of nearly anyone involved in that situation regardless whether or not Nichols repented and admitted his misdeeds. Few people want to continue to punish most offenders of our laws (save a very few offenses...this being one). It isn't about hate or republican v. democrat or liberal v. conservative. It's a far more complicated issue than that.