Registered Sex Offender Challenging State Laws

A registered sex offender is challenging a state law, pitting the right to worship against laws that restrict where convicted sex offenders can go.

Police arrested James Nichols of Fayetteville in March after he went to a Sunday service at a church that offers day care. Nichols has lived in Eastern Carolina, in the past, including in Washington and Hertford. Many of the three dozen states that establish zones where sex offenders can't live or visit do not provide exemptions for churches. Advocates agree some convicted sex offenders should never be allowed around children, but they say barring all offender denies them support needed to become productive citizens.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Christian Location: Pennsylvania on Oct 15, 2009 at 06:16 AM
    In a 5-year California Dept. of Corrections study, from 2002 to 2007; the rate of recidivism for 4,204 released sex offenders was 3.2%. Similar studies were carried out by the Federal Government and other agencies. All of these studies came in at about the same rate. So, all of the fear against being around released sex offenders is nothing more than a big bluff. Who profits from this fear? Corrupt politicians, makers of GPS devices...it keeps the cops, lawyers, prosecutors and judges working. For us taxpayers, it's a giant expense in the billions of dollars.
  • by ieee on Oct 12, 2009 at 04:13 PM
    The governments which have passed these "sex offender" laws are criminal regimes. It is not acceptable in the United States to pass laws which retroactively punish and harass people who were legally sentenced years and even decades ago. That might be okay in China, North Korea, Iran, or similar places, but not in the U.S. If these criminal governments and the uninformed idiots who support them want to have their registries or whatever, then fine, have them as long as the people who are listed on them are not punished or harassed in any manner and if they do not need to be involved in any manner. Then the laws would almost be acceptable. People listed on these registries should not have to take extraordinary measures (or any measures) at any time simply to keep from being arrested. Because that is the ONLY real purpose of these laws. Only a true fool still believes the lies that they are about "public safety" or "protecting children".
  • by Anonymous on Oct 9, 2009 at 07:13 AM
    I know a registered "sex offender" who was dating a girl that told him she was 18. As it turns out, she had told her dad he was 16, when it came out that he was 20 to her dad he pressed charges. He's a sex offender because he was lied to. Not everyone on that registry is a perverted child molester or a rapist. I have no love in me for anyone that would harm a child or rape anyone and personally think castration/sterilization still wouldn't be a strong enough punishment. But you must remember that broad groupings of peple no matter the situation very rarely have any basis in fact about the entire group.
  • by b Location: eastern nc on Oct 9, 2009 at 05:35 AM
    I think you meant "message of brotherly love". "Massage of brotherly love" would make that post very ironic
  • by Anonymous on Oct 8, 2009 at 06:08 PM
    Old Dog is a life-long-learner and always eager to learn new tricks, but that is not the case here. You asked me the following question: “Now just how do you think them [sic] kids would fill [sic].” I honestly can’t tell you how, “Them [sic] kids would fill [sic]. “ What I can tell you is any child sitting in any church who has been there any length of time should have heard the massage of brotherly love and forgiveness. And, PUREBREAD, even though we disagree, you are my brother and I love you.
  • by Jeff Location: Winterville on Oct 8, 2009 at 05:40 PM
    If your sex crime involves a minor, the state is right to protect the minors from someone with a history of being a predator. If you had to registered because you took a leak on the side of the road and you got charged with indecent exposure, that is also a sex crime in the eyes of the law. But it doesn't mean kids are in danger. We really need to get the full story. But there are many places of worship that don't offer on-site daycare. if your sex crime involved you taking advantage of someone younger, you must face the music and give up the rights to worship in a place that may potentially put a child in danger.
  • by ieee on Oct 8, 2009 at 04:20 PM
    The governments which have passed these "sex offender" laws are criminal regimes. It is not acceptable in the United States to pass laws which retroactively punish and harass people who were legally sentenced years and even decades ago. That might be okay in China, North Korea, Iran, or similar places, but not in the U.S. If these criminal governments and the uninformed idiots who support them want to have their registries or whatever, then fine, have them as long as the people who are listed on them are not punished or harassed in any manner and if they do not need to be involved in any manner. Then the laws would almost be acceptable. People listed on these registries should not have to take extraordinary measures (or any measures) at any time simply to keep from being arrested. Because that is the ONLY real purpose of these laws. Only a true fool still believes the lies that they are about "public safety" or "protecting children".
  • by Cactus Location: Strabane on Oct 8, 2009 at 03:17 PM
    How many of you "forgiving types" have extended an invitation to any "sex offender? Does your church send out invitations? By the way "demand justice" don't pity us "fools". "demand justice", you talk of thieves being the lowest etc., how about a person that sexually assaults a child or and adult, did not that person steal the innocence of the child and invade the person of an an adult, that to me is thief.
  • by demand justice on Oct 8, 2009 at 01:41 PM
    i think a thief is the lowest form of garbage on earth. Someone who had a consensual relationship whos daddy got mad and pressed charges is no threat to kids..but thiefs are the lowest of the low. Thats what we are doing here right? Trying to humiliate a segment of a population without know the details...i pity you fools for just agreeing with the politicians..do you think they care about kids? or do they have some politically motivated agenda behind these absurd laws?
  • by phil on Oct 8, 2009 at 01:15 PM
    You go PUREBREAD. No one could of said it better. They are nasty, low lifes.
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 63740957 - witn.com/a?a=63740957
Gray Television, Inc.