What's everyone's opinion on convicted and registered sex offenders being TI's?

[wmw999 2,166]

Yes it does, and that should be among the things that a DZO should consider before making a hiring decision

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[promise5 17]

AndyBoyd

***If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.


I think people have a very unrealistic view when it comes to assault/rape and child molestation.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[grue 1]

promise5

Was discussing this with someone and I thought about asking here. But I want to be clear. I'm talking about those that have been convicted and then required to register. Also I'm not talking about an 18 year old guy that slept with his 16 year old girlfriend. I'm talking about those that have been convicted of a serious sex crime.

Case by case basis.

cavete terrae.

[Amazon 7]

promise5

******If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.


I think people have a very unrealistic view when it comes to assault/rape and child molestation.

You and I may have opinions differing from others, but voicing the opinions can have detrimental consequences for you. As others have stated once the perp has paid their debt to society there is not much legally that can be done and you do not want to be seen as harassing the individuals.
That said... We pretty much know predators tend to re-offend and I would watch em like a friggin hawk.

[tkhayes 142]

I am generally against the registered sex offender database entirely. People get convicted of crimes, they serve their sentences, and they finish their time.. Done. society does itself no good by labeling people for life. You may as well hand out life sentences....also ineffective.

the system is flawed from the ground up....best intentions but completely fucked up in any good that it might do.

[promise5 17]

Isn't funny how Facebook once notified removes someone from Facebook if they're a registered sex offender. Facebook! Of all things takes a stand on this.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[AndyBoyd 0]

tkhayes

I am generally against the registered sex offender database entirely. People get convicted of crimes, they serve their sentences, and they finish their time.. Done. society does itself no good by labeling people for life. You may as well hand out life sentences....also ineffective.

the system is flawed from the ground up....best intentions but completely fucked up in any good that it might do.

+1

[AndyBoyd 0]

turtlespeed

******If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence.

There would be no criminal offense by the DZO if this happened. The possibility the DZO would need to be aware of is called "negligent hiring". This would occur if it was clear the instructor had a history of this, and the DZO did nothing to prevent a future offense at the DZ. But this would only result in a (possibly costly) lawsuit. But, again, not a crime by the DZO.

I don't mean to be disrespectful by "talking down" to you. But there is a difference between a criminal offense, and something you can get sued over.

The DZO would have to take that into account in deciding whether to hire that person.

[promise5 17]

AndyBoyd

*********If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence.

There would be no criminal offense by the DZO if this happened. The possibility the DZO would need to be aware of is called "negligent hiring". This would occur if it was clear the instructor had a history of this, and the DZO did nothing to prevent a future offense at the DZ. But this would only result in a (possibly costly) lawsuit. But, again, not a crime by the DZO.

I don't mean to be disrespectful by "talking down" to you. But there is a difference between a criminal offense, and something you can get sued over.

The DZO would have to take that into account in deciding whether to hire that person.

He's a turtle. They're kinda short so unless you lay on your stach it's hard not to "talk down at him".

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[jclalor 12]

I can think of no other situation where a person gets physically attached to a complete stranger and then spends several minutes completely out of the view of others. I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they were harassed or assaulted.

I would think a female student should have the absolute right to know if she's being harnessed to, and then expected to be secluded with for several minutes to a serious sex offender.

[promise5 17]

jclalor

I can think of no other situation where a person gets physically attached to a complete stranger and then spends several minutes completely out of the view of others. I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they were harassed or assaulted.

I would think a female student should have the absolute right to know if she's being harnessed to, and then expected to be secluded with for several minutes to a serious sex offender.

+10

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[turtlespeed 212]

AndyBoyd

*********If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence.

There would be no criminal offense by the DZO if this happened. The possibility the DZO would need to be aware of is called "negligent hiring". This would occur if it was clear the instructor had a history of this, and the DZO did nothing to prevent a future offense at the DZ. But this would only result in a (possibly costly) lawsuit. But, again, not a crime by the DZO.

I don't mean to be disrespectful by "talking down" to you. But there is a difference between a criminal offense, and something you can get sued over.

The DZO would have to take that into account in deciding whether to hire that person.Negligence in any form can be raised to criminal with the right attorney. I have a hard time believing that the governing court would be all that forgiving in it's evaluation of what is allowed. Of course this is completely dependent on what the sex offender did.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AndyBoyd 0]

turtlespeed

************If they've served their sentence, and don't try to weasel or hide the past, then I think it should be up to the DZO. His business is the one that would be ruined if there were a problem. I realize that if there were an incident the victim would be the worst hurt, but the business owner does share some risk. And consider that having a job would give the TI some incentive to keep on the straight and narrow.

Wendy P.

+1

Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes.

So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence.

There would be no criminal offense by the DZO if this happened. The possibility the DZO would need to be aware of is called "negligent hiring". This would occur if it was clear the instructor had a history of this, and the DZO did nothing to prevent a future offense at the DZ. But this would only result in a (possibly costly) lawsuit. But, again, not a crime by the DZO.

I don't mean to be disrespectful by "talking down" to you. But there is a difference between a criminal offense, and something you can get sued over.

The DZO would have to take that into account in deciding whether to hire that person.Negligence in any form can be raised to criminal with the right attorney. I have a hard time believing that the governing court would be all that forgiving in it's evaluation of what is allowed. Of course this is completely dependent on what the sex offender did.

No, negligence in any form cannot be raised to a criminal offense with the right attorney. Only state, federal, or county appointed prosecutors can instigate criminal charges. You are not a lawyer, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are flat out wrong. Give it up.

[billvon 2,462]

> I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one
>hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they
>were harassed or assaulted.

I would think he would have a similar problem with a TI who committed ANY violent crime. (There are worse crimes than sex crimes.)

[vision 0]

Quote

Also I'm not talking about an 18 year old guy that slept with his 16 year old girlfriend. I'm talking about those that have been convicted of a serious sex crime.

There are also numerous cases of little tarts calling rape on guys they have seduced.

There are likely many, many more legitimate cases of sex offences but all is not cut and dried.

I feel sorry for the guys that have been seduced by these shallow little bitches.

Imagine being lumped into that basket.

I believe that if it is found that the girl (or guy for that matter) has lied about consensual sex and has lied to protect herself or for any number of reasons, then that person should be condemned to equivalent punishment of a sex offender.

This is more common than many will be lead to believe.

[Coreece 190]

billvon

> I would think that a DZO, who knowingly hired a sex offender, would have one
>hell of a time defending a civil lawsuit brought on by a passenger who claims they
>were harassed or assaulted.

I would think he would have a similar problem with a TI who committed ANY violent crime. (There are worse crimes than sex crimes.)

Not according to the prison justice system when it comes to pedophilia.

It seems that the public also views sexual predators as the bottom feeders of society. They tend to be more skeptical of their capacity to rehabilitate.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[promise5 17]

I was curious that's all.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Andy9o8 0]

Iago

***I was curious that's all.

OK, well you might get a better sampling if you asked in the TI Convicted Sex Offenders forum.

fixie.

[rehmwa 2]

If DZO's 'chose' to exclude convicted sex offenders from the position it would be a good choice on their part.

The next step would be to then start excluding the just plain creepy ones......

(I think it would help everybody to really appreciate the good ones out there, there are plenty of them)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

If DZO's 'chose' to exclude convicted sex offenders from the position it would be a good choice on their part.

The next step would be to then start excluding the just plain creepy ones......

(I think it would help everybody to really appreciate the good ones out there, there are plenty of them)

I generally agree with your point as a matter of prudent practicality... but you can see the "slippery slope" argument that comes from it, of course... Should DZOs do general criminal records checks on all their instructors? How about all their employees/contractors. And what prior convictions do and do not get included in the "don't hire" category. And not just the serious ones.... For example, say a TI was convicted, say, 10 years ago on a petty marijuana possession charge. Not a big deal, right?.... mmm, until the TI and his student go in, and the the tox report shows THC in the TI's system.

So where do we draw the line?

[rehmwa 2]

Andy9o8

I generally agree with your point as a matter of prudent practicality.................... but you can see the "slippery slope" argument that comes from it, of course...

So where do we draw the line?

You've seen my politics over the years.

(It's more nuanced, but the oversimplified version - you know the one used to hack and strawman - pretty much as follows: )

"We" don't draw the line.
The DZO's should draw their lines, be open to the public about it, buyer beware also, and all live with the consequences of their decisions.



that said:

I don't see a place for sex offenders in very high contact career options. But I also am also conflicted in that we have a social arrangement to put someone back in society after they "serve their time". I think the conflict is that (IMO) the punishments and monitoring are not in line with the nature of the crime or psychology of this type of predator. As it is for many crimes.


All I know is that even without convictions, I've seen some really piss poor actions in this 'arena' (typically at boogies) regardless of any past convictions or not and I think it's horrible customer service and terrible in a base way. Skydiving does have a maturity problem.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 212]

AndyBoyd

You are flat out wrong.

That's not how it reads to me.

If the right attorney can prove the text below, you have yourself a problem.

All he has to do is make it to the courts and the probability is that a DZO will have a very expensive legal battle, not necessarily a conviction, but a much smaller bank account.

Quote

The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

LoL I almost feel sorry for you.

[AndyBoyd 0]

I'm not going to bother. It's not worth my time.

[turtlespeed 212]

AndyBoyd

I'm not going to bother. It's not worth my time.

Instead of belittling, have a conversation, without condescension, and explain why.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun