Sex Offender law faces 'religious freedom' challenge
Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on a Georgia law recently passed prohibiting registered sex offenders from volunteering in a place of worship. Rankin points out an argument made by one lawyer that such a law “criminalizes religious conduct” in a way preventing sex offenders from participating in a number of experiences as part of the exercise of their religion. If found in violation of this law, an offender may face up to 10, but no more than 30 years in prison. Rankin points out that the law does not define volunteer positions, and thus, offenders are living in fear of religious participation as it may qualify as ‘volunteer’ work. District Judge, Clarence Cooper, has deferred ruling on this particular provision as he is deciding whether to certify the case as a class action including other offenders dealing with provisions limiting their location of housing.
Georgia is the only state with such a law in place and I am interested to see how such a challenge will be framed. An argument made by the state Attorney General’s Office to uphold the law is based on the presumption that people volunteering at churches are “presumed to be OK, but they might not be OK.” While I might be able to jump on board with the idea that sex offenders might not be ‘OK’, I feel as though this is a flawed argument from a legal perspective. An argument would need to be made to show that there is a compelling state interest in upholding this law in order to override, what I would call, the excessive infringement being placed on the offenders’ free exercise right. I feel as though if an offender has served their time and registered accordingly there should be no reason to place such a restriction on their religious involvement. The state could possibly argue that because the law does not actually restrict offenders from attending church or religious services, that it is not in violation of the free exercise clause, but it could be refuted that it is restricting full participation in the religious experience. The article claims that “practicing religion goes beyond attending services” as it sights examples of people whose religious participation has been affected by this law. While not directly addressed in the article, I think the issue raises a serious free exercise question as to how freely some should be allowed to exercise their religion. Is there enough of a compelling state interest to uphold such restrictions? Why only sex-offenders, why not all felons? I think if the state is going to pass judgment on the basis of who is OK and who is not, it may run into a very dangerous slippery slope in violation of the free exercise clause.
Bill Rankin. Sex offender law faces ‘religious freedom’ challenge. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November 13, 2008.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/13/sex_offender_law.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I'll have to agree with Megan's opinion. This law is clearly in violation of the sex offenders' free exercise. While I have no sympathy for the sex offenders, I don't believe any criminal who is reaching out to religion should be barred from doing so. Volunteering is a big part of being in a church family. Everyone helps out and the work promotes goodness in the community.
I agree that a sex offender should be barred from volunteering as a Sunday school teacher, for example, because it involves contact with children. But anI see no compelling interest for the state to bar sex offenders from volunteering to mow the church law, organizing church bake sales or serving as a greeter.
Once, again, the state is attempting to interfere with the lives of private citizens. A church should be treated as a private entity and nothing more. Sure, it has nonprofit status, but that's a whole other issue. I would not want my children having a sex offender as a Sunday school teacher, nor as a Bible School volunteer, but I have the opportunity to leave that specific church. Chances are most churches would not want sex offenders being alone with children, so it is really not that big of an issue. Treat the churches as private businesses and the state can get out of it - like they should.
My problem with the law is that its current state does not serve its ends well because if fails to identify, as Rankin points out, the exact definition of the word "volunteer." The law needs to be reformatted to include either a list of prohibited activities for sex offenders to volunteer for or a list of acceptable activities. I feel like the second option would by far be better since the list of prohibited actions would undoubtedly have holes in it where as the second option would more likely air on the side of caution. I see no problem with the state taking action to protect children from sex offenders so any volunteer situation that would put them together should be prohibited. I disagree that the state would be infringing upon private citizens because we must draw a line somewhere and leaving that up to individual churches is quite dangerous. The government exists to draw that line in certain cases and this is one of those cases.
I think that the main problem with this law is where it is drawing the line. America needs to understand that politics cannot inflict on the free will of religious goers. Many times we hear of religion crossing the line and inflicting in the states sovereignty, but in this case we see the opposite. Once an offender has complied with his sentence, then we should allow the person to re-enter society. I understand that there is a high probability of the person will have another run in with the law, but not all of them will and limiting everybody’s liberty is to harsh. Sexual offenders have a public record and people around then know of their past offenses. The church community understands this and will use caution, and little by little the offender will have to earn the community’s trust. We have to focus on reintegration and not in segregation.
In an effort to cleanse and protect society the government has yet again overstepped its bounds and taken on the role of moral leader. A sex offender already faces many repercussions so his or her actions including a permanent record of criminal activity on any resume. Why then do they need an extra law impeding them from freely exercising their religion? A church is not a government entity and should therefore be allowed to decide who it will or will not allow to volunteer. I would agree that the offender should be required to inform the church of his past actions, but beyond that no law of restriction should be considered valid.
Furthermore, isn't religion supposed to help save those who have sinned? By barring sex offenders from volunteering at their churches we are slowing the process of salvation and blocking their road towards redemption. I understand the intentions behind the Georgia law but find their logic faulty and insubstantial. I believe the law should be stricken if not severely revised.
I also agree with the above posts. I feel that the church is a private place and that the government should have no role in deciding whether offenders should be allowed. I also feel that if a community does not want an individual there, they will make it overwhelmingly clear. I would also pose the question as to whether church is the same as religion? In my mind it is not but I would imagine that some of these individuals that are sex offenders, probably would like to feel like a member of a community. The court does not have the right to ban these individuals from going to church. I also agree that sex offenders should not do their volunteering with children, regardless of where it is at.
I think this is a bad idea, and I agree with the point “if sex offenders, then why not all felons?” I also agree that if an individual has served their time, paid their debt to society, and are properly registered, then they should be allowed to volunteer. Even in prison religious activity is encouraged and looked well upon, so wouldn’t it make sense to continue these practices while on the outside. Churches could provide rules and regulations without completely banning offenders from volunteering. If anything volunteering would only seem to help with the reformation of character to make the individual a beneficial member of society.
Post a Comment