Wow, I'm having a hard time putting this into words. It appears that a convicted child molester has open up a haunted house in Indiana, as part of the Halloween festivities, and technically there's nothing illegal about this, and nothing that the community can do to stop him, other than not going to the haunted house.

Now, I understand that we can't stop convicted child molesters from trying to make a buck, but it seems that opening a business that predominantly caters to children and teenagers, is going a bit too far. Ten years ago, he was convicted (and admitted) to molesting a 12-year old girl, and that's exactly the type and clientelle his new business would be getting.

Your thoughts? Here's the full story. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9857281/)

There are many things that are sick but as long as the law is not broken the we can do nothing about it. They can only wait and hope that no child would be hurt.

It's up to parents to be vigilant about what their children are doing. Given that this is in the news now, I can't imagine his business will end up doing very well.

I'm feeling very Cartman-y today, so I'll settle on this:
I'm gonna kick you in the nuts! - Eric Cartman :evil:

Yeah, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Demonstrations on his street wouldn't hurt.

It is up to the parents to not let their children go there, but what if they didn't know that it was run by that man? Especially for people from out of town...

Makes me wonder if Cooley has a restraining order keeping him <insert measurement here> away from schools and playgrounds. That's usually what's one of the requirements (I guess that's the right word) for child molesters within the past 10 years. Although, if Cooley has been doing his haunted house for 2 years, why are people b*tching now? Or is it that no one bothered to call MSN news about it?

Probably the latter: it hasn't made the news because no one went to a news station. Likely people were complaining for as long as he has done it.

I wonder why he doesn't have a restraining order... perhaps his case was different than others?

I'm feeling very democratic today, so let me ask this: Would you stop a thief from opening up a store? Even though he may have robbed one in the past? Better yet, would you hire a convicted thief to work in a store? Believe me, I share everyone's concern because I am a parent also, and I have two girls. But does that mean that those who have offended in the past, should be prevented from ever having the same status as anyone else in society?

We have to answer this question as a yes or no question; no back tracking here, like: Well, maybe we can let them wash cars, or some other job that would never really be of any value to anyone else. But, it's good enough for them.


Having said that, I'm going to put myself on the line and answer it sincerely: No, I don't think they should. Why? Even though I believe in redemption for every human being, and I believe every person can change - and thusly, deserves an even break, I have absoultely no faith in the criminal justice system. People can talk about three strikes, or that "they have done their time," but I don't want my kids to be the third strike for some maniac. And I'm sure most every other parent agrees with me. I don't have a great deal of faith in human nature, but I have some - I have no faith in "the system." The sooner they fix the system, the sooner everyone will be better off in this regard.

In this instance, according to the article, it seems to working out OK. But notice that the system was not really involved in this result: We have a guy who turned himself in - which made it easy for the officials; then he did "his time." And now it's been ten years and he's just in business like anyone else. This could have gone either way, because it depends on the indivdual. If he's willing to change, then he will, as this guy appears to have. Yet, the neighborhood is up in arms, even though no one has committed a crime. Well, the next time they may not be so lucky. Still, I would not want to chance it.

Yes, he could be one of the people who actually wants to redeem himself, and if he does, and he just wants to move on, so be it, good for him. I think it was just a bad choice of a profession...


And Chandos, I think your thief comparison doesn't really work - a child molestor takes something away that can be given back.

nothing that the community can do to stop himOh, yes there is. It just wouldn't, ah, be legal.

I don't see the cops putting much effort into finding an arsonist in this case, however. If folks are careful, well...

I do agree that he shouldn't be allowed near children, but if he is sincere, then he should have the option to turn his life around. I just think that parents should be cautious about this...

Just saw on the news that the state of south carolina(they also mentioned chicago) has very strict child protection. On halloween convicted sex offenders are not allowed out on the streets between the hours of 5 o'clock PM til 12 oclock midnight. also they are not allowed to open ther house doors to pass out halloween candy. don't know if it will hold up in court but for now it is in effect

@ all - Perhaps a better question would be this: If you are a parent, even if you think this guy deserves a second chance, would you be comfortable letting your child go to this haunted house?

@ martaug - That is an interesting rule indeed. I imagine it can't be a blanket statement that applies regardless of circumstance. For example, starting it at 5:00 seems extreme as most people work until 5:00, and thus do not arrive back at home until later. I can't imagine they would apply this to someone coming home after work. It probably could be challenged, but first there would have to be someone arrested, because otherwise, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time to challenge the law.

I am not a parent. But if I were, I would not be very comfortable letting my children - or, more realistiically - a little brother of a friend or a little kid in my neighborhood into this house.

But I would also not be comfortable with the decision that a person who has done something wrong should be denied the prospect of entertaining children. I mean, child molesters are people too. (The fact that he turned himself in suggests that he felt remorse or guilt for what he did.)

AFI: Regardless, I would likely be with my children (when i have them) when they go to a haunted house, regardless of who is running one. If the guy was an offender, I likely would be on my guard, and if he tried anything within my field of awareness, I'd make sure he was stopped, likely painfully, and would face the courts again. If he's honest, there would be no problem. But the bottom line is that there needs to be a compromise between caution and letting the guy get on with his life...

Good point, Gnarfflinger. It's not like you're kids are going to be there by themselves anyway so it's not really an issue.

@ all - Perhaps a better question would be this: If you are a parent, even if you think this guy deserves a second chance, would you be comfortable letting your child go to this haunted house?
Absolutely No way, Ever.

But what about his rights to be near children :rolleyes:

No parent in their right mind would even risk their children attending such a place. Even if he is fully 'reformed', can we be sure, does he even deserve to be near children again?