New role for library employees: sex offender check-in officer

Charlie Parker tells me that Florida has a new bill, S1624, that would require sex offenders (with victims under 18) to immediately identify themselves to library staff before using a public library.

"If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition against entering a public library without immediately notifying an employee of the library of the sex offender's presence and intent to use the resources of the library.  As used in this subparagraph, the term "immediately" means moving from the entrance of the public library in a straight line to the nearest work station occupied by an employee of the public library.  The sex offender may not move from that work station until the employee acknowledges the presence of the sex offender.  Any sex offender who violates this subparagraph commits a felony of the third degree.."

The bill also prohibits sex offenders (with victims under 18) from working for pay or as a volunteer at schools, day cares, parks, playgrounds, pet stores, libraries, zoos, theme parks or other places where children regularly congregate...

Minow take: Although I like the prohibition against sex offenders working or volunteering at libraries, I am concerned about the proposed new role of library employee as sex offender check-in officer.   Does this mean the library person must then keep an eye on the patron?  Is there funding for extra staff to do this?  What kind of relationship does this really entail, and does it put the library employee at some risk?  Will there be an expectation that the librarian will keep the offender away from the children... and if so, what if she fails?

What chill does it have on the freedom of the offender, who, having served his (or her)time, may be trying to get self-help information to deal with his issues problems?*    

A librarian recently asked me about her own scenario, in which a library employee was getting a divorce, and there was a restraining order keeping her ex away from her.  We talked about the fact that this meant he was kept out of his own public library, since that's where the employee worked.  And yet, in that case, the ex was not kept out of other public libraries.  His freedom to receive information in the public library (a constitutional right established at least in the Third Circuit in the Kreimer case) may have been hampered, but it was not curtailed.  He just needed to drive further to the next community. 

*issues changed to problems per anon's comment below

Comments

[Steve]

Regardless of the language of a bill or the intent, anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between a library and a grocery store, as it relates to children, obviously needs to spend more time in a public library. Children are encouraged by responsible adults to spend time in a library to learn, dream, imagine, understand and in general develop their mind. Does that sound like any grocery store you ever heard of, or could describe? Get serious and stop with the symantical exercise. Libraries are supposed to be safe havens for children, grocery stores were never intended to be such! Why else would there be a children's section in the library? Why else would there be children's story time in the library? Why else would there be children's library specialists in the library? No responsible adult should advocate that a parent or guardian turn their child loose unsupervised for hours in a library, but they should expect them to be safe from sexual predators and other similar dangers, like pornography displayed on library computers. Even grocery stores don't allow that!

[nk]

I know most of you have no pity on sex offender

stats show that
NEW Sex Crimes: Only two of the above studies reviewed this point. DOJ-2003 [p2] said, 3.5% of those paroled were reconvicted for another sex crime. LICASSO-2004 [p1] shows 2.46% were reconvicted for another sex crime.

so only 2% of the RSO does another sex crime again. compare that with Drunk driving and kill another child while drunk driving again is as high as 50 % we are barking at the wrong tree

but how ever here are some support link for sex offender and those that really want to know the facts
http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/

yahoo group support is

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roar_4_freedom/

[popo]

Libraries are considered "places where kids regularly congregate". But what about What about Blockbuster? Wal-Mart? 7-11? The law doesn't address this issue.

[Angel]

Hmm, an interesting distinction, the library versus grocery store. I have to agree with the blogger that the grocery store is very different from a public library in the sense that people do feel that (false?) security of being able to leave their children in the children/YA section. Many of those people would probably (I hope) not do the same in a grocery store or the mall. Anyways, it made me think because I visited my local public library branch yesterday, and they had a sign on the door, that to be honest, I was not sure if it was there before or not. After a while, you stop noticing signs unless they are changed. Anyways, the sign said something along these lines:

"This is a public place, like a grocery store or the mall. Please supervise your children and exercise the same precautions you would at any public place."

My phrasing is from what I recall, but that is the gist of it. It makes the important point, in a subtle way, I think. Could it be that the point that anon. makes about singling out libraries be because it has to do with libraries, especially public ones, being city/county/state institutions, and librarians then are city/county/state workers, unlike a private place like a grocery store or the mall? I know I am wandering now into the realm of speculating, but could that be some of the issue/concern? Best.

[Mary]

Thanks, Angel and Anon for your comments. If anyone has more background on what prompted this bill, please write in.

Good question, anon, about singling out libraries when children go to grocery stores too. The bill uses libraries as an example, prefacing the language "other places where children regularly congregate..." It may make more sense to leave out the library and other examples and just prohibit working with children.

On a practical note, though, libraries are different from grocery stores - whereas in both settings children can get separated from their parents, that happens more commonly in libraries, where parents feel (wrongly) that the library is a safe place, so they go off to get their books or DVDs on another floor. Also, older children hang out in libraries on their own, much more so than grocery stores, although I suppose they do hang out in malls, so point taken.

I changed _issues_ to problems, and feel a little embarassed at my initial word choice.

[Anon]

Why do you like the prohibition against sex offenders' working or volunteering at libraries? If a particular sex offender is legally prohibited from working with children, then that prohibition must, of course, be enforced. But, beyond that, what distinguishes a library from, say, a grocery store?

On a less serious note, how can you, of all people, write of an offender's trying to get self- help information to deal with his _issues_ (emphasis added)? Please join my fight — however quixotic it may seem — against the use of issue to mean problem.

[Angel]

This does concern me because I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I have no sympathy whatsover for anyone who can abuse a child. One thing is two teenagers (underage) who have a little romp and get caught. That should probably be a "bye" or "freebie." But a grown adult that abuses and destroys a child, let's just say death penalty is not good enough for them. And I will admit, I am a parent of a small child, so I have that bias as well. Having said all this, I want to have the faith that once people have paid for their crime, that they will be rehabilitated. I just don't see this happening though. If making it inconvenient for a pervert means my daughter is safe, I am opting for my child. That offender should have thought of that before he or she did what they did. In other words, they forfeit their rights. Wish it was that easy.

The librarian thing is definitely cause for major concern. Especially in public libraries, they have enough work as it is without having to act as the "check-in" officer. I would definitely be interested in hearing how liable a librarian may be if they fail to keep an eye on someone or such. This particular bill sounds more like a half-baked hysterical reaction. Like you, I agree these people should not be around children though. As I said, it puts someone like me, a librarian (who believes in fighting for the Bill of Rights) in conflict with the parent in me (who absolutely does not want these people anywhere near my daughter) in conflict.