Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-81923.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Disney World Appears to Be Preemptively Preventing Some Sex Offenders From Entering the Pa</b></a> <p>Christopher Heath at WFTV.com has uncovered what seems to be a policy at Disney of not allowing entry for some registered sex offenders. His investigation has found 76 cases where registered sex offenders have been issued "trespass warnings" from the Orange County Sheriff's Office which serves notice that they are never allowed on Disney property again. He found most of the warnings were issued to people convicted of crimes involving children and some are classified as predators. Disney has not commented on the investigation.</p>
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 I have absolutely no problems with Disney not allowing registered sex offenders on their property, especially if they were convicted for crimes involving children. I think it is smart of Disney to do whatever they can to keep the children visiting the parks safe.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 My only concern is if they are doing this to those who don't have a court order to stay away from children.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'm very confused as to how Disney determines who these people are. Is it just guests walking around the parks who security decides to do a background check on? Or is it people who have booked a vacation through Disney, which requires a lot of personal information? If it's the latter, I could this this very quickly getting into questionable legal territory, especially since these all seem to occur once the guest arrives on property, rather than while they're booking (and paying for) their trip months in advance. I know that businesses often post that they have the right to refuse anybody service for any reason, but I really wonder what the legal backing for that is. Obviously you can't deny service based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, as they are legally protected classes, but I wonder how the courts would feel about someone who has been convicted of a crime. Is it Disney's prerogative to draw the line? Should they be allowed to do background checks on all of their guests? There are a lot of really interesting questions here that the article doesn't really touch on >>Others cite the individuals for “conduct not welcome” at Disney or “behaviors not meeting Walt Disney’s standards.”<< Getting into Walt Disney's standards is where this all gets really questionable to me. No, I don't think we should have dangerous people in close contact with children, but this leaves a huge grey area that simply cannot be defined in any reasonable way. To make all guests live up to the 'standards' of a man who died nearly half a century ago just doesn't make any sense.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 The article says that legally private companies can stop people on sex offender registries, which are public information, from entering their property. It is not as though Disney is running private background checks on people, they are just matching names and addresses used to book vacations or buy annual passes against sex offender registries. The article also says the excluded people were all convicted of crimes against children.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance And as sex offenders names are public knowledge, it's fine for Disney to match names. Can you imagine the outcry if something terrible happened and it was reported that Disney sold APs to well known sex offenders? Really they are just covering themselves in case of something terrible were to happen, but it helps kids too, so really what's the issue? If known registered sex offenders wanted to vacation at a children's hot spot like Disney, they probably should have thought of that before they commited the crimes.
Originally Posted By barboy Whoever thinks identifying,tracking and ultimately banning these lepers from Disney grounds prevents disgusting acts on children lives in, well, a fantasyland. Say "hi" to Dumbo for me.
Originally Posted By Nobody ^^ I don't think anybody thinks that. They think it might cut down on problems occurring in Disney parks.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Well of course they were born that way. But does it really make a difference why they are the way they are? If you were born with mental instabilities that caused you to blow up buildings, you wouldn't be allowed out in free society, period. Personally, I don't think these type of offenders ever deserve to see the light of day either, but since they have been given their freedom back, pardon me if I don't get offended that they can't buy a DW AP.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, once a person has served their prison term and any required probation, shouldn't they be allowed to do something as simple as enjoy a theme park? Some end up on the list when they had a consensual romantic relationship when the girl was too young... even when they later get married. Should a person's life be permanently restricted because a 20-year-old fell in love with a 16-year old? Do they also ban people who have been convicted of murder, aggravated assault, etc. once their sentence has been served? On the other hand, child sexual predators repeat their crimes at an alarming rate, so maybe it is OK to single them out for banning. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer. Certainly ban repeat offenders. A first time offender? I'm just not sure. It would depend on the situation.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Whoever thinks identifying,tracking and ultimately banning these lepers from Disney grounds prevents disgusting acts on children lives in, well, a fantasyland." Yeah, that's just what we were all thinking too.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "On the other hand, child sexual predators repeat their crimes at an alarming rate, so maybe it is OK to single them out for banning. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer. Certainly ban repeat offenders. A first time offender? I'm just not sure. It would depend on the situation." Disney is a private company and can ban whomever they want to, so it doesn't really matter what we personally think of it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't doubt for a minute their RIGHT to ban anyone they want. Just how far do you want them to take it? Do you ban anyone ever convicted of a drug offense in an attempt to keep illegal drugs out of the parks?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Disney is a private company and can ban whomever they want to, so it doesn't really matter what we personally think of it.<< SO we can't discuss it on a discussion board but we can whine about a wand on the EPCOT globe or the sorcerers hat in MGM?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Disney is a private company and can ban whomever they want to, so it doesn't really matter what we personally think of it.<< SO we can't discuss it on a discussion board but we can whine about a wand on the EPCOT globe or the sorcerers hat in MGM?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip By the way... I've never been charged with or convicted of ANYTHING. Haven't even had a speeding ticket in 30 years. I just worry a little when we start restricting people's lives based on what they MIGHT do.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The problem that Road Trip is hinting at is once Disney and other companies start this, when does it end? Once a person is tried, convicted and does their time, supposedly they are supposed to be able to get a fresh start but it is alarming that our society continues to attempt to punish them continuously years after they have committed the crime. IMO, the more you punish or treat convicted felons badly, the more likely they are to commit a crime again. Now child molestors are another thing entirely and it is proven they are more likely to harm others again, but like RT was saying, why stop with there, let's keep those convicted of vandalism, those with parking violations, and those with anger management issues out of the park to make it safer....
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I just worry a little when we start restricting people's lives based on what they MIGHT do." No, it's what they've already done. And what they might do again. The sex offender list's purpose is to alert people of the crime that this person committed. They remain on that list because statistics show they are likely to offend again, in case you'd rather not live next to one, hire them, or sell an AP to them.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "SO we can't discuss it on a discussion board but we can whine about a wand on the EPCOT globe or the sorcerers hat in MGM? " Never said we can't discuss it, after all I AM discussing it aren't I? I'm just saying that Disney isn't doing anything shady or illegal by doing this.
