Sex Offender Claims Religious Rights Denied

It's a short article so I have included the whole text.

Quote :

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - A New Hampshire sex offender is asking the state's highest court to allow him to go to church with a chaperone.
The case of 35-year-old Jonathan Perfetto of Manchester marks the first time the New Hampshire Supreme Court is being asked to rule on whether a probation condition that effectively bars church attendance violates a person's constitutional rights to religious freedom.
Perfetto was convicted in 2002 of possessing child pornography. A condition of his probation is that he have no contact with children. A lower court denied Perfetto's request to attend Jehovah's Witnesses services with a church elder acting as a chaperone.
The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and Perfetto maintain the chaperone would eliminate any risk to children. The state says public safety trumps Perfetto's religious rights.

http://www.komonews.com/news/offbeat/96725369.html

So what do you think? Does this fellow have the "right" to attend church?

He has the right to stay away from children as part of his sentence demands. If he can find a JW's meeting place that has no kids, maybe this could work. But, I don't think he has the right to go to any church meetings. If anything, he should be asking the leaders to come to him.

I would answer in the same way alldat has. He shouldn't have the right to go to church as what he did was wrong and he needs to pay for his crime, but if there was a JW meeting going on without children in it then I could possible see that working.

However I believe if would be best if he stays in prison and get the leaders to meet up with him in his prison cell.

Fundy

Fundy wrote:

However I believe if would be best if he stays in prison and get the leaders to meet up with him in his prison cell.

He's not in jail anymore, he is out on parole.

I think he has a right to actively participate in any religion he wants to as long as it doesn't violate the terms of his parole/sentence. I don't think his religious freedom extends to being able to attend a church if it will cause him to be around children. I also don't think the state should pay for a chaperone either.

And just what church doesn't allow children??? It never said the state would pay the chaperone either. I suppose y'all wouldn't allow a convicted rapist into a church that had women?

Sorry, my work in prison has revealed to me just how skewed society can be toward ex-cons, especially child sex offenders. Sure, in GENERAL, I'd agree with you, but God can and does change ANYONE so in this case I'd side with the convict even though it's a cult.

topshot rhit wrote:

And just what church doesn't allow children??? It never said the state would pay the chaperone either. I suppose y'all wouldn't allow a convicted rapist into a church that had women?

Sorry, my work in prison has revealed to me just how skewed society can be toward ex-cons, especially child sex offenders. Sure, in GENERAL, I'd agree with you, but God can and does change ANYONE so in this case I'd side with the convict even though it's a cult.

I didn't say that the state was going to pay for a chaperone. I just said I didn't think the state (or more to the point-the tax payers) should have to pay for a chaperone.
I also didn't suggest that God couldn't change this person (not sure I got that feeling from others posts here either). However, if he has been truly saved, one would hope he will quickly leave the JW. And, changed heart or not, he still needs to abide by the terms of his parole, something I would think he would want to do if his attitude towards children has been "reversed".

Their parole terms make it next to impossible for them to live anywhere or do anything. Quite honestly they will live a better life staying in prison. Of course, our whole judicial system is a farce nowadays but that is another nasty subject.

topshot rhit wrote:

Their parole terms make it next to impossible for them to live anywhere or do anything. Quite honestly they will live a better life staying in prison. Of course, our whole judicial system is a farce nowadays but that is another nasty subject.

I do agree that the terms of his parole would almost seem to force him to stay at home (one has to wonder what could even do for employment). That may have been what the parole board had in mind when they handed him those terms (right or wrong).