Jump to content
beachbumznc

Sex offenders on cruises

Recommended Posts

I would like to get other opinions on the subject of sex offenders taking cruises. My brother is a registered sex offender. He had to register because he gave his granddaughter a bath, she complained to her mom, my brothers ex daughter-in-law, and she made a huge deal about it. My brother couldn't afford an attorney and at the advice of a "public defender" took a plea of indecent liberties with a minor, a level 1 offense. He has been on several cruises since then, and I just wondered if everyone lumps all sex offenders in the same group. I have read some post on here in the past and it seems like a lot of people think ALL registered offenders are perverts or child molesters. Did you know you could be placed on the sex offender list if you are convicted of urinating in your own back yard and a minor saw you, even if you didn't know they were there? The list is ridiculous as to what you can be put on the sex offender registry for. If it was a true child molester, someone that actually got sexual pleasure from children and were convicted od the higher level crime, a 2 or a 3, I would not want to take a cruise with those people.

I would just like to know what other cruisers think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if he is a registered sex offender according to the government, that is he has to register, then he is in the same category as all others. They don't have a breakdown for this person is ok but the other one is not. All registered sex offenders are on the same list. They all have the same restrictions placed on them regarding contact with children, schools etc. I'm guessing he is not allowed to be around children which could/would be a problem on a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differences, just as there are differences in murdrers, manslaughter, second degree and 1st degree. And the restrictions vary depending upon the level of your conviction. There are 3 levels. Level 1 are those whose supposedly offense was not of a true sexual nature, meaning no physical contact. Level 2 are those that involve touching or being in touched or some sexual manner. Level 3 is the most serious. Those are the ones that have actual sexual contact which includes rape, sodomy etc. Most of those have to wear ankle satellite locators 24/7. Some level 2 offenders do also. I just want people to know that not all people on the list are true molesters. Charges of this kind are the hardest to defend in court, because most people believe that if you were charged, you are guilty. We went through a nightmare of an ordeal with my brother (who passed away in April) and the attorney continually told us not to got to trial because juries almost always side with the children. Don't get me wrong, I think children should be protected, but sometimes....the attitude of "better safe than sorry" ruins a lot of innocent peoples lives. This conversation came about after my brother passed away. We , the family, wondered if he would be remembered for all the good things he had done in his life, or this one thing he was accused of...and didn't have the money to afford the best defense. If you think that the Pledge of Allegiance is correct when it states, "and justice for all", you have never been involved in the justice system, because the truth is, it should read..."and justice for those that can afford it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somone on the sex offender list is a sex offender.. I would be interested to know how old the grand daughter was when this incident took place and exactly what she complained about. don't understand why the brother would plea to a sex offense unless he didn't like the other options.

 

since he's dead what is the concern.. how many knew he was a sex offender and in a few months no one is going to remember him anyway.

Edited by Sherlock43031

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly appreciate your comments. I'll try to you short version of story. His son's ex daughter-in-law was trying hard to my nephew to sign over the rights to his daughter. she made all sort of threats. My nephew asked my brother to pic her up from school, She was 7yo at the time. On the way to my brothers house she had to go to the bathroom but didn't make it before they got to the house. He gave her a bath, she didn't like it and told her mother . Mother saw opportunity and jumped. She accused him of sexually assaulting her. He was told by his attorney it was best to take a plea as opposed to going to trial. This is because most of the time, the jury will side with the kids. Better safe than sorry. After much investigating, taking a lesser plea would probably be the lesser of the 2 evils. The plea was indecent liberties with a minor. All chargers were dropped except for what the DA deemed "inappropriate touching by someone that was not the primary caregiver. the judge, during sentencing gave him 2 yrs probation. He had to take a sex offender class and register as a level 1 offender (someone that is not considered a threat to reoffend). The said during sentencing that the case did not warrant registering, but the law requires it.

Just to sum this up, I just want to let people know they should not worry about a sex offender on a cruise, if he or she is on the higher levels, they can't leave their state and sometimes the country.

Thanks for listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a random first post. Are you planning a cruise soon?

 

I'm sorry your family went through all of this and very sorry for your loss. I guess it's a learning opportunity for everyone. A grown man giving a 7-year-old non-related female a bath? Yeah, I can see where some may take issue with that.

 

Like the other 2 posters in this thread, I too have issues with registered sex offenders on a cruise(or anywhere else around myself or my family). Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted to hear, but that's my thoughts on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure what this has to do with fashion or cruising but giving a 7yo girl a bath against her wishes is very odd to say the least. I think I understand why he would take the plea deal because it was his lucky day to get one offered. I'm willing to bet it wasn't his first time in the court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The child was his granddaughter. Anyway, You're right, this isn't related to fashion.

I appreciate everyones comments, and apologize if I messaged where I shouldn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than maybe helping draw the bath due to it being a strange tub where the faucet and stopper might work differently, there is no reason a seven year old needs help in the tub. That includes undressing, drying off, and getting dressed again. Draw the bath, leave a towel by the tub, ans then step out and close the door. They are quite capable of bathing and dressing themselves. This story just doesn't add up in my book. Even if it was innocent, he exhibited terribly poor judgement around a child, and I wouldn't trust him. No way, no how.

 

I don't believe anyone who has had criminal contact with a child--sexual or otherwise--should be allowed to cruise. You can avoid them on cruises to Alaska from Canada, because Canada won't allow them into the country and they'll be stopped at the border.

 

One of the reasons I run with pepper spray is that there is a contractor who is regularly in my neighborhood who was convicted of in appropriately touching a teenager. The first time that sc*mmer gets anywhere near me, he's getting blasted. Better safe than sorry, because you can't fix sex abusers. They might get more carful, but they never get "cured."

 

PS--I firmly believe that we need Romeo and Juliet laws on the books. There's a difference between a 17 and 18 year old who are dating and consensual. But that's a big difference.

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

Edited by ducklite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the last reply. The child was 6 not 7, not hat that matters. and I agree that a 6 or 7 year old child SHOULD be able to give themselves a bath....they should also know how to wipe themselves after using the restroom, which the child did not do, which led to this entire deal. All the grandfather did was what any decent person would do, make sure the child was properly clean...even if the child did not like it.

So...your point of "safe than sorry" is the whole issue here. You would prefer to persecute an innocent person "just in case they may have did it"

That is exactly why men, but sometimes women, take a plea. They are told from the beginning that it is very hard to defend an accused rapist or child molestation case, so are advised to take a plea due to the fact that most people, and I used to be one of them, would rather be safe than sorry, even as a juror, and put a possibly innocent person in prison. To wit: A North Carolina man spent 10 years in prison for allegedly molesting his 13 year old daughter whom he had weekends with by the custody agreement. She later admitted that she lied because he would not let her stay out past 10pm and she was mad. She told her mother he supposedly touched her and the mother filed the charges. Once the man was in prison, the mother told the girl to just "not say anything". Anyway it all doesn't matter.

We brought this up because we do a lot of cruising and we kind of wondered how other cruisers felt.

 

Thank you for your comments....I appreciate and respect them.

Edited by beachbumznc
to make a correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting this back to a cruise topic.... I think if he took the plea deal, he knew what the consequences would be. He would be labeled. Is it fair no, no but he took that route. So on a cruise I say no. Better safe than sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting this back to a cruise topic.... I think if he took the plea deal, he knew what the consequences would be. He would be labeled. Is it fair no, no but he took that route. So on a cruise I say no. Better safe than sorry.

 

 

 

This post has been dead for a couple of months. The OP has not even visited the site since the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate the last reply. The child was 6 not 7, not hat that matters. and I agree that a 6 or 7 year old child SHOULD be able to give themselves a bath....they should also know how to wipe themselves after using the restroom, which the child did not do, which led to this entire deal. All the grandfather did was what any decent person would do, make sure the child was properly clean...even if the child did not like it.

 

So...your point of "safe than sorry" is the whole issue here. You would prefer to persecute an innocent person "just in case they may have did it"

 

That is exactly why men, but sometimes women, take a plea. They are told from the beginning that it is very hard to defend an accused rapist or child molestation case, so are advised to take a plea due to the fact that most people, and I used to be one of them, would rather be safe than sorry, even as a juror, and put a possibly innocent person in prison. To wit: A North Carolina man spent 10 years in prison for allegedly molesting his 13 year old daughter whom he had weekends with by the custody agreement. She later admitted that she lied because he would not let her stay out past 10pm and she was mad. She told her mother he supposedly touched her and the mother filed the charges. Once the man was in prison, the mother told the girl to just "not say anything". Anyway it all doesn't matter.

 

We brought this up because we do a lot of cruising and we kind of wondered how other cruisers felt.

 

 

 

Thank you for your comments....I appreciate and respect them.

 

 

Where did it say that she didn't wipe herself? It said that she had an accident. There is no indication at all that she was unable to clean herself in the tub. I asked my husband what he would have done, and he said he would have reminded her several times to wash her backside really well, and then let her parent know what had happened and suggest they check to be sure she got herself clean. He added that the only way he would ever enter the bathroom when a child old enough to bathe and toilet on their own was in there would be if they fell--and even then only if there was indication that they needed assistance--either because they requested it or were unresponsive.

 

Seriously, why do we even teach our children about "private parts" and saying no, but then consider it OK for someone--regardless of the relationship--to violate their privacy? The child said no, she didn't want or need help. That is no different than a woman saying no to a date, and then not having their wishes respected. A decent person respects the personal space, modesty, and wishes of another unless it is a life threatening situation--and having a little poop left behind for a couple hours doesn't fall into that category.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to you but I am sure every sex offender has an excuse of "they were just helping", etc. etc. No matter if he actually did it or not, he pled guilty which means he admitted to doing it.

 

I also know how the prosecutors are. Scare the crap out of the accused by over charging with stuff they could never convict them of in a court with a jury, offer them something less and get them to plead guilty. Happens all over this country every day.

 

I personally know someone who spent a year in jail waiting on a trial because an angry ex-wife put her 12 year old up to false accusations. It was a circus in the trial because they couldn't keep their lies straight. After about an hour (and I was there for the trial) it was clear what was going on. The jury found him not guilt on all charges but he wasted a year of his life and countless dollars that he will never get back but I digress....

 

Should someone who is convicted of this be allowed on a cruise ship. I really don't think so. Too many kids running around in an enclosed space for someone like that to be roaming around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you ask the same questions of other criminals?

 

 

Frankly I don't care if the guy in the cabin next to mine defrauded the IRS, stole from his employer, was arrested for DUI, was arrested for trespass during a protest in college, or was arrested for kidnapping his kids in a child custody matter. None of that will have an affect on the safety if myself or others on the cruise. Sexual deviants are always looking for their next victim and you can't cure them. Sexual predators should be executed--particularly if they are pedophiles, but that's a different conversation. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to mingle with the public, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sexual Predators Should Not Be Allowed On Cruise Ships

 

While I agree with you, and other posters, if the person was on probation, and completed it, his rights are restored to him/her. However, I think they must register each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with you, and other posters, if the person was on probation, and completed it, his rights are restored to him/her. However, I think they must register each year.

 

 

A felon loses civil rights and needs to petition to have them restored. It isn't automatic and might not ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she didn't wipe after going to the bathroom, then there's other ways to get her to take a bath/shower than undressing her and physically forcing her. If she was UNABLE to wipe for some mental/physical limitation, then assistance might be appropriate, but if that were the case there's no way someone would plead.

 

While it's entirely possible and perhaps even probable that he didn't get any sexual gratification at helping his granddaughter take a bath, I think that there are other things you might be willing to plead to if you're doing a plea deal, and he should be thinking about what he's plea-ing to before taking on the acceptance of sex offender.

 

Nevertheless, he may have been screwed in this whole ordeal, but even if he was, the cruise lines have to be able to protect their passengers, and since they aren't God and don't know the details of each individual situation, and even if they did they wouldn't know the whole truth unless they were there, so there's no way I'd want registered sex offenders on my cruise.

 

With that said, I wouldn't be their target anyway, but people should feel safe on their cruise...which is half the point of taking one (to let your guard down and live)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sexual Predators Should Not Be Allowed On Cruise Ships

 

Sent from my LG-L38C using Forums mobile app

 

X2. Cruising is a privilege and not a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all sex offenders are the same. In GA you can be put on the registry simply for urinating in public.

 

And so then you would be a registered sex offender and be regulated by all the laws that control sex offenders. Pretty easy. No degree's at all, they are lumped together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all lumped together. Georgia as well as many other states have a 4 level classification system. For example in Georgia a person urinating in public would be classified as a Level 1 offender. A rapist is classified as a level 3 offender. A person committing a second level 3 offense is then listed as a predator and must wear an ankle monitor for life. Each classification in Georgia has different requirements, Everyone needs to be educated on all of this sex offender stuff. If that were to happen all of this nonsense about registered sex offenders would go away. Despite what officials tell the public, most sex offenses are committed by a family member or a close family friend. So in a nutshell, all of these sex offender registries are nothing but feel good laws. And NO, I am not a sex offender. I am simply someone who has studied the sex offender registry laws then compared them to the information put out to the general public.

Edited by mcruiser1960
missing info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't ask when you book a cruise. Is a cruise within the terms of his assignment?

 

They don't background check the crew either.

 

keep an eye on your kids, people!

Edited by spleenstomper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the person has completed probation or parole, and any other requirements, there are not any US laws preventing a sex offender from taking a cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone on the cruise but my wife. I assume everyone might have ill intent, and judge them only by their actions in my presence.

 

"Be kind to everyone you meet, but always have a plan in case you need to kill them..." (I forget who said this, and I'm pretty sure that's not the exact quote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know anyone on the cruise but my wife. I assume everyone might have ill intent, and judge them only by their actions in my presence.

 

"Be kind to everyone you meet, but always have a plan in case you need to kill them..." (I forget who said this, and I'm pretty sure that's not the exact quote)

 

Predators are expert at getting people to trust them, so how someone acts in your presence is largely irrelevant. It's best to talk to your children and let them know what the boundaries are so they may better protect themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the FACTS as of Aug 2016 -

Royal Caribbean makes a decision on cruising by offenders on a case by case basis. Entry into Canada from a cruise ship at a port does not require a passport or photo ID. Only your pass card from the ship. There are excursions into Canada that require passports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are the FACTS as of Aug 2016 -

 

Royal Caribbean makes a decision on cruising by offenders on a case by case basis. Entry into Canada from a cruise ship at a port does not require a passport or photo ID. Only your pass card from the ship. There are excursions into Canada that require passports.

 

 

 

And Royal knows a persons offender status how? They are required to turn the manifest over to Canadian authorities in advance. Canada and the US share a lot of info, including criminal records. Canada won't take a DUI or minor drug offense, they certainly won't take a rapist or kid toucher. They tell Royal a potential passenger is a no go and Royal tells that passenger they aren't boarding the ship. They don't necessarily know why Canada says no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't confuse your thoughts on the matter with the facts. Please don't spread false information here or anywhere. I know it to be as I stated from very recent experience. Entering Canada and other countries from a cruise ship is not the same as through an airport or crossing a border.

There is another thread on here where someone asserts that it is mandatory to have a passport to enter Canada. And there is a response from a gentleman who lives in Seattle and has completed five Alaskan cruises without ever having a passport and it visits Victoria British Columbia every time. He is absolutely correct. And it is a fact. RC does a BG check and contacts any offenders and makes decisions on a case by case basis. Surely someone who got busted for indecent exposure (no touching) 25 years ago but is now slapped with a lifetime registration with no further offenses is worthy of cruising.

Edited by eternaloptimist59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't confuse your thoughts on the matter with the facts. Please don't spread false information here or anywhere. I know it to be as I stated from very recent experience. Entering Canada and other countries from a cruise ship is not the same as through an airport or crossing a border.

There is another thread on here where someone asserts that it is mandatory to have a passport to enter Canada. And there is a response from a gentleman who lives in Seattle and has completed five Alaskan cruises without ever having a passport and it visits Victoria British Columbia every time. He is absolutely correct. And it is a fact. RC does a BG check and contacts any offenders and makes decisions on a case by case basis. Surely someone who got busted for indecent exposure (no touching) 25 years ago but is now slapped with a lifetime registration with no further offenses is worthy of cruising.

 

 

 

First of all, I never mentioned passports. Second, you are the one being confused on the facts. RC does not do the background check, the Canadians do. If you think that RC doesn't have to send a passenger manifest to Canada before the ship even sails, you are sorely mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have family and friends that work for RC. It is as I say.

 

I have a friend who works for the Canadian immigration service. No one gets onto a cruise ship with a port call in Canada until they vet the passenger manifest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC does not need permission from any country to allow a person to board and cruise aboard their ships. It is up to individual countries to decide how they process temporary immigrants. Canadian law does NOT Require a passport from U.S. citizens on a cruise. No individual is required to debark a ship in any port except the final port. Canada has zilch as to input of whom a cruise line allows on their ships. I would venture that Canada has a reciprocal protocol that honors what the cruise lines deem acceptable.

Edited by eternaloptimist59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RC does not need permission from any country to allow a person to board and cruise aboard their ships. It is up to individual countries to decide how they process temporary immigrants. Canadian law does NOT Require a passport from U.S. citizens on a cruise. No individual is required to debark a ship in any port except the final port. Canada has zilch as to input of whom a cruise line allows on their ships. I would venture that Canada has a reciprocal protocol that honors what the cruise lines deem acceptable.

 

Wrong. They don't have to let the person into their territorial waters. Forget the whole "I just wont' get off at that port" nonsense--it's bunk. Royal doesn't make the rules over who Canada needs to allow into their sovereign territory, Canada does. Period. To think otherwise is just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but you are dead wrong.

 

 

 

LOL. Yup, Canada let's Royal determine who can enter their borders. Any more comedy for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×