Whether “parole” or “probation” the point I keep arguing is that these things eventually come to an end and then you’re free to do as you please and that doesn’t change the fact that at one point in time you (we) broke the law.
Parole is NOT part of your sentence. Parole is either granted or denied while you’re IN prison and hoping to get out early. No one is entitled to parole.

Probation on the other hand IS part of the sentence. You do 2 yrs and have 10 more suspended with 10 years of probation telling you what you can and cannot do and stupid reason as to why. “Children might be present”. Yeah and? Children might be present anywhere I go AFTER my probation ends and you crazy wastes of tax payer money cannot dictate my life anymore. So then what?

The end result of all these mental abuse on us is that it makes many of us HATE the site of “children”. When I think “children” I don’t think of the girl that was 1 yr under legal age. I think of little tiny tots barely able to use the toilet on their own still.
When your offense was with a POST pubescent teenager, how do they justify that you might be attracted to 7 yr olds??? It’s insanity. And their insanity can only last for the duration of time the court put you on probation.

Bottom line – Probation restrictions make no sense and the entire probation department should be dismantled. Especially when probation can be ended early AND/OR you can take a few more years in prison to not have to do probation. In which case the P.O’s lame excuse of “Probation is here to help keep you and society safe” is a load of crap and they say it to make themselves sound like they’re accomplishing something.

But you said the parole restrictions are agreed to and signed before the person is released on parole. These laws were applied AFTER that agreement was signed. So logically you would conclude that they can be applied only to future parolees as it was not part of the current parole agreement. However I am sure they left themselves the right to modify the agreement at anytime and the parolee has to accept it or return to prison.

Thank you Anonymous – kind words are always welcome. And if you really need to know-anything I post is free to use -you can even correct the typos if you want. Sometimes, my brain checks out long before my day ends.

Also, in response though to a post from Antiestablishmentarianism…call me chicken, but I would not give a card to anyone stating they were assisted by a RSO-there are too many people who would find it ‘fun’ to embellish the encounter-and I’m sure it would not be in my favor. Think description, fingerprints, hell and damnation. I’m all for trying to get the truth out there and for advocacy, but not at the unnecessary expense of my behind.

Actually, punishment can infringe on rights as long as due process is complete. Most felony charges have parole stipulations for those on parole and many of them don’t make any sense. These stipulations are signed and agreed to before the prisoner is released onto parole. If they don’t agree to them, they can finish their punishment incarcerated. Most states have a parole stipulation that offenders can’t use the internet at all without supervision. That means no games, no social media, nothing. While I was on parole, I was only allowed to search for jobs at the unemployment office. They can also search your home, vehicle, or work space without a warrant while you are on parole. They make you take drug tests and breathalyzers. All of these things are allowed under the supervision of parole because the person is not completely free yet. They are under supervision for a specified time in lieu of incarceration. As far as on parole or not is troubling. When laws like this extend to non-parole SOs, that’s when the constitutional fight really begins because that’s an ex post facto punishment.

Yes, I understand punishment, however, punishment cannot or at least should not infringe on certain Amendment Rights that parolees have, even if its limited. Things have to be restricted and has to be reasonably related, however, an all out blanket restriction can be challenged. Such as a ban on public library without offering alternatives.
The ban on ALL internet gaming activities is an outright restriction on First Amendment activities. Your restrictions on the outside should not equal restrictions on the inside.
I know in time things are lessoned. Anyway, its just the possibility that a law will be proposed to outright BAN all games whether you are on parole or not is troubling.

BTW – thank the moderators for the posting. I have an outdated mobile that I have little choice in using.

I will do that. Give me a couple of weeks because there’s a lot going on in my life right now. My gf and I are buying a house and we just got the clear to close next week and I’m in my last class in school before I get my Associate’s degree. I’m also on the job hunt right now, which as you know, is a hundred times harder for us than any other job seeker, so I have to go to at least ten times as many interviews to get a job that will accept my past. I have three interviews on Monday, so wish me luck! I emailed a more detailed proposal to Derek Logue of Oncefallen to try to garner his support as well. Thanks.

Sounds promising, Jeremy. Why don’t you put together a project proposal and submit it to Brenda for consideration? -Admin

Here is link westchesterNews12
Here the news claimed they visited rso and found that pokemon characters appeared in front of these guys homes.