Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - School districts debate how to deal with sex-offender parents

School districts debate how to deal with sex-offender parents

Sep 30, 2007 - 04:02:51 CDT

By JAMES MacPHERSON
Associated Press Writer

STEELE — School boards across the country are debating how to deal with parents like Cody Mittleider.

The 28-year-old Mittleider is married with three children ages 6, 4 and 2, and works as a hired hand at a potato farm in Steele, a farming community of about 760 people in central North Dakota. He is a convicted sex offender.

Mittleider was convicted of raping a woman in April 2005, and spent a year in prison. Since then, he says, he has quit drinking and attends counseling. He said he has worked hard to be a family man and a respected member of his community. He recently bought a house and joined the city’s volunteer fire department.

The school board has yet to make a decision on whether Mittleider will be able to attend his children’s school programs or athletic events.

“It would punish my family more than it would punish me,” he said. “I want to be a father — not a criminal. If I can’t go to the school, I can’t be the father I want to be.”

A new state law, which took effect Aug. 1, allows sex offenders to be on school property if they are there to vote or attend a public meeting. It does not give them permission to attend extracurricular school activities. That decision is up to school boards.

Some school districts have adopted a no-tolerance approach that bans convicted sex offenders from schools even if they are parents. Others are considering allowing superintendents to make the call on a case-by-case basis.

Mittleider said his oldest daughter, a first-grader, is old enough to understand his crime and why he can’t go to the school to watch her dance recitals.

“She bawls,” he said.

Steele Superintendent Ken Miller said the school board tabled a motion this month to adopt a policy dealing with sex offenders whose children attend school in the district. At present, Mittleider is the only one, Miller said

The North Dakota School Board Association is slated to discuss the new law next month. Miller said the school board in Steele likely will craft its policy after that meeting.

Kathy Benson, president of the Steele School Board and a mother of four, said keeping the schools safe is a priority for parents. She said the sex offender policy has not been a major issue in the community, but board members will give it their full attention.

“We want to be cautious and we want to be very careful and take a good look at it,” Benson said.

School boards in most states now have policies dealing with sex-offender parents in schools, though they vary by state and district, said Cullen Casey, an attorney for the Alexandria-Va.-based National School Boards Association.

“I would say it’s becoming more commonplace across the country,” Casey said. “Many do handle the question of sex-offender parents on a case-by case basis.”

Some school districts, especially larger ones, often do not have the resources or time to deal with decisions about parents who are registered sex offenders, so they are banned altogether, Cullen said.

Rick Buresh, the Fargo superintendent, said that’s the case in North Dakota’s largest city. The Fargo district adopted a no-tolerance approach before the state law was enacted that regulates sex offenders on school property.

“Right now, they are simply not allowed in,” Buresh said. “It’s not a matter of punishment — it’s an issue of protection. I am somewhat sympathetic if somebody’s rights get pinched a little, but safety comes first.”

Buresh said the issue of sex offender parents who want to attend school events puts “a lot of burden and a lot of responsibility” on school boards and superintendents, who often are not qualified to decide whether a sex offender poses a risk at school events.

“It is a huge additional responsibility in an area we have little training — and not something we prepare for,” Buresh said.

That responsibility is better left to law enforcement and probation officers, he said.

Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland adopted its policy this summer on whether to allow sex offender parents in schools, spokesman Brian Edwards said.

The policy allows principals to make the call on an individual basis after consulting with counselors and law enforcement officials, Edwards said.

“I think ours is a thoughtful approach,” he said.

Montgomery County Public Schools, with 200 schools and 137,000 students, is the 16th largest school district in the U.S., Edwards said.

The Steele school district has 312 students in kindergarten-12. The students attend classes in a single building where lockers are left unlocked inside and their bicycles are unlocked outside.

The goal is to keep the school safe, Miller said.

“We want to do what’s right for the kids and for all the people involved,” Miller said. ’We would like to say ’yes’ (to Cody Mittleider) but we have our concerns. The easy way out would be to not allow it.”

The Mandan School District adopted its policy banning sex offenders on school grounds this month.

“Right now, the safest thing to do is err on the side of kids and just say no,” said Wilfred Volesky, Mandan superintendent.

“If we need to take the policy and soften it, we can,” Volesky said. “Right now, it’s a work in progress.”

Volesky said the new policy already has allowed the district to ban a convicted sex offender from attending high school football games. That person was not a parent of a student at the district, Volesky said.

Parents of two of the district’s 3,262 students are registered sex offenders, Volesky said.

Alyssa Martin, director of policy services for the North Dakota School Boards Association, said Mandan’s policy on sex offenders is more stringent than a model policy her group crafted as an example for the state’s 190 or so districts.

The model allows for superintendents to make a decision whether sex offenders can attend school activities. Martin said it was written after checking similar policies from about 30 other states.

Probation officers are willing to help school districts, said Brian Weigel, a specialist in North Dakota’s Parole and Probation Division. Weigel believes schools should consider sex offender parent cases individually.

“The term sex offender lumps together every individual sex offense and lumps together a very large group of people,” Weigel said.

“There are sex offenders who are in a healthy place and are not hurting anybody — and if they’re there with another responsible adult, it’s not that risky,” Weigel said. “There are offenders we would be adamantly against going to a school.”

Mittleider said he met some of those types in prison, and he agrees they should be banned.

“No way on God’s green earth would I want some of those freaks at my kid’s school,” Mittleider said.

News > State

Printer friendly version School districts debate how to deal with sex-offender parents

Comments

my two cents... wrote on Oct 12, 2007 8:57 AM:

" to Cindyloo: He is on the sex offender registry, but not the on-line version that only shows the high-risk offenders. However, you can go to the Attorney General's webpage and look at a PDF file of all registered sex offenders, even the "low-risk" offenders. By the way, there 883 non-incarerated sex offenders and/or offenders against children (which could include child abuse or neglect) in North Dakota. This particular individual is classified as "low-risk." I still wouldn't want him at my child's school. Another thing, if this happened in 2005, then he already was married and had three small children...one a newborn. So he has a wife and three small children and RAPES another woman? How can he try to excuse that or expect the school board or anyone else in the community to be sympathetic? And how is two years possibly long enough for authorities or anyone else to know if he is "rehabilitated," if that is even possible? "

sickining wrote on Oct 11, 2007 3:20 PM:

" I feel sorry for the kids too! I just hope they get a decent chance at life, and not end up like the parents someday. "

To On TV Today wrote on Oct 11, 2007 1:51 PM:

" If he was only 22 when this happened, that would be 6 years ago. According to the Tribune, it happened in 2005, that is only 2 years ago. I am just glad that he does not live in my community and hope that he never comes to mine. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 11, 2007 9:43 AM:

" To Mike R, As I have said before this man's actions will have to make his children pay more through-out the course of their lives (embarrassment, humiliation) than not letting him at games or school functions to support them. That is not something that anyone else but he himself did. As if children these days aren't harsh enough or find anything in someone to pick on knowing that these children's father is a sex offender will make it even worse. I truly do feel sorry for these innocent children as well but noone besides their selfish father is to blame for this. I certainly hope for him that it was worth it. To me it sounds as if this one time (or however many times it was) doesn't seem worth having to struggle the rest of his life to overcome and now making your own children struggle through life to try to defeat this "title". It's entirely too bad but he is the only one that made his bed, now he must lie in it. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:41 PM:

" Mom of 2 and Sickening: I am not defending the guy. I agree that sex offenders need to suffer more than what the courts have done. But in this case, the kids suffer right along with him. Punish him. Stone him. What-ever you want to do to HIM, but when it affects the innocence that is children without anything to gain in the way of safety, then I say it is wrong. Don't make the kids pay any more than they are for the actions of thier father. "

on tv today wrote on Oct 10, 2007 5:40 PM:

" cody and his wife were on tv today. some of what was not said in the papers is: when this happened he was 22 and the young woman 17. only a 5 year difference. not someones little 5, 6, 7... year old. i have seen were there is drinking involved as was here and it is yes at first then the next day oh my goodness what have i done no, no, no! we need to remember that there are a lot of young ladies out there who lie about how old they really are and is every boy or man supposed to ask for id when the look as old as they say they are. i know of several girls who lie all the time about their age and are doing things mommy and daddy would never believe of their angel. so if mom and dad or even the police in this state want to say rape and the angel says yes - it is rape. my husband is 5 1/2 years older than me and my parents tried to go the police and i stood my ground on knowing that yes is yes and no is no! to this day we have been married 15 years and have 4 children. we need to have all the facts of the case before we can say what to do here. i think it should be on a case by case basis. what if he has really changed and we never give him the chance to prove it. what a waste of things to be. i believe people can change. i feel bad for what he did-but what if he brings proof from a dr. that he will not re-offend. how long would he have to go without re-offeding a year, a decade, a quarter century half a century before we trust him? to me we have to open our hearts and minds and give people a chance to prove themselves. "

mom wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:03 PM:

" I agree with Dave,this was not done to a child. make him go with his wife if she can't go he doesn't either. Grandparents can go in their place. "

ladybug wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:16 PM:

" Just last night I sat at a school board meeting listening to discussion on this policy issue. It's difficult for school boards to manage because they have to decide what's best for the whole of the student body - especially in small towns. We tend to want to bend the rules on case by case basis. This isn't the worst thing in the world. I think we do need to consider a number of factors. Cody did something wrong and it's inexcuseable. Set the rules in place and yeah, maybe have him be supervised at major events only. My dad farms and was at only the major happenings for me - I survived and have a great relationship with him. Work it out - you're dealing with one. The district I'm in has over half a dozen. And for the record, his wife is a wonderful woman who got dealt a crappy hand. I've known her all my life - she did something most of us wouldn't do, she stood by her man. She's a terrific mother and a hardworking woman. I cannot fathom why she chose to stay with him but she did. Everybody has to deal with the ramifications of his actions. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:43 PM:

" To Sickining, I can see you and I are on the exact same page. I guess us "Judgemental" people just need to stick together to keep these criminals off of our streets and interacting around our children like they have really changed. Not hardly!! "

sickining wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:49 AM:

" I never said I was a judge, It's just my thoughtsl. It almost sounds like you are defending these offenders. Are you a defense attorney? My thoughts are why should these monsters even have their kids. And as far as punishment goes, these guys always get a slap on the wrist. I wish more parents were as concerned about children safety as I am. Maybe we should ban sex offenders from all facets in life, maybe lifetime in prison would help with that. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 10, 2007 10:58 AM:

" To Mike R, you completely twisted my words around to use in your favor but then again I am not the one on here trying to justify that these perverts are safe enough to be at school or public events. I am simply agreeing with the laws that Bismarck/Mandan are trying to set forth to keep them away from groups of people, you of all people should be doing the same since you were previously in law enforcement. I don't want them at school or public events, stores, dances, dry cleaners, etc...are because my personal thoughts on them are they are the scum on the scum of the earth and should not even be allowed out of prison to be walking the same streets that my children and I do. I say take everything away from them and make them suffer from day to day just as I am sure their victim is every day of their life. Do not make one thing easy for them...EVER, they have never paid their dues!!!! They have put their victim through h*ll so why shouldn't their lives be put through the same misery. They should receive no special attention, priviledges, nothing. I don't have one ouch of pity for them and never will. That is my personal thoughts on the matter and I obviously know that is not how it is and I myself can not change it but believe me if I could change it I would do everything in my power to be sure that they are punished a heck of alot more than they are. You ask "who am I to pass this kind of judgement" I am a law abiding, hardworking citizen that is posting her right to freedom of speech on an opinion forum, that's who I am. Lastly, there are obviously more people than just myself that are not comfortable with him being at such an event or they wouldn't be trying to put something like this into place, I guess since the law passed......I win!!! "

Mike R wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:51 PM:

" Mom of 2: Your comment said it all. If we could restrict him from the grocery store or dery cleaners, I would say lets do that to. Why is that? You almost admit that you want him excluded from the school as a form of punishment and not because the law restricting him does any actual good. Isn't that being rather vindictive? Who said it was up to you to deal out punishment? The courts gave him his sentence which he served. The law banning him from the school is not supposed to be a form of punishment, but to protect the kids. It is obvious that this law doesn't protect the kids, but you want him banned anyway - as a form of punishment. Like it or not, he served his punishment for his crime. The punishment may have been to low (I will agree with that) but that is not your decision to make. Who are you to pass this kind of judgement? "

Sickining wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:24 PM:

" I can't believe these sex offenders even have their kids. These offenders should be locked up in Jamestown, where they belong. These are some sick individuals, who I never want my kids to be near. My daughter is starting school next year and I want to be assured my kids are safe from danger. Sex offenders need to be in the loony bin,not around are kids!! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:07 AM:

" To Mike R, well we can't restrict him from going to the grocery store, dry cleaners, etc. now can we but if we could I would say why not restrict that too. We CAN restrict him from certain places and I say go for it. I say that as of that dreadful day that he took it upon himself to "think" he had so much power over another person's life that he decided to offend them in such a way then FOREVER his wants and priviledges are also removed. He can live in misery the rest of his life just as his victim will have to. "

Southpark wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:30 AM:

" Excellent point Nodak John. "

NoDak John wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:39 AM:

" The question I would have to ask is: What has happened to our society? When I was a young man, pedophilia and rape were almost unheard of. Looking in my old dictionary I find that even the word pedophile is not in there. Just exactly when did we exchange our brains for another part of our anatomy as the center of our thinking? Looking at the age of his children and the date of the rape, he apparently was a married man at the time. Think I liked it a whole lot better when people understood "Thou shalt not . . . " Those laws were written for our protection and we need to heed them. As to the offender, banning him from schools is a problem he created for himself. Let him live with it. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:05 AM:

" Send em your way: Once again someone comes here, doesn't read anything I have to say, and makes a completely idiotic statement. So for the record - I NEVER SAID I WANT THEM LIVING NEXT TO ME. THEY ARE DANGEROUS ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVE CLOSE TO KIDS. THE ONLY POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD TO BAN THEM FROM PUBLIC EVENTS. I WOULD BE A LOT MORE AFRAID OF THEM LIVING NEXT DOOR TO ME THAN I WOULD AT A SCHOOL FUNCTION. DO YOU GET THAT? So now instead of trying to turn this discussion into something that it isn't, can you PLEASE try to debate the actual point? The discussion ISN'T about where they can live or how safe they are living there. The discussion IS about whether or not it does any good to ban them from a function where they will be watched by hundreds of other parents. Is that to tough for you to follow or what's the deal? "

Send 'em your way wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:29 PM:

" Mike R. - Why don't you let us know what nice rural town you live in and we'll see if we can't send all the rapists and pedophiles your way...you seem to have a unique understanding of them that the rest of us don't. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:28 PM:

" Mom of 2: Who is to say that he doesn't choose his next victim at the grocery store, gas station, bowling alley, all ages dance, dry cleaners, resturant, etc. If they can't pick out a victim in any of those places, they sure as heck aren't going to pick one at a school function. Turns my stomach: Very confused as to what your scripture verse has to do with ANYTHING what-so-ever but if it makes you feel better to cite unrelevent scripture, then go for it. "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:39 PM:

" 40 points! to MOM OF 2 she nailed it! "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:42 AM:

" To Mike R, so can I please ask you, he may be at these school events and not causing harm to them there, but what's not to say that he isn't "looking for his next victim"? It's common sense I would hope even to a pedophile that he is not going to commit the crime while there are several people around but it only takes 1 time for them to find someone that he would like to prey on next. He's just better off not being around mobs of people, who or what knows what will set him off next, if it is a child or even a mom to one of these children. I don't know how these victims minds work, why even take the chance? Keep him away from what provokes him for his own sake and more importantly for the rest of us!! "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:06 AM:

" Lamentations 2:14 The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they DID NOT EXPOSE YOUR SIN TO WARD OFF your captivity. The oracles they gave you were False and Misleading." "

To Mike R wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:59 AM:

" I am glad you clarified that your daughter is not outside alone. I can't imagine letting your 3-year-old play outside alone though, small town or not. That is just plain crazy. Crimes happen in small towns too and that includes kidnapping. Glad I am a somewhat overprotective mother though. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 7, 2007 7:55 PM:

" Socks: Rape is possibley one of the most henious crimes that a person could commit. It is something that you never get over and it really messes with your head. I think the punishment needs to be harsh, but in this case I think it is more punishing to his kids than it is to the actual offender. Hold the offender accountable and even his wife if you insist on doing so, but please not the kids. That's the extent of my point. On an even sadder note - I have seen first hand women who cry rape out of vindictiveness. I know personally of 5 "alleged" rapes that were fabricated reports - 3 were motivated by a revenge mentallity and 2 were just to get attention. That sort of thing really detracts from the real horror of an actual rape. Sad, but it happens. Also very sad is the fact that some studies suggest that as many and half of all rapes go unreported due to the personal nature of the crime. It is truely something that deserves a great deal of attention in this country. "

Socks wrote on Oct 7, 2007 5:14 PM:

" Thanks for the info Mike. The people who I know whom were assulted, are still dealing with the effects 15 years later. I can't imagine the hell his wife has had to deal with trying to hold her family together. "

momof2 wrote on Oct 7, 2007 3:30 PM:

" i have a 13 & 14 year old and i also have a cousin who is a sex affender with his own niece this is very hard on me yes i don't like my kids to be around nim or muself it is very uncomfortablt. but give him credit that he wants to go to his daughters school function . he must have a heart of gold because who would want to face everyone. Are sex offenders to be list in the paper so the public knows that he lives in steele because we don't live that far from steele at all and either does the mikeR that is writing on here. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 7, 2007 11:16 AM:

" Socks: One year is not the Maximum, but in ND the average rape earns a person between 1 and 3 years depending on age of the victim, amount of force used, if the victim was incapacited (drugs or alcohol), events leading up to the rape, things like that. You are correct in saying that it sure doesn't seem like a lot of time for doing permanent damage to another person. I know of 1 rape victim who swears that it would have been more humane if he had killed her after he was done, rather than let her suffer the rest of her life. My advice to women - refuse to allow yourself to become a victim. Learn how to defend yourself, by any means necessary. Lose the attitude that it will never happen to me. Depending on which stats you believe, as many as 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted. That is insane. Something needs to be done. Learn how to defend yourselves and stand up and let it be known that enough is enough. "

Socks wrote on Oct 7, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Why is this guy out of jail already anyhow? Only one year in jail for rape? Is that the standard? "

Mike R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 11:55 PM:

" Turns my stomach: It is obvious that you have some serious ax's to grind and that's OK. Just don't throw them my way. I never said I would feel safe having them live at my house with my kids. I never said you should either. I just said that keeping them from a public function is kind of pointless. Now if you go back and actually read and try to comprehend my comments, you will see that I have said you have to fear them at your home and semi-secluded private places. I never said that you should invite them in to stay with you. You are twisting my words something terrible because you are completely unable to argue your point based on its merits alone, so you go off into left field with it. Please show me where I said that you should live next door to them. Please show me where I said that sex offenders have nothing to fear. Please show me where I stood up for the guy at all, other than to say that keeping him from the school didn't serve a purpose. It is an emotional issue, but you get so emotional about it that rational thought escapes you. That is why they passed this "feel good" legislation in the first place - to calm the irrational fears of people like you. "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 6, 2007 9:09 PM:

" "may the godless be ashamed of their SUBVERSIVE LYING....Psalm 119:78 also, somewhere in the Bible it says it is wrong to call evil good, and to call good evil. do we know that the wife and children really are safe around this guy? maybe they are scared into submission. maybe that wife is so dazed she can't think straight, and maybe she should NOT be the person to make the decission that he is out of prison and walking around loose again. no judge should be allowed to let a rapist out of prison without having the rapist live in the appartment in the judge's house right beneath the judges 17 year old daughter's room. if the judge thinks his pretty little daughtrer in safe....for 20 YEARS maybe then the rapist would be allowed to move back into society. lets send all rapists to Mike R's house....he can watch them. if the courts had some really serious years tacked on to these rapist guys parents wouldn't have to be so justifiably paranoid. it is anyone thinking of committing a rape who should be scared out of his wits at even the thought of it, NOT the women and girls and parents. rape is not a "mistake", it is a serious evil. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 2:02 PM:

" OK technically she is not in the backyard alone - she is with her friends who are around 7 or so. And yes I do let her play in the backyard with her 7 year old friends. I do check on them often though. I might not be able to do that if I lived in Bismarck, but that is one of the benefits of life in a small town. I know a few people here who let their 3 year olds play outside unsupervised for hours. I personally would never do that, but again thats life in the small town. "

To Mike R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 8:30 AM:

" You actually let your 5-year-old play outside by herself. You are a very trusting person. I have a 5-year-old also. I trust her, I don't trust other people. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 6, 2007 7:52 AM:

" gg: EXACTLY my point. You wouldn't want anyone you know to be alone with him. I wouldn't either. A public function surrounded by 500 other people isn't exactly being alone - thus nothing to fear. Like I said, I am not saying that I feel sorry for him or think he is a victim. I just don't like "feel good" laws that don't accomplish anything. Fine line: I personally could care less if a convicted pedofile was at a achool function with my 5 year old daughter (that is her true age by the way - not making it up) because I know that there is safety in numbers and her chances of getting attacked at the school function would be almost 0. I would be much more worried about her being lured out of my back yard when she is playing on the swingset. That is when offenders typically pick a victim - when they are alone. As far as your teen-age daughter, I still say the school function should be the very least of your worries. Sitting alone of the front steps of your home would be a more dangerous place for her than a school function. That is why "feel good" laws are passed. They make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but they don't actually do anything. "

gg wrote on Oct 5, 2007 11:21 PM:

" So let me get this straight, the woman he raped probably still has nightmares and other mental issues becuase of it, and as in most cases probably will for the rest of her life. This person spent 1 year in jail, says he is rehabilitated and we are supposed to feel bad for him? He was convicated in 2005, 2 years ago! At that time his 6 year old would have been what, 3 or 4? Where were the kids when he was out doing all this? I believe in forgiveness, but this to me is more about safety. Knowing he raped somone be it adult, child, sober or drunk, I wouldn't allow my daughter, wife, sister cousin, or anyone else I cared about be alone with him. Give him a chance? Why should I take the chance? Maybe somone should ask the woman what she thinks of how awful his punishment is. "

Southpark wrote on Oct 5, 2007 4:37 PM:

" To: To mother of a teenage boy: Amen sister "

To "to mother of teenage boys" wrote on Oct 5, 2007 1:21 PM:

" Are you telling me your son or someone you know dated a girl for 5 months and had no idea she was 14? What did they talk about? What grade was she in? How old were her friends? How about her parents? I do not believe a young man could have a 5 month old relationship with a 14 year old and have no idea how old she was. Instead of taking her to bed, he should have actually taken the time to get to know her. 90% of 14 year olds are in 8th or 9th grade, that's Jr. High in this town. If she was in a town where 9th grade is at the high school he should have known by who her teachers were and what classes she was taking. But again, he would have actually had to take the time to talk to her, get to know her! Excuses, excuses, excuses, you raised him. "

Southpark wrote on Oct 5, 2007 12:49 PM:

" He raped someone. RAPED someone. All you people defending his actions and saying he should be allowed to attend his kids school functions need to have your head examined. I agree with Kfed 100%! "

Cindyloo wrote on Oct 5, 2007 12:39 PM:

" I looked on the ND sex offender site and could not find this guy. So, did this happen out of state? "

Fine Line wrote on Oct 5, 2007 12:22 PM:

" To Mike R. - Based on your comments then, if a community has a convicted pedophile who is a parent of a child in the local school, that pedophile should be welcome to attend all school activities, also? Want him mingling with your 5-6 year old at a school function? After all...you could be at the grocery store with your child and encounter this person, right? I realize I can't protect my teen-age daughter from these criminals 24 hours a day, but I can dang sure try to keep them away from her in certain environments such as school functions. "

mother of teenage boys wrote on Oct 5, 2007 10:28 AM:

" A SEX OFFENDER COULD BE A BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND RELATIONSHIP. EXPECIALLY SINCE MOST BOYS IN HIGH SCHOOL DON'T ASK FOR PHOTO ID FOR PROOF OF AGE WHEN YOU DATE SOMEONE FOR 5 MONTHS AND YOU HAPPEN TO TURN 18 BEFORE YOU FIND OUT SHE IS ONLY 14. SURE DOESN'T DRESS OR ACT HER AGE. THE STATE HAS A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM THEY USE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT GOES FROM 0 RISK TO VERY HIGH RISK. WHY NOT USE THAT AS A GUIDELINE ANYTHING MODERATE OR OVER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE OTHER PARENT PRESENT. DRUG DEALERS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN SEX OFFENDERS BUT ARE MORE DANGEROUS AS THEY CONTINUE TO DESTROY THE LIVES OF PEOPLE IN LARGE NUMBERS, AND THEY ARE NOT KEPT OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS WHEN THEY ARE PARENTS. "

kfed wrote on Oct 5, 2007 10:04 AM:

" Mittleider says his daughter understands his crime???? Why would or should a first grader understand rape??? If she truly understands his crime she's not bawling about him not being able to attend her school functions, she is bawling because he father is a first class looser. He already had this child when he made the decision to rape a young lady, he ONLY served a year in prison. It's too bad the judge didn't give him 20 years then this would be a non issue and that poor child at the age of 6/7 would not have parents talking to her about rape. I agree with those who are saying Mittleider is taking the victim role. Next thing we will be hearing is how the rape wasn't his fault, (it was the victims because, well...maybe she walked in front of him) He did the crime, he should live with his actions. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:40 PM:

" Nowhere did I say that I felt sorry for him or that he was the victim. I just don't see the point of laws that serve no legitimate purpose. This is what we call "feel good legislation" and there is getting to be more and more of it everyday. I say if the law doesn't actually do what it is intended to do, it should be scrapped. Otherwise it is nothing more than a mockery of the system. Fine Line: If you are worried about your 15, 16, or 17 year old daughter coming into contact with a sex offender, you had better lock her up and throw away the key right now. What makes you think she won't run into the exact same sex offender in the grocery store, bowling alley, gas station, McDonalds or where-ever? Her odds of running into a sex offender at a school function are very low compared to anywher else she is going to go simply because with fewer people around, the sex offender is more in his own environment. They are not going to pray on anyone (7 or 17 years old) at a public function when everyone is watching. "

Rugby Resident wrote on Oct 4, 2007 5:41 PM:

" I for one am glad to see that school districts are trying to take some actions. However, I wonder just how it will be enfoerced. Two things come to mind when considering the difficulties. The first is how do we keep unknown sex offenders out? As we all have read in the news recently, there are sex offenders on the run in our state. The other thing is what about suspected sex offenders awaiting trial. I know up here in Pierce County, a social worker was charged with multiple counts of possession of child pornography. While this individual lives here in our community, our local leaders didn't think it important enough to release this information to us. Nor did any of our local news agencies. It wasn't until someone tipped the Associated Press that the story was covered. So, while attempts to protect the children are essential, can anyone really make a difference? "

Onli wrote on Oct 4, 2007 4:11 PM:

" To Anthony: I'm not sure what you are getting at, I didn't change anything in your comment. "

anthony wrote on Oct 4, 2007 3:48 PM:

" Note to editor: I did not say, "public events" in the second sentence. I said "school-sponsored" events. There is a difference. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 4, 2007 3:42 PM:

" Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for his children that are not able to have their parents there to support them as ALL children should. But, my point is that Mr. Mittleider in performing his selfish act got himself in this mess and in not thinking about the consequences, what this will do to his children and family, why should we be making special treatments to allow him in such a place. Imagine the fear of the children and maybe parents alike knowing someone of this nature is at such an event. It's not to say that he will pry on a child, woman or anyone for that matter at a public event but apparently he can not control his own actions so why put the candy in front of the child "so to say". It's dangerous and why not put an end to something before it can even get started. "

Fine Line wrote on Oct 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

" Everyone keeps talking about how this guy isn't a threat - what could he do to a child at a school function etc...that's not the issue. He isn't going to grab a young child at a Christmas concert and attack her for heaven's sake. It's the shapely 15, 16, 17 year old girls who are "children" by legal definition that I'm worried about. Do I want a man who, only TWO years ago, was found guilty of raping a woman, at athletic or various school functions my 16 yo teen-age daughter (who could easily pass for 18-19) attends? NO. I don't need a man like that around girls like my daughter or her girlfriends...I don't want him to know who they are or where they live. By allowing him to freely attend school functions we are sending a message to our kids that "he's a good guy and ok to be around." Well, if this were 5 or 10 years post-jailtime and he'd proven his ability to leave the booze behind and control himself all that time I'd feel a little different. Sorry for his family and all HE has put them through, but the best interests of our children and community take precedence right now. "

Anthony wrote on Oct 4, 2007 2:33 PM:

" Looking at this matter objectively, here's an informed and logical "protective" thought regarding a registered sex offender parent not being allowed to attend a school function with his/her child because a sexual crime "might" happen. I challenge anyone to come up with proven statistical data (stories, statistics, etc.) supporting the fear that sex offender parents offend against children at public events. What one will discover based upon recent news stories in the media is that sex crimes against children at school (and school-sponsored events) are being committed by teachers, school counselors, and coaches. Based upon this actual data, who should we objectively fear may really commit a sex crime against our children at "school functions"? Perhaps school employees should be tested for arousal to children as a pre-employment screening process. That way, our children will be protected against teachers, counselors, etc, who "just might" offend against them at "school functions." The rationale for this can be based upon real supportive data. This has happened---not "might happen"---but has ACTUALLY happened. Sex offenses against our children are indeed serious. Of course, Mr. Mittleider is not the victim. However, he can be supervised by his wife at a school function with his child. Someone said, "His child will 'get over it' if he never was allowed to attend a school function with his daughter. Well, this is exactly the same minimizing, faulty thinking a sex offender has for his/her victim. " "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2007 1:57 PM:

" I think you all are missing the point here. We're not talking about whether Cody is playing the victim. Sure, what he did was an evil act, and we're not excusing that at all. But the main points are these: 1) His offense (rape) was not against a child, but an adult; 2) The "rule" of no sex offender parents at school functions has no basis whatsoever in fact (Has any child ever been molested or snatched at a school event like a band concert, etc.? Name one!) and should therefore be repealed, and 3) The job of EVERY parent is to supervise their children and protect them from danger-whether it's strangers, fires, etc. Why are we trying to put that responsibility on the state? Also, people in Fargo need to ask themselves, "How is Cody living now? Has he re-offended against anyone?" If he hasn't, I believe he should be allowed to go to school events. OK, if you're still "worried about what he might do," let him take his wife along to supervise him. I plead with everyone not to lump sex offenders in one big category of "evil people." Treat them as individuals. "

Mom of 2 wrote on Oct 4, 2007 12:37 PM:

" To Jamie, you took the words right out of my mouth. He is the one that we are suppose to feel sorry for now, not his innocent victim that he preyed on? Not Hardly!! He has children fine, they have to live with what he has done the rest of their lives in just more than this one way of him not being able to attend their activities. He says "it would punish my family more than it would punish me" wow now isn't that the guilt trip. He already had children back when he offended this woman and he he was only thinking of himself when he decided to perform this heinous act so now sorry he must suffer. "

Jaime wrote on Oct 4, 2007 11:20 AM:

" Now he is the Victim???? I think not. Oh and it has nothing to do with forgiveness, do we really need to play that card? It has to do with following the rules and excepting responsibility for yourself. How special this guy must think he is. He can say OOPS, but I've changed now. Fine, maybe he changed, but how about a little consideration to the rest of the world and stop drawing attention to yourself and making yourself the Victim. "

Jaime wrote on Oct 4, 2007 11:12 AM:

" How Arrogant!!! This seems like a no brainer to me. There are rules in place for a reason. If the rule is no sex offenders at the school then so be it. This guy seems arrogant to me, expecting to have the rules changed for him. My husband, who worked all the time, never went to many school functions. My kids did not "suffer" because of it, it was just a fact of life. So his kids bawls because he can't go to her school function. Oh well, she'll get over it. It's his own fault and he needs to respect that. "

Fran wrote on Oct 4, 2007 10:01 AM:

" The deal is, Mike R., self-righteous Pharisees didn't just live in Jesus' day: They're the parents who tell the TV reporter, "Not in my backyard!" when it comes to the sex offender. They're the legislators who supposedly want to "keep our kids safe!" As Jesus aptly put it, "They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." Yeah, sure, let's focus on the random, isolated incident of a child being snatched and molested once every four or five years, while kids DIE EVERY DAY from drug abuse because they got hooked at school or in the neighborhood. I applaud Cody for doing his best to live a godly lifestyle. He's the one who has been forgiven by God. The Pharisees, both then and today, are not forgiven because they don't recognize the ugliness of THEIR SIN: self-righteous pride. I urge the North Dakota legislature (and other state legislatures around the nation) to repeal ALL the unnecessary, capricious laws to somehow "protect" our children from the "evil sex offender." That includes residency restrictions, registration, etc., that punishes those people like Cody who are now contributing to the community instead of harming it. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 4, 2007 6:13 AM:

" Turns my stomach: None of your examples fit this case. Did Jesus run this guy out of Steele? Was Jesus talking about this guy when he made his statement that you quoted? Your example of the religeous people covering up for the sex offender - was that this guy or someone else? The problem seems to be that you are trying to lump every sex offender in the history of the world together into the same catagory. That would be like trying to lump every criminal in the world into the same catagory. That would place NSF check writers in the same catagory as hardcore ax murderers. I think there may be a slight difference there. "

MIke R wrote on Oct 4, 2007 6:09 AM:

" Turns my stomach: Why do I live in a bubble? Because I know for a FACT that the laws are for the children and not the adult victim. Or is it because I know for a FACT that it would be almost impossible for him to offend in a public venue like that? As far as living in a bubble, I can promise you that I have seen 100 times more of the evils that this world has to offer than you have. What I have seen in my life would probably scare you into unconscousness. I just happen to be a realist - that's all. I agree that something needs to be done to protect the public from sex offenders but taking action that affects his kids but does absolutely nothing to protect anyone is just plain silly. "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:07 PM:

" WOW, if every rapist in the state were really afraid to "get on the bad side" of the COURTS, what a much better place to live this state would be. "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:02 PM:

" WOW, guess i never thought of it in terms of "attack" persons of faith because i have spoken up about religious people NOT wanting to DEAL with the evil of rape and child abuse, so they just slip and slitter and slide right into "forgiveness". Jesus got out the WHIP and ran the money grubbers, money changers right on OUT of the temple. NO MICKY MOUSING around. Jesus also said something like: better a millstone be HUNG AROUND HIS NECK and he be DROWN in the depth of the sea, rather than that he OFFEND one of these little ones. since you asked, in my experience i've been subjected on a number of times to religious people who REFUSED to deal with a child abuser! the religious people LIED for him, and the "indignation" about even having to hear about the abuse....ladeeda....was too much....so the religious one lied: "AW! HE wouldn't do that!" and the other religiouis helper....took that as the cue to not bother with the case. the LIES OF SILENCE of the aabusers mother have still have their insidious influence damage to this day and the abuser is still on the loose. maybe he will come to your house. you can have him, and the religious liars who cover for him. Mike R, i think you live in a bubble. "

Mike R wrote on Oct 3, 2007 9:18 PM:

" Turns my stomach: I can agree with what you are saying as far as the victim not wanting him at the concerts, but then again the victim probably wouldn't want him at city meetings, the grocery store or anywhere else either. Is the school going to be so much different for her? If she can live with him being everywhere else in the city, why make the school the big issue? Besides that the law is to protect the kids, not the victim. I am not saying that is right, mind you. Just that it is the facts of the law we now have. Besides that, do we know if the victim even lives in the same county? If she doesn't, then why would she personally care if he goes to a school program or not? I do think that sex offenders are the lowest of the low, but I also think that this law is a knee jerk response that really doesn't protect the kids. It just sounds good as a soundbite for the legislators saying it and it gets them a few extra votes - nothing more. There actually are a couple different catagories of sex offenders (depending on threat of re-offending), but no one knows about them. All they know is the label of "sex offender". "

wow wrote on Oct 3, 2007 7:17 PM:

" to turns my stomach-why are you attacking people of faith? have you ever done anything wrong and wanted someone to forgive or forget that you have done it. you must live life on the straight and narrow. i don't believe people are evil. we all have made mistakes from time to time. i pray i never get on your bad side because the Lord only knows what you might do in return. i think people can change and people have changed. i am not making any excuses for what he has done but why change if you are going to be judged for your past for ever. we need to start doing what Jesus wants us to do not what we think is right. Jesus died for you, me and yes even cody. one sin is not greater than the other. a sin is a sin in God's eyes. Jesus' forgives! shouldn't we??? "

from steele wrote on Oct 3, 2007 6:50 PM:

" i have know cody for 2 1/2 years now and i believe we need to give him a chance to back up his words. i also have 4 children ages 17, 15, 13 and 11. one of which is a girl and i have never been afraid to let her be around cody. my son has worked with him and babysat for him. we as humans who all make mistakes, some of them worse than others need to offer him grace as the bible teaches. it is not our job to judge him that is up to God. he has done his time, he is trying to change and better himself. i can testify that he no longer drinks. it is wrong for all of you to attack or questions his wifes motives for staying with him through all of this. do you really think it has been an easy choice for her. i really believe we need to start opening our hearts and minds a little. just because he did a horrible thing doesn't mean he can't change and if we continue to treat him like he can't or hasn't or never will-then what is the point of it all anyway? people can and do change all of the time. i know we all have things in our past we wish we could change but we can't. all we can do is try to do our best never to go down that road again. let's give him a chance to show us all he's changed. i know it might seem like a great risk but i think his children deserve every chance we can give them. cody we will be praying for you and your family, and hope to see at the next event your daughter is in. "

Fran wrote on Oct 3, 2007 2:06 PM:

" I have some questions for the Fargo school board and the ND legislature: How many kids have been snatched or molested at North Dakota schools in the past year? Also, if the state is OK with sex-offender parents attending public meetings, why do they have a problem with them coming to band concerts, plays, and football games? What's the difference? The REAL menace to our schoolkids is not the sex offender but the drug dealer who regularly preys on them at will---before, during and after school. No one seems to care about monitoring the one who has time and time again destroyed the lives of our youth. Where's the database for him/her? He's the real predator that parents need to watch out for. By the way, the recidivism rate for drug dealers is at the top of the list; sex offenders are about 5th or 6th. Moreover, sex offenses are usually committed by someone the child trusts. Hmm...let me see.. Who could that be? Schoolteachers? Coaches? In my opinion, Mr. Mittleider needs to sue the state of North Dakota and get this ridiculous law repealed. Once again, we are witnessing the political knee-jerk reaction to "keep the kids safe." Who do the politicians think they're fooling? All they want are votes. "

Turns my stomach wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:29 AM:

" does the woman who was raped feel safe in the same county with this lout? has anyone asked her whats she thinks of this matter? there are women in this state who have NEVER had a fair deal from the police or courts with regard to these perverts. the women and children are just expected to keep their mouths shut and play along and cover for these perverts. this rapist KNEW he had a wife and kids when he raped that woman. was the woman 19 1/2 years old? did she go into shell shock from this serious assult on her person? has she had any help? does she think it is fair that the woozie court gave this guy just a year in the pen? should the judge in this case be fired for not having any backbone? there are women across the state of north dakota who are decades later dealing with the ramifications of rape. for them nothing got over in a year. if this rapist had just gotten hung on a tree last year, the school board wouldn't have any problems with him this year. it is a really sad culture that excuses rapist. some of the WORST people for excusing rapists and child abusers are religious people! the religious people who would rather blatther on abouit "forgiveness" instead of dealing with evil do a SERIOUS injustice to the offended person. religios people who don't want to DEAL with evil are a huge part of the problem why evil gets perpetuated. "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 3, 2007 9:54 AM:

" Well here is the debate. Whether or not this sex offender can attend childrens school programs and athletic events. It was brought up that he raped a woman, not a child and that does weigh alot on the decision I would think. Also, when was the last time you went to a Christmas concert and the crowd was nothing but children and no adults to be found? Never. When was the last time you went to a football game and the last person on the grounds was a child? Never. When was the last time you went to a school event and the crowd was nothing but women? Never. It is safe to say that besides the school faculty there will always be enough adult supervision that he could attend these events. Which also raises the question, should we have seprate categories for sex offenders. The law is like saying if you get a DUI, get a speeding ticket, or traffic violation, you can never come within 100feet of a car again. Let's be realistic here. Could he possibly rape a child at one of these events? Yes. Is it likely? Not at all. Did he do the wrong thing? Absolutely. We most keep our opinions of judging his family and wife to ourselves and look at the facts which we will never know. How do the rape happen, did he just snatch someone off the street, or was it one of those that she was all for it until the moment and then it turned to rape. Irregardless, he is a registered sex offender, and it is known. If the school really wanted to be safe, they could simply have a floresant orange vest with "sex offender on it" and make him wear it to school events. If he would be man enough to wear it at one of these events, I would say that he is man enough to do the right thing at that our children would be safe if he attended these events. "

LDH wrote on Oct 2, 2007 4:02 PM:

" How can we as a society expect people to better themselves (rehabilitate) after they commit a crime if we knock them back down at every turn? Should we just throw everyone in jail who commits any type of crime and throw away the key? "Oh, sorry, you got a speeding ticket, we can no longer trust you to be on the road." Yeah, I know speeding and rape are two very different things, but seriously, where do we end? All the guy wants to do is see his children grow up. He made a very horrific mistake, he paid his debt to society. Let's let him have a little sense of normalcy in his life. I'm sure his being a registered sex offender has already made his life a living hell. "

Questioning wrote on Oct 1, 2007 3:21 PM:

" When a person has commited a crime and is considered a threat to society, he/she should not be allowed the privileges that non-violent people can have. Judgment of an individual by what he/she has done, when it is a fact, is just the truth, plain and simple. Facts don't lie. People need to be protected from those who cannot be trusted. Sex offender's children should be told exactly the reason a parent is not allowed the rights that other parents have. Hopefully, all family members of a sex offeder will get counseling to better understand the actions their loved one has caused. "

Gardog wrote on Oct 1, 2007 11:13 AM:

" There are no simple answers to this one, but one consideration is the school's liability. If they write a policy which allows in a registered sex offender when state law allows them to exclude the person, and then he/she commits another offense, then is the school partly liable? How about if they pick out a victim while at the school event, and then follow them off school property and assault them? Sadly, the school district probably does not have a lot of options here, because they have a duty of care which is defined somewhat by whatever the state law says they are allowed to do. I wouldn't want to go into a court and argue that the school acted responsibly by allowing more access than they were required to. But of course, I also wouldn't want to be a school official who allowe din someone with any sort of conviction for any sort of violent crime if the law allowed me to exclude them, just because someone else could jump on my case. Should schools allow those who have been convicted of drunk driving to drive into a school parking lot? How about someone convicted of a domestic assault? What if they start a fight at a football game? Was it reasonably forseeable that they were a violent person, and the school should have kept them out? Where does it stop? "

reader wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:03 PM:

" personaly this could affect the children in the long run, what happens when she is 18 and she keeps telling her father he was never there, or if she has a great game or something like that... but he wasn't there to watch it! if you were this guy wouldn't you want to be at your childrens events to cheer them on... or would you wanna wait at home for your child to tell you all about it... instead of acctually being there. Let him in, he payed his debt to society, and who are we to judge people. "

Mike R wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:32 PM:

" I agree with those who say that he raped an adult, not a child. If he has no crimes against children, then what safety purpose is achieved by keeping him away from the school functions? I would like to take it a step farther though. Sometimes we make laws and rules with good intentions but don't step back and see that our efforts don't accomplish a single thing. Lets just say for a minute that his offense was against children. Does anyone really think for a second that he is going to rape a child at the school function with hundreds of other parents, teachers, and staff present? He would be most dangerous when left alone one on one with the kids. He wouldn't any danger at all in a large group knowing that everyone was watching him. So what are we trying to accomplish? Safety? How does keeping a guy who isn't a threat to kids in the first place away from an event where all the kids are going to be closley monitored anyway, make anyone any safer? Or is this possibley a knee jerk reaction that really isn't going to accomplish anything? "

lw wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:28 PM:

" I can't believe he would go to any events after all this attention - talk about the mother of all awkward moments!!! "

MN reader wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:09 PM:

" I have not read the details of the rape. I only know that alchohol was a factor. Even still, I (as a woman) would feel uncomfortable being at my child program or sitting in church or shopping at a grocery store knowing a convicted rapist is present. It would be difficult to enjoy any of it. He may have not raped a child, but who is to say a person that raped a woman would not do it again. The next time it could be me. We teach kids to follow rules. I do feel for the kids, but if we bend the rules for one you are opening a can of worms. I do agree the crimes or situations that get the label of "sex offender" does need some rewriting, but until then, let mom or someone video tape the program and let dad watch it at home. "

Mirrorman wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:27 PM:

" Why don't they require any sex offender to be accompanied at all times by an approved supervisor. Then they can attend events and also be supervised for the protection of the rest of the people. This can be done is a discreet yet acceptable way. Waht do you think? "

hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:22 PM:

" this is very hard..and very personal..I have two children who were molested by a man the town trusted...would I want him at school to watch a game or program...NO. would I feel sorry for his children ? absolutely...and I would ask where is his wife's head...statistics have proven that about 3% of sex offenders are "cured"...where does that leave the unsuspecting..andbelieve me..they can be pretty convincing..best to be safe...Sorry , dad.9nkz4 "

JB wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Rape is a horrible act - however, I agree with other comments that each case should be considered on it's own merits. There is a big difference between someone who rapes an adult and someone who is a mentally distrubed pedophile, who by all studies done show cannot be restored to normalcy. Bottom line is that sex offender is far too broad in label. There should definately be categories and not all should have the same 'branding' for life. Re: this situation. I feel this man should be able to attend his children's functions. He has committed no crime against children and poses no threat to them. Big city schools say they can't take the time to consider each case individually, but this isn't a big city. We are small town North Dakota where we are considerate, caring and willing to help anyone restore their life that really wants to. "

Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 6:46 PM:

" And here is another link for those interested http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.htm "

Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 6:41 PM:

" I wanted to include a couple of links here for those that would like to read more and also to include a final thought about sex offenders. A very large share of sex offenses are committed by relatives and acquaintances of the victim. Draconian laws only lead families and friends to not report these crimes and the victim receives no justice and the offender does not pay his debt to society. http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/ "

Citizen wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:50 PM:

" Observer, you are on the right path, continue to follow it. It is a simple thing to wear a cross hanging by a thread around one’s neck. It is easy to proclaim, “I am a Christian,” and attend church every Sunday but it is more difficult to practice it. I believe that is what we are “witnessing” among the comments made by many of the souls who are writing in. Yes, we need to watch sex-offenders carefully but we must also set examples of forgiveness and courage for our children to follow. Hate, fear, dislike, abomination, shunning, infliction of mental anguish or physical pain are not the solutions. Do you think Christ would want us to teach that to our youth, is that the path that will take us to our final goal, is that the end of our souls odyssey through the test that has been laid before us? "

Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:32 PM:

" To Kat: You seem to have missed my point. I am not comparing sex offenders to immigrants, African Americans, or hippies. My point was that every ten-fifteen years we as a collective society find a group to demonize, and work ourselves into a fear frenzy. I agree with some of the other comments: One size does not fit all. Sex offenders do not all reoffend. I know it is a common urban legend that sex offenders cannot be "cured", and there are many who cannot. But most sex offenders do not reoffend. That is a documented fact and there are plenty of statistics online that you can find to affirm this. Legislators, however, aren't swayed by facts sometimes, but rather by emotions. "

OMG wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:26 PM:

" So if Mittleider is excluded from school functions - then they need to start checking everyone's records and also exclude people for other serious offenses. Which you know they will find. Granted - a sex offender is bad but let's check everyone then. "

To Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 1:31 PM:

" I'm not sure what the right answer is on whether or not Sex offenders should be allowed in schools (although in most cases I'd say safety first), but why don't you think sex offenders should be grouped negatively, or demonized as you call it. They earned the title of sex offenders by their own actions. It is not like people are judging them because they are prejudice. Maybe you would feel diffent if it was you or your child who was abused. "

oh great wrote on Sep 30, 2007 12:41 PM:

" OK just another reason for kids not to want to report this stuff - this is a step in the wrong direction. If kids have to not only face the tought of (1) tearing the family they love apart, (2) sending a loved one to prison, and (3) knowing the parent will never be able to play a roll in their academic life will make it just that much harder for them to come forward! A very bad step in the wrong direction. I think it should be on a case by case basis. "

lw wrote on Sep 30, 2007 12:15 PM:

" The guy raped a woman. And alcohol is not an excuse. There are many people who drink more than their fair share but don't proceed to rape someone. He committed a sexual crime and is now considered a sex offender. He will have to live with what he did just like his victim will have to live with what he did. It's just that simple. "

To Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 12:12 PM:

" So your option is to do nothing at all because it will never change anything? Balancing the law so that both sides have fairness takes a while. When people commit crimes they should be punished. I'm sure if you were raped or had a significant other raped you would be a little more understanding instead of claiming that people are just getting worked up. Do you think we would be just as safe if the government had passed no laws? "

Dave wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:56 AM:

" Let the guy go to his children's school functions. Obviously his act was heinous but it wasn't against children. I think they need to look at the crime committed instead of just lumping all sex offenders into the same group. "

kat wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:53 AM:

" How can You compare immigrants, blacks and hippies to a sex offender? I do agree though that we need to seperate sex offenders into different categories. Offenders that commited crimes against adults should not be treated the same way than offenders that harmed children. Also, it makes me sick to see an 18 year old having to register as a sex offender for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend the same way a 40 year old sicko that raped a little girl. "

ed wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:36 AM:

" in the article about sex offenders being on school properity than all of the teachers personal lives should be under a microscope also. I knew of a very young woman that was sexually abused as a child. She didn't go to the school where this teacher taught. This teacher and his wife and family where friends of this womans sister. So this teacher abused this girl for many years durring the years between the years of1970,s and 90,s now this girl is in her 50's and first dealing with the abuse as an adult. this woman believed it was her fault and could never report it, cus he always told that he loved her. "

LL wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:37 AM:

" to: Mittleider--You are a rapist, do you even get that?? You are saying you are not one of those freaks, well, you are, do you have any idea what you have done to another human being?? I don't think so. And if you truely cared about your children, you would want them to have a good life without a criminal in their lives. "

DO THE CRIME - DO THE TIME wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:24 AM:

" This loser raped a human being, he did the crime now he should do the time. there is no rehab for losers such as a sex offender, proven fact. AND WHAT KIND OF A WOMAN (MOTHER) WOULD LIVE WITH A SEX OFFENDER. My opinion is that she is also a loser that does not care about the safety of her children. "

Mom wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:08 AM:

" I would hate to be the superintendent that gave the ok to a sex offender and things turned out bad. The safe thing to do is to keep them out. Why should parents and kids have to be watching over there backs in a setting that should be safe? The man in this instance will have to deal with the consequences of his actions, and unfortunalty so will his children. The decision made needs to be based on facts, and the safety of the kids in school. It should not be based on the emotions of this man and his children. "

Observer wrote on Sep 30, 2007 8:50 AM:

" " It seems each decade or so, we have to have a group of people that we demonize. This is done for several reasons: To give the government control over us by making us afraid, and to make us feel good about ourselves. In the 20's it was immigrants, in the 30's anarchists, in the 40's and 50's communists, in the 60's it was blacks and hippies, in the 70's and 80's it was drugs, and now it is sex offenders. We work ourselves into a frenzy over these folks, and pass silly laws to give ourselves a perception of safety, and at the end of the day nothing really changes. I will be interested to see if this really solves anything at all... " "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.