Business Ethics Discussion Topic -- Public Accommodation and the Sex Offender Registry
My company operates campgrounds on public lands under contract with various public agencies. Over the past several years, there has been a lot of discussion about public accommodation (e.g. can a private photographer choose not to serve a gay wedding). This has never really been a big issue for me in my business, both due to my personal tolerance of just about anyone and the fact that we operate on public lands, which gives us an extra responsibility for broad accommodation.
Yesterday a sheriff's deputy in Arizona comes by one of the campgrounds we operate and gave a flyer to our manager. It says that so-and-so, we will call him Mr. Smith, is in the area and is registered as a level 3 high-risk sex offender ("level 3 is the highest level and considered the highest risk to reoffense"). The deputy lets my folks know that it would be better not to do business with this guy.
Now personally, I have a lot of skepticism for the sex offender registry. These lists sweep up a lot of people whose crimes are trivial (e.g. teenagers who had sex together or texted pictures with their girlfriends). They assume high risk of recidivism without evidence. Their existence dates back to a variety of molestation panics that were grossly exaggerated, and play on what I think are irrational public fears. They can act as a substantial extra punishment beyond what they might have been charged with in court. And they can be harsh, making it nearly impossible for someone to try to live a normal life in any community.
So the dilemma arises because this gentleman was staying in our campground at the time we received the notice. My female manager wanted him out, as did most of my employees. My guess is that if I polled the guests, most of them would want this guy out. Because many people in a campground are in tents without any door or lock, they can feel particularly vulnerable. I had never really thought about this much until we added cabins with locking doors to a campground and the early customers were disproportionately single women and women on their own with their kids. They liked the lock.
My most telling problem is one of liability. The state of Arizona has officially notified me that in the state's opinion this person is high-risk (whatever I might suspect his true risk may be). If some incident were to happen, this notification would be exhibit one in the trial suing me into bankruptcy, arguing that I callously and knowingly allowed this risk to remain when I had it in my power to remove it. I suppose one could argue that I probably always have people on the sex offender list in one of our campgrounds almost every day since there is no reasonable way to check on such things. But in this case I have been notified in writing by an agent of the state that this person is considered high risk -- this knowledge gives me added responsibility.
I made my decision already, because part of the joy of running a 24/7/365 service business with 2.5 million customers a year is that I have many decisions like this and I have to make a choice and move on. But I am curious what your decision would be. Discuss.
Update: wow, the discussion here is just tremendously useful. The commenter who observed that I could probably be sued either way successfully captured the flavor of my frustrations trying to run a business in the modern legal environment.
It struck me later that I might not even have a decision to make. The Forest Service which owns the land may not even allow such folks to be excluded from public lands. If this is the case, I can get that in writing and do what I prefer (ie not participate in the further punishment of this gentleman) but have some coverage against legal liability in the future.
I feel sorry for Coyote's dillema, but this makes me laugh. On one hand the government gives out these warnings and on the other makes it illegal to discriminate in housing. This is rather like the case in California in which a protected historical house was being battered and damaged by a historical protected tree. Nothing could be done legally! And to do nothing was illegal too.
I would have asked the deputy why he had been let out of jail if this guy were so dangerous.
Weirdness, but you do have a point. I guess if someone sick wanted to make such a claim, it may actually work if they are convincing, which i'm sure would not be difficult to do. However, and luckily, we have mental health institutions and prison-like commitment facilities for such people. If someone wants to make a claim like that with the State or Federal government in an attempt to gain some sort of legal standing, I would love to see the guy tossed into lockup. They have no business using a sex crime conviction as the basis as a anti-discrimination by claiming it's an orientation. Then again, the Gay people did it and sodomy was illegal so i guess only time and court causes will tell. Give it 10 years and what you are saying just may end up being a real thing. Hell, we may even be forced to accept it in society and forced to see it on television, ads etc. It's happening everywhere now with the LGBT rights crap. I can't even go anywhere anymore and see "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. I think you are right.. thinking about the slippery slopes in society, you just might be right.
Lose - lose
Government has a monopoly of law, and we pay taxes to ensure that all are equal under the law.
Government therefore has a monopoly of law enforcement.
Then some government guy comes round to give you a piece of paper saying that you should, maybe, evict your customer from government land.
Organise vigilante justice now! Get in the lynch mob! The government told you to.
If you want to reduce the risk that he has a relapse, do the simple, moral thing to do, talk to him. Tell him your situation. Let him know it is your gut feeling to not remove him as you want him to succeed in life. Get to know him and ask him his story. Most ex-offenders are more than willing to talk about it to someone who is honestly curious and caring. By doing this you are making him feel welcome, but he knows that you are in a tough position. I bet he will be on his best behavior.
The facts are very clear. Reoffense rates for ex sex offenders are very low, on par with the general population. Any children in your campground are 96% more at risk of being molested by the friends and family they are camping with vs. this guy residing down the way.
As much as I would agree with you, the US Attorney Generals office does not hold the view that it would apply to a convicted person who is required to register his presence with the State for having been ruled guilty and sentenced for having committed a crime.
If the punishment for his crime bars him from public acommodation, then your responsibility is clear. If the law requires that you post a notice of his presence in your facility, then your responsibility is clear. The registrant may have to some extent lost his right to privacy as punishment for his offenses, but the government has not found sufficient cause to permanently 'brand' his face with a scarlet letter. I wouldn't assume the responsibility to correct the government's oversight in this matter.
If your company doesn't have a stated policy against registered sex offenders using the campground, then I think you should let him stay. I agree with with others who recommend speaking to the man, asking for his assurance that he won't F*** up while he's there. But even if that doesn't go well, you've at least made him aware that you're aware of his status, and I would let it go at that.
So taking it to its logical conclusion, the US Attorney General's office would hold the view that registered sex offenders can, and should, be discriminated against for any location that they could reside or, in some cases, exist?
Godwin's law doesn't apply if the action actually has a direct inference or link to Nazi Germany. In fact, German acceptance of executing Jews and fighting for their Ayrian right to oppress humanity didn't start with the Jews. In the thirties, the first people oppressed were the sex offenders. At the time, homosexuality and interracial involvements were sex crimes along with pedophilia, so the people got accustomed to the government oppression of people. From there, they expanded it to all criminals, and finally their REAL target, the wealth-holding Jewish population, to steal their wealth and to finance their war.
So yes: WW2 was initiated in no small part to the sex offender registry of its day.
The problem with sex offender laws is the double jeopardy aspect. These offenders have been tried, convicted and served time for their offense and then returned to polite society. Why are sex crimes the only offenses that are treated this way? If recidivism is the issue why was the prisoner released?
We just revisited "hate crimes" with the passing of Kate's Law, but the Sanctuary Cities want to be able to treat criminals as law abiding citizens. But sex offenders, even the ones who were only "touchy, feely " will be punished again and again. Where is SCOTUS on this question? Life sentences do not seem appropriate,- else death sentences would also be appropriate.
You are on to something there. If the sheriffs are so sure this guy is going to reoffend, why isn't he locked up or in a mental hospital. They are the ones passing the responsibility onto the business owner. The reoffence rate is so low for offender one has to wonder if tbe notice is for political reasons.
Consider also that camping may be part of the former offender's path to rehabilitation. Part of therapy is for the offender to engage in activities that are enjoyable, but legal and wholesome, alternatives to illegal addictions. Would anyone stand in the way of that? Maybe the camp owner should actually talk to the offender and do research about his life, and educate against fear responses.
How can this guy get away with anything with everyone now knowing? Isn't that the idea behind Megan's law. What a farce. Megan's law was supposed to make people feel safe, because they now know where the offender (former) is. Yet the knowlege only makes them more uncomfortable. What do they do with the knowlege that 90% of the offenses are commited by family or close acquaintances? Ignore that, because it feels better to pass judgement on a stranger than to look into what goes on in your own tent or RV.
A play on the American jury system, in three voices:
Dude, speaking to the Jury: "I may be a sex offender, but it was twenty years ago, and it was for kissing my now wife when she was 14 and I was 16. Wave to the Jury honey. I was devastated by this eviction and had to go through 2 years of therapy...attempted suicide... counseling...lost my job...lost my house...repo'ed my truck..kilt my dawg...PTSD...mental pain and suffering...heart attack...cancer caused by stress...and I live right here in this small town where y'all know me and I'm a good ol' boy, and just look at that slicker Meyer guy, rich, probably a Jew, maybe a Ayrab or a German, anyway a furriner, hates me and all us country folk.
If only he'd asked me what happened way back then. But he didn't"
Jury: "20 million dollars."
Coyote: "Holy fcuk"
By which I mean, in the American "justice" system, the risks are utterly unpredictable, but yuuuge.
The best answer here. If the government/law don't want sex offenders to stay at campsites, make it a law. Why is it Coyote's responsibility to come up with the answer?.
What happens the next time the Deputy come calling and advises there is an individual staying who is a convicted burglar? Or a murderer. Or someone convicted of assault. Or fraud? Or drug dealer. Or even a drug user. What about a family where there is suspicion of domestic abuse?
Is there an exception? Yes. For example if the Deputy gives a description of an individual suspected of using a stolen Credit Card. Not doing business with that individual is a Business decision and that is the only test that should be used here.
No, not a 'recommendation'. Specific written instructions.
max-
i'm not sure i'd call this "passing the buck". i's call it "turnabout is fair play." when police and local agencies pass the buck to you with amorphous "suggestions" like this that can have massive liability implications and in which they basically abrogate their job and put you on a spot for which you have no specific competence, it seems just, fair, and correct to engage in a bit of turnabout and hand this responsibility back to its rightful owners.
this was a really crappy thing for the police to do both to warren and quite possibly to "mr smith" as well. it feels like outsourced harassment. it also places warren and his employees in undue danger. why make campground employees who are unarmed and untrained engage in conflict with such purportedly dangerous people when a cop is right there?
how is that a good idea?
The cool thing about this is if this man had gone into one of your tents and merely beaten the women and children in there nearly to death and put one of them in a wheelchair for life, then the man would not be dangerous at all. He would not have to Register with big government and they would not get to follow him around and harass him for decades afterward. He is only dangerous because he did something involving s*x.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are dangerous people among us all the time. A tiny, tiny percentage are Registered or known to anyone, and even that is not just worthless, it is much worse (including being counterproductive). So you simply must protect yourself from ALL people. If you don't do that, then no big government very, very incomplete list of people who have done something bad in the past will be of any help to you. If you do protect yourself then you have no need at all for any list.
Since you are doing business with public lands and contracts, if I were this person and denied service, I would absolutely try to sue you. Courts are not fair to people on the big government list but suing would be the right thing to do regardless. All people who support the Registries should be attacked every single day by any means that is legal.
Perhaps you should have your attorney mail a demand to the sheriff for protection. You should tell the sheriff that since he/she thinks this person is dangerous then you are demanding that they post a lookout on the person. That should make everyone feel good and safe.
We bought in a crappy neighborhood with a fair amount of drug use/dealing and burglary. We suspected certain people and did our best to remove tenants that acted inappropriately whether it was criminal or not. There was no violent crime that I know about. Reducing crime was one of our major concerns. When we bought one property, evicting certain tenants (husband was on trial for some drug offence) was a condition of the sale. We gave some tenants breaks on rent in exchange for them doing repairs and keeping an eye out.
BTW, when I was young lived in another neighborhood where the drug dealers were great neighbors. They were nice people and they fixed up their townhouse. Their behavior and visitors made us suspect drug dealing but since they did not sell on their property it was OK with us. Their arrest was not a surprise but disappointing.
The legal problem that I see here is the campground is a Public Accommodation in the original sense, a place that people can pay to sleep. Unless this person is forbidden by law from using it, kicking him out is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen, which the campground would lose.
I think that the best answer here is to consult with the landowner (presumably the state) to find out if they have a rule about this, then follow the rule. If they have no rule, or instructions, let him stay, treat him like anyone else, and tell him of the deputy's visit.
Go after the sheriff's department and SUE them, Looks like AZ Sucks also !!! I would have posted this on ACSOL but the fool's there like to CENSOR people !!!
Not an easy decision because a person could consider being moral and doing the right thing.
I would seriously love to get people like you out of America. There are many, many other countries where your kind fits in better. Not here.
BTW, anyone with sense who has spent 2 seconds thinking about it, does not call people who are listed on the big government Registries "s*x offenders". Because doing so is inaccurate, lazy, and probably hateful as well. What name may we call you, please?
OK, what is moral and the right thing? I am no expert, but there are good arguments either way.
My position is what I would advise Coyote if he were my client. Based on possible legal outcomes, I think the choice is clear and I would advise Coyote to act accordingly. If Coyote want to consider moral or ethical issues, that's outside of my job description. If he wants to risk the business based on moral or ethical grounds, that's his call.
The moral and right thing is to refuse to participate in the lies of nanny big government and their "s*x offender" witch hunt. But in America today, I don't think people really need to worry much about doing the moral or right thing. We are a divided nation and the Registries have been really helping that along for decades. So F everyone else. We all need to choose the easiest path for each of us and what will give us individually the most gain in the end.
If the guy is asked to leave the public lands he definitely should sue anyone that he can. Part of his suit can be asking the big government lovers how many other former criminals they have kicked out.
Maybe I have worked too much in New Jersey, but here is what I thought.
Deputy – My, this is a fine campground you have here. Lots of happy kids and moms. Looks like a wonderful place for families.
Warren – Thanks we work hard to keep it nice.
Deputy – That’s the reason I’m here. I want to help you keep things nice. It has come to our attention that your business faces a serious danger from a sex offender known to us as Mr. Smith. We have knowledge that Mr. Smith is in the area and may in fact have frequented your business.
Warren – Wow that does sound serious. Can you arrest him if he is here now?
Deputy – Well as you know, in our official capacity, we can only take action after a crime has occurred. Unfortunately, as we both know, that’s just too late. Who’s going to want to stay at the camp ground “where that poor innocent child was molested”?
Warren – Well can I call you if we see him? Can I bar him from staying here? What can I do?
Deputy - Far be it for me to tell you how to run your business. I would just hate to hear about something terrible happening, what with all these beautiful children running about.
Warren – Wow, I just don’t know what to do.
Deputy – Perhaps I could make a few calls to some associates of mine. These fine professionals might find some way to help you out of this tough jam. Maybe hang around for a while and keep an eye on things. They would need a reasonable daily stipend of some kind. But hey, it’s better than losing this wonderful business you’ve built here now isn't it.
Warren – So let me get this straight. There's a serious threat, there is nothing I can do about it, there is nothing you can do about it “in your official capacity” but fortunately you know some guys who can provide protection to my business for a reasonable daily stipend. This must be my lucky day.
Deputy – I was thinking the same thing. You want I should make the call?
Unfortunately, yes because that was the whole point for the sex offender registry. I view it as the modern equivalent to the Scarlett Letter.
I have not read the discussion but will comment.
If the person is a danger to community it is the government who has a duty to mishandle him and exclude him from the life civil and they won't ever force me to do it because, just as you said, the 'offender' thing is a complete travesty of justice. If the person is a danger it us up to the civil authority to exercise their power and frankly, I don't even wish them luck if they release actual dangerous offenders onto the community.
You're a citizen of the US and you enjoy the right enshrined in law to carry a weapon and fuck the NATIONAL forest service and PARKS. They're dangerous places. Carry a serious weapon when you go there. I certainly do. 1
Just consider how many murderous police forces have blown away a "perp" for "trying to avoid them/drive away and were shot and killed by the law enforcement convinced that an automobile is a dangerous weapon.
If you can get a car into national parks you can carry a magnum and use it.
No no, Moral and Ethical decisions are quite easy. It is only rules made by others that confuse the issue.
My, my Will. You may call me a prudent businessman. Why would I expose my business to the potential of a huge lawsuit because I wanted to be politically correct regarding the potential flaws in the offender registry? What those men and women really are isn't my concern when I hold myself out to the public as promoting a safe and fun experience. If you have a problem take it up with the officials who create and administer these offender registries. You could also spend some time and money educating the public on the true nature of the registry. But you are off base to criticize those who have to conduct business with an eye toward risk mitigation. Do you own a business Will?
I understand where you are coming from. I do own businesses with equity in the tens of millions. I understand protecting the exposure of businesses but I'm surely not as worried about it as an owner of a single small business who really wants (needs?) it for his/her livelihood. However, everyone should at least occasionally try do the right thing and take a position that may be a little risky.
You mentioned "politically correct" but you are wrong about that. The action you suggested is the easy, PC action. Big government has chosen to single out crimes that involve s*x, with no legitimate reasons or facts, and try to create an underclass of people who can be hated, harassed, discriminated against, and subjected to special treatment for their entire lives. Again, based in direct opposition to all known facts and reality. They have been running a witch hunt based on lies for a very long time. True Americans cannot ignorantly and brainlessly support that.
The PC action is to not question the witch hunt, agree with the tyrannical, completely uninformed mob, fall in line with the government propaganda, and do what is their BS "common sense" and what everyone would like for you to do. That is the easy, PC path. But that is exactly what strong, principled Americans need to neutralize.
You gave the example that this business likely holds itself "out to the public as promoting a safe and fun experience". That is probably right and if it is, then this business should actually put its money where its mouth is by ignoring the S*x Offender Registries (SORs), which protect no one, and actually protect their clients from all people. ANY person who is at their business could be 100 times worse than the person that the government "warned" them about. ANY single person. So unless they are protecting their clients from ALL people then they are not actually protecting them at all. And if they are protecting their clients, then they don't even need to know about this guy who did something bad in the past. That is 100% superfluous information.
I am not off base to criticize people who support the SORs and take actions that support it. In fact, not only do I criticize them, I spend plenty of time and money attempting to punish those people and their businesses. I identify individuals and businesses that support the SORs and I do what I can to harm them. The SORs are an act of war that harms families. I am at war with anyone who supports them. It is the appropriate, moral, American response.
This isn't the first time two people have talked past each other on Warren's blogs. I think you are still missing my point. If the police show up at your campground and advise you that a offender on the sex offender registry is camped out in your campground and you take NO ACTION whatsoever, well that puts your business at risk. Because in the presence of a clear and present danger you took no action. I say that in full agreement that the offender may be harmless and that unindicted murderers and rapists may be camping there as well. The risk to the business owner comes from the foreknowledge of this particular risk, not the random risks that surround most any business.
Will, I won't stoop to ad hominem attacks.
"pick up the tab at a local motel."
Except you can't offer that without checking with the motel first. I don't know about motels as such, but I've stayed at more than one extended-stay place that had signs in the lobby saying they won't accept people on sex offender registries.
I got your point.
But the moral answer is clear - Coyote should take no action that perpetuates or supports the Nanny Big Government (NBG) witch hunt. I think he should do the following:
1. Have his attorney send a letter to the sheriff that states since they think the person is dangerous demand that they keep an eye on him. Suggest that they station an officer on the campgrounds. Also point out that forcing the person to go somewhere else is no solution. What about the people there? And what means exists to ensure that he very simply doesn't just walk into the campground any time that he feels like it, perhaps a month later?
2. Talk to the guy and tell him what is going on. Explain that it is difficult to do nothing about it and ask him to help you. Assure him that you aren't going to tell anyone specifically or take any specific action against him. All actions will be for general protection that ought to be done anyway.
3. Give a flyer to every camper there that warns them of risks at campgrounds and how to be safe.
4. Put up some more cameras. Frequently check on the guy. Keep a written journal.
5. Ask the campers several times a day if anything odd might have occurred. Record it.
Some of that stuff is fairly inconvenient but it wouldn't be a bad thing to do all the time.
You said you "won't stoop to ad hominem attacks". I'm not attacking you. You called people names. I was merely asking you what names we all should call you.
NBG wants you to call people "s*x offenders" and know how much you need them to protect you. They want you to think they are protecting you good people from THOSE people. But using that term to refer to people who are Registered is inaccurate, lazy, and hateful. And frankly you just said, "a offender on the s*x offender registry". The people listed are not "offenders". They are people who are on a government list. "Registered Citizen" is a pretty good term for it. If you want to call them "offenders" then I should call you an "offender". After all, it is you who is helping NBG harass people and cannot leave other people alone. That is offensive and offending. A person who does it is an offender. Personally, I think they are immoral terrorists.
Nehemiah:
I got your point.
But the moral answer is clear - Coyote should take no action that perpetuates or supports the Nanny Big Government (NBG) witch hunt. I think he should do the following:
1. Have his attorney send a letter to the sheriff that states since they think the person is dangerous demand that they keep an eye on him. Suggest that they station an officer on the campgrounds. Also point out that forcing the person to go somewhere else is no solution. What about the people there? And what means exists to ensure that he very simply doesn't just walk into the campground any time that he feels like it, perhaps a month later?
2. Talk to the guy and tell him what is going on. Explain that it is difficult to do nothing about it and ask him to help you. Assure him that you aren't going to tell anyone specifically or take any specific action against him. All actions will be for general protection that ought to be done anyway.
3. Give a flyer to every camper there that warns them of risks at campgrounds and how to be safe.
4. Put up some more cameras. Frequently check on the guy. Keep a written journal.
5. Ask the campers several times a day if anything odd might have occurred. Record it.
Some of that stuff is fairly inconvenient but it wouldn't be a bad thing to do all the time.
You said you "won't stoop to ad hominem attacks". I'm not attacking you. You called people names. I was merely asking you what names we all should call you.
NBG wants you to call people "s*x offenders" and know how much you need them to protect you. They want you to think they are protecting you good people from THOSE people. But using that term to refer to people who are Registered is inaccurate, lazy, and hateful. And frankly you just said, "a offender on the s*x offender registry". The people listed are not "offenders". They are people who are on a government list. "Registered Citizen" is a pretty good term for it. If you want to call them "offenders" then I should call you an "offender". After all, it is you who is helping NBG harass people and cannot leave other people alone. That is offensive and offending. A person who does it is an offender. Personally, I think they are immoral terrorists.
Throw him into the lake.
If he doesn't drown, he is guilty and should be permanently banned from the campground.
If he drowns, he is innocent and should be left alone.
I would do whatever your client tells you to do, client being the government that pays you.
Which is yet another great reason that the S*x Offender Registries should be destroyed immediately. Could they get much more un-American?
And I still need to learn - how is it possible that the un-American lovers of big government have so massively failed to get the rest of their Registries created?! They must not care about children after all.
Your first two paragraphs are pretty inline with my beliefs on the subject of the Sex Offender Registry also. I run a private investigation firm in Phoenix, our website is http://www.eliteprivateinvestigation.com and I've seen my fair share of true sexual predators, as well as people who got a slap on the wrist one time years ago for something that was very discretionary and in many cases, wouldn't even be considered a sexual advance by most people, yet they were deemed to be a sex offender, and forced to be included in the registry. I think you hit the nail on the head though and it will be interesting to see what the future holds for this subject.