Wednesday, October 13, 2010

House-sharing with person on sex-offender registry

A good friend has asked a sincere question about persistent allegations brought up by people I believe to be supporters of the incumbent sheriff in the current race in McHenry County. The request for information will be found as a comment to the article below, entitled "Ignorance personified."

The allegations are that I shared an apartment (it was a house-sharing arrangement) with a person who was listed on the Illinois Sex Offender Registry.

Let me explain what happened. Then you will have, for the first time, the facts of the situation. I have not owned a home since 1986. Being free of a mortgage and not being tied down to one property, I have been able to live in Colorado, Kansas City, Fort Collins (Colo.), L.A., Albuquerque, Phoenix, Sedona, Corpus Christi, Santa Fe, Denver, Kirksville (Mo.), Richmond (Va.) and now, Woodstock.

After my divorce here in 2000, I lived in a second-floor apartment in the old Tambone medical office at the corner of Dean and South Streets, until that building was sold following Dr. Tambone's death in 2002. Then I house-shared on Todd Avenue. After that, I moved to the 300 block of South Madison Street (just down the street from the Groundhog Day house), which house was set up by the homeowner as a house-sharing arrangement. The owner, another man and I shared the home.

About a month after I moved in, the Northwest Herald carried an article about the Illinois Sex Offender Registry, and I checked it out. I was shocked to find a photograph and listing of the other man with whom I was sharing the house.

It took me a month of serious conversations with numerous friends and internal struggle before I could broach the subject, first with the homeowner and then with the man on the S/O Registry. My experience of him before finding his name was that he was a gentle, quiet, private, unassuming, sincere acquaintance. He was extremely helpful to the homeowner around the property and also helpful to one neighbor.

Part of my internal struggle was because I was still active in my stepson's life, and I was concerned that he, then 15, would not be allowed to visit me or even spend time with me.

After many conversations with close friends I approached the homeowner. I was still mad, upset and feeling sandbagged because he had not informed me of the status of the other man who rented a room in the home. He explained what he could, and then I talked with the man who was on the Registry. He was open, candid and, I felt, truthful with me.

Over the next couple of years he completed his ten years of registration and his name and photo were removed from the Registry.

This is the one and only time that I will comment publicly on what happened. That man and I are friends. He was treated shamefully by some of the neighbors, who never took time to try to get acquainted with him. He was referred to in "hate" terms, as was I. Some of the neighbors were vicious in their remarks and emails. He has been very helpful to me, and I believe I have been helpful to him.

Certain events in my life have contributed to my being able to reason through issues and to examine several points of view before acting. They also have strengthened my resolve against bigotry and hate.

This explanation will, I hope, put to rest the allegations and libel that have been directed toward me. Unfortunately, they will probably re-kindle some of the hateful comments from those few narrow-minded individuals who are unwilling to understand truth. So be it.

10 comments:

Unknown said...

You just lost more votes. Was this guy a child molestor? If thats the case. Im sure The 5 votes you did have from people just went out the window.

Gus said...

Jason, you are showing your ignorance and intolerance. For me, the truth, honesty and transparency are much more important than your vote. Or the five of them.

Dave Labuz said...

Jason,

As someone who's not afraid to read and research topics of interest, I can tell you that while the Sex Offender Registry can be a helpful tool, it's extremely flawed.

I say that as a Conservative who strongly supports family values, and as someone who views ANY actual crimes, visited particularly upon children and women, to be so revolting as to be personally unforgivable, as far as I am concerned.

But if you do some digging online looking for articles and editorials on the subject, as well as dig into the various "Offenders'" cases resulting in their registry, you'll find that many are more often the victims of circumstance, rather than actual predators - those people we actually need be concerned about.

Some of these "overblown" circumstances, causing registry have actually included:

Consensual sex between two minors (statutory rape).

Caught taking a leak behind the garden shed at a family party (exposure to a minor).

Being "caught in consensual acts" behind a bedroom door you forgot to lock (exposure to a minor).

The list goes on and on - literally and figuratively.

Could some of these "Offenders" have used better situational judgement? Of course. But are they in any way truly predators that we need fear otherwise? Hardly.

mark beeson said...

Gus , I appreciate that you wish to publicly talk about your past housing situation , but you have not shown any transparancy about what this person did and therefore what you as a person were willing to forgive and somehow develope a relationship with to this day. Your so-called honesty is vague. Not knowing this detail causes me to rethink your mind set. I don't think I am being closed minded here , but rather looking for the real truth , as others probably are as well. I hope you feel that my vote counts.

Gus said...

Mark, I appreciate your comment and I thank you for it. I have said all I intend to say about it.

Dave Labuz said...

Hey there, Mark -

As I pointed out, there are all too many registered who are not predators at all. The Registry, while an important tool, was and is a mostly polital sop from a past election. Why not have a registry for convicted murderers, drug dealers, gang members, etc? These offenders are just as worthy of "outing" when it comes to the safety of women and children.

The "zero tolerance" mentality is moronic. The result of this mentality puts non-predators on a watch list, as well as virtually criminalizes a boy that shows up at a school Halloween Party whose costume of choice includes a rubber or cardboard "weapon".

If the sex offender registry makes sense, where are the registries for other worrisome offenses that are also worthy of note?

Dave Labuz said...

As for how this information affects my decision to vote for Gus, it does not.

First, the situation Gus found himself in was purely by chance. What single man checks the sex offender registry before securing housing?

Second, as I had found out for myself, it's relatively easy to delve into case detail or summary for a currently-registered offender. These are public documents after all. Apparently, this guy's honesty to Gus could be verified, and he was likely to have been a victim of circumstance, not a true predator. Knowing Gus, I can't imagine him being in any way tolerant or supportive of anyone who was an actual danger to women or children.

Third, as per the laws of the land, those laws he'd be in charge of enforcing as Sheriff, this gentleman has "paid his debt", his registry has expired, thus according to the law, is no longer subject to public disclosure. The fact that Gus refuses to "out" him now, when he's running for public office, speaks volumes for Gus' personal integrity. In spite of the fact that this "past" chance association could affect his winning the Sheriff's race, he's unwilling to throw this guy "under the bus" for the purposes of securing high office. That takes integrity, a moral code and guts. That shows Gus' moral code to be of more value to him than his winning public office. It certainly must be confusing to many. This site, while absolutely under his moderation in the posting of comments, sees fit to routinely allow posting that are critical of himself. Can there be any greater transparency?

And fourth, it shows that Gus demonstrates his absolute resolve in keeping a confidence. The ability to keep a confidence will be essential in reforming the Sheriff's department.

Gus said...

DBTR, thanks again for your insightful comments. And I appreciate your kind words.

Dave Labuz said...

The registry as practiced is a flawed bit of law. That “zero-tolerance” policies are idiotic are well documented. That these “lists” contain non-predators is well documented. Such similar “zero-tolerance” in our schools’ policies have ended up actually criminalizing little boys’ Halloween costumes that would otherwise require plastic or cardboard weapons for consistency, or have “busted” pubescent girls for “smuggling” Midol or Aspirin into their classrooms. If the need for such “registries” were valid, why is it that we have no registries for convicted gang members, drug dealers, murderers, pimps or other miscreants that pose equal danger to children and women? Surely, they are equally of concern – and knowing who they are and where they live is equally important? The Midol and Aspirin-using girls mentioned above, should there be a “drug registry”, would of necessity under a similar law, be listed as drug dealers! That is, if the “laws” were consistent!

Gus’ “failure” to disclose this gentleman’s name and his “offense” speaks well for Gus’ moral code and integrity. According to the law, this gentleman’s “debt to society” has been paid. He’s off the list per the terms of the law you’d otherwise accept. If you are willing to grant the registry’s lawful existence, so you must also recognize that the validity of the statute enabling the list to be equally valid when it proscribes members’ de-listing as well. Do you think Nygren, if presented with a similar conundrum, would flinch from disclosing who what and when? His retention of Office and his burgeoning pension if successfully reelected, I believe, would cause him to create a new mass-transit fatality.

Integrity - that’s Gus – for better or worse. His code is obviously more important to him personally than the Office he hopes to attain and exercise.

I am certainly quite critical of him from time to time. Yet he allows me to speak freely in opposition, and yet, there is still mutual respect and debate. He listens.

Dave Labuz said...

You're welcome.

That the fact that the truth alone is kind to you speaks all the more to your integrity.