Here in Florida our local sex offenders are complaining about living conditions. The ACLU is right there backing them up all the way. Yes. Sex offenders have rights!!! How dare we make them uncomfortable! They are living in under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami amd the Oakland Park Boulevard Bridge. They haven't been able to find permanent homes or don't want to.
Last night on the news here in Florida and in our local Sun Sentinel it was a pity party for sex offenders. They have no place to live. They can't find homes. No one is taking care of them.
My question is why are they out of prison. I don't understand why sex offenders are released for any reason. Ever. They are predators. They hunt your children. Sex offenders ae repeat offenders. There is no rehabilitation. The damage they do to their victims is irreperrable.
In the news footage done on their story you could see a sign. "Even Animals Get Treated Better" written on cardboard. Hmmm. Animals don't roam your neighborhood looking for a vulnerable child to rape. If an animal did this and was caught it would be shot. Animals are better. These criminals are sub human.
In the article in the Sun Sentinel Dr.Jill Levinson was quoted as saying "It's naive to believe we can solve the problems of sexual abuse by banishing criminals from our communities". She's a sex crimes analyst. I'm agog. If they aren't allowed out in society they cannot commit the crimes against society. It absolutely stops those individuals who have been caught from commiting another crime.
If you can't put them "down" like a mad dog then put them away forever.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 73
I don't get why they are not in jail either, Susan. I've heard in some states they are contemplating convictions of capital punishment for sex offenders. Good. It's time the "justice" system of this country gets that rape and sexual abuse are unforgivable, capital crimes and need to be punished accordingly.
Although I'm sure to take a beating for saying this . . . what DO we do with them? They've done the time required of them and (at least here) are registered and kept in our sights . . . even posted online here. You SAY lock 'em up for life . . . but the category includes people who take a leak in the alleys . . . or who are caught streaking . . . it's a wide gamut. Supposing you are referring only to the worst cases . . . you want them locked up forever . . . but your fellow citizens have voted in laws saying no. Now what? Of course you don't care . . . you don't want them out to begin with. But they're out . . . legally . . . as required. Now, nobody will hire them and they can't find housing . . . and, somehow, this makes the problem go away? I don't think so.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The Penal code differs with you on that. Public nudity and other activities like public elimination of bodily waste IS considered a sex crime in most places. An 18 yr. old caught having sex with his 16 or 17 yr. old girlfriend may be forced to register too. But I DID grant you the worse case scenario . . . pedophiles (and I would include rapists) and even then . . . you seem to miss the point. They ARE let out (forget the "they shouldn't be" song and dance . . . let's deal in reality) and NOW what? You seem to think because the laws aren't written as you wish them to be that you can make some sort of added penalty to help the punishment along. Either change the law or realize that society disagrees with you.
Incidentally . . . I'm one of those unfortunate people known as "pro-life" so I can't condone killing these people either . . . but that's just me, I value life. Don't get me wrong . . . incarceration in the interest of protecting future victims is something I readily endorse . . . but these people are getting mixed messages . . .
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Unlike you . . . and others . . . I support and defend the US Constitution. You can change laws or form vigilante groups and hunt down and lynch these people. The choice is yours. Michelle, this is not supporting sex offenders . . . it is supporting the US Constitution and the laws we all live under. Nothing else. Everyone knows these people aren't going to be warmly welcomed . . . nobody argues that they're some sort of great people either. But that doesn't mean we use our Constitution to wipe our feet with. Those laws protect ALL the people . . . the ones you like and the ones you don't . . . which is why many of the statues of Lady Justice show her blindfolded. She doesn't hold some laws for some and others for others.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I think we use the term "sex offender" too loosely. It covers everything from peeing on the side of a building to rape. That isn't wise.
If a person has served their time and been released, I think we owe that person the ability to live in peace until he/she has done something to lose his or her rights again - at least until we, as a society, not a bunch of vigilantes or angry mobsters, legally determine an 'in between' status and living arrangements for people who are neither incarcerated or free.
I think this article contains a number of loose, undocumented statements.
I guess one has to hope that they are not the next victim needed to prove the predator on the loose hasn't learned his lesson
go to yesterdays Sun Sentinel for the full article if you'r e concerned with "undocumented" material maybe that wil lhelp
I'm more concerned with children's safety myself I wouldn't want to have to explain to the next child/victim -well the guy deserved another chance he did his time-I guess he messed up again and you were it
My point as well. Society elected to punish them according to the law . . . they completed that and have been released and told to keep out of trouble and contribute to society . . . So as much as you would love to gun these people down as they walk out the doors . . .
I see a little to much talking from emotions (and I understand it) and not enough rational thinking. On one hand we hear "Laws need to change" and yet we also hear ""Whether its legal . . . doesn't matter to me. " . . . so who cares about the law changes? When emotion overcomes reason people are less likely to effect the changes they seek.
I worked for a long time in career criminal prosecution and I don't think you realize how many registered sex offenders are really out there. They cover ALL kinds of people . . . so the first thing you should do is start differentiating the generic term "sex offender" which has a very specific legal meaning and start using terms you mean . . . like Pedophile. Even rape is a broad-based term since an 18 yr. old caught with his 17 yr. old girlfriend can be convicted of Statuatory Rape . . . and be a registered sex offender and a rapist both. (And some of the comments here indicate he should get a bullet between his eyes too).
Write your legislator and tell him or her that you want longer sentences for Pedophiles . . . that's how you change the law . . . not by threateneing to break it. Start a drive even. That's what's great about this country and why I support and defend the Constitution. Here in California a little girl named Megan was raped and murdered. Her mother took action and we have megan's law now. On the website now, concerned people can see ALL registered people anywhere in the State. Photos. Crimes committed (So you know if it's violent, pedophilia, public urination . . . Whatever This is the kind of action that was thought to be needed. Do you have it? Have you asked for it?
Rational beats emotional every time. Ranting in blogs about kill 'em all and to HELL with the law . . . will never accomplish anything. Something to consider, eh?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I've very much appreciated our dialogue. I hope you take some of my comments and consider them. In my experience victims have become VERY good at effecting change. John Walsh, the founder of MAD, Megan's mother, Amber's mother (Amber alert) . . . tough . . . very tough people. They have my respect and have helped VERY much. But not coming from a mostly emotional (though emotion does, of course, play a role) level. Persistence, toughness, tenacity and rational thinking calling for specific changes and talking to their elected officials . . . as well as mobilizing support. Use the law on your side, don't disregard it . . . and great things may come.
Respect and Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
This is true in so many situations because of how our laws are written (or tried). First offenders seldom go to prison. Criminals are seldom caught the first time. That means first victims and all the others through the second or third conviction are ignored.
As a society, we can't have it both ways. Either we fight for prison time for first convictions, truth in sentencing, and life without parole, or we have to respect the rights of those who are paroled.
If all of us who have been the victim of a violent crime were to decide "There is no rehabilitation and the damage they do to their victims is irreperrable," and take the law into our own hands, we'd have chaos. I believe, absolutely, that the person who hurt me has been rehabilitated and that I am repaired. I don't expect that to always be the case, just as I don't think you should expect your truth to always be the case.
As for the people living under the bridge who "haven't been able to find permanent homes or don't want to"--Susan, I suspect you know fully well that the reason they are there is because under recent city ordinances they can't live within 2500 feet of a school, a park, etc (again, regardless of whether they've ever done anything to a child), which simply means they cannot live anywhere.
Sandy:I have no desire to take the law into my own hands. I would like to see the laws changed. I'm not refwerring to al lcrimes in this case I'm referring to child rape, child molestation.
Doyle: I have and always will advocate for protection of our children. Thanks for the encouragement in this directoin.
And what do you propose should be done with these people? Line them up and shoot them? Lock them away for the rest of their lives? Exile them to Antarctica? And all of them, including the 19 year-old who had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend (boy, is the population of Antartica about to swell), or someone convicted of indecent exposure, or gay sex? The question was, is that fair? You know, morally, ethically right?
I think a setting like a state hospital is the solution. There's no sense in punishing them. It's not going to modify their behavior. Neither chemical nor surgical castration makes a difference.
Paranoid schizophrenics who commit horrible violent crimes are generally institutionalized rather than imprisoned. I think we need to do the same with pedophiles.
Nippy is on the right track.
Most of us have no trouble controlling that desire.
If we define pedophiles as people attracted to minors, that includes an awful lot of us. If we drop the definition to, say, pre-puberty, what makes you think that everyone so attracted also have trouble controlling it?
The problem is not with pedophiles. The problem is with those who act on that attraction. Within the population of those who don't control themselves, there has to be a spectrum from those who can never and those who can always control themselves.
Which ones do you lock up forever and throw away the key? How do you know?
Seems to me that we ought to ignore the moral aspect altogether and try to think of crimes like this in terms of "How can we deal with this problem in a way that will benefit our society the most?" The obvious restrictions on what we can do are the Bill of Rights and the courtesy due even the most flawed human beings.
As far as who gets locked up forever, beats me.
I don't think the lw is drawn at puberty. Its a legally determined age and rape is rape
If you haven't molested a child you aren't a pedophile. If they have molested a child then they obviously cannot cotrol their urges and need to be under lock and key. It's not all that complicated as to what the basic crime is. What the system does with them is full of grey areas unfortunately.
And if you "don't imagine" I'm a pedophile, then why say it? That's a pretty low rhetorical technique.
I said Nippy's idea has merit if we think a person might still be dangerous. There are 80-year-old disabled men who have been kicked out of old people's homes because they did something 50 years ago, and the homes are now in restricted areas. How's that for harming people?
By the way, I read the Sentinel article twice, and I don't see where any of the sex offenders says they don't want to find housing. The journalist does suggest this using the same language you do, but without offering anything more. I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer to sleep under a bridge than find a house to live in. BTW, the half way house mentioned in the article is a reasonable short-term solution.
This may not be the appropriate context but "Lolita" is an interesting take on this. Another novel, completely different but whose major character is a pedophile, is "The End of Alice" by A. M. Homes. Homes is a woman, BTW.
When you refere to "did something" if you've molested a child 50 yrs ago that child still suffers and that man should not be unsupervised.
A pedophile re arrested in my old neighborhood for attempting to grab a little girl had a long history and was re arrested. He was an 70 plus grandfather living with his family down the block. He was also the schcool crossing guard!
It was mentioned by the reporter that some of the pedophiles did not comply with going to homes found for them.
James Mason in the movie Lolita.
It was mentioned by the reporter that some of the pedophiles did not comply with going to homes found for them.
Where? This is the article I linked, and I assume the one you directed me to, since you did not say otherwise and did not provide another link.
Options running out for sex offenders living under bridges
By Georgia East and John Holland | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
February 5, 2008
About 50 sex offenders statewide who call bridges, parks or other public spaces home have been told they must find a new place to live, and it better have walls.
Caught off guard last month when the Department of Transportation evicted as many as nine sex offenders living under the Oakland Park Boulevard bridge, the state is cracking down on those who haven't been able — or haven't wanted — to find permanent housing.
Last Tuesday, probation officers arrived at the state's most infamous home for sex offenders, a bridge under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in Miami, and told 19 people they must relocate. Officials are giving offenders similar ultimatums across Florida, although no one will be arrested immediately because "being homeless isn't a crime," corrections department spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said.
State law requires all people on probation to have permanent addresses so officers can pop in for surprise visits or make sure they aren't violating curfew. But after the 2005 rape and murder of a 9-year-old Central Florida girl at the hands of a convicted sex offender, many cities restricted sex offenders from living near places where children gather.
That sharply cut their housing options and many wound up registering a bridge as their residence.
"We're urging them to find housing, and jobs for those who are out of work, and we're helping them with that," said Plessinger. "To manage these offenders, we must know where they are. And Fort Lauderdale made it clear that we didn't want to be in that situation."
Last month Fort Lauderdale police, acting on a Department of Transportation trespassing notice, evicted offenders living under the Oakland Park Boulevard bridge. Because offenders can't relocate without permission, several of them made frantic calls to corrections officials, Plessinger said.
The state decided to put more pressure on offenders to find a real home and many have already been placed with friends and relatives who live outside restricted boundaries. Others have been more reluctant or unable to find affordable homes in approved areas, causing corrections officials to escalate their push. Is that it? That's a vague suggestion in weasel language. No evidence or concrete examples. In fact, if it were true that any of them had rejected housing arrangements made for them, this would no doubt be mentioned at this point. It isn't.
"I want to make it clear that we have not imposed a deadline, but we want these offenders to re-enter society," Plessinger said. "Many of them have had ample opportunity and, frankly, have stopped trying. That's not an option; they have to find homes." Is that it? Same as above--an opinion that they surely "should have" been able to find homes already.
Lee Chang, 25, thought he would live in his mother's home in Miramar after being released in September for lewd and lascivious battery on a minor. But they learned soon after she rented it that the house is in a restricted area.
Now he's at a halfway house after spending four months sleeping in a car parked under the Oakland Park Boulevard bridge.
He shared the mosquito-infested space with four other sex offenders. The state Department of Corrections allowed them to stay there if they could not find anywhere else to live that did not violate city laws.
"I don't think anyone would want to be in this situation," Chang said one night while sitting on the car hood.
Last month, even the bridge went off limits.
Some of Chang's bridgemates were moved to a campsite in the Everglades, said Joellyn Rackleff, spokeswoman for the corrections agency.
"It's a temporary stopgap until they find something," said Rackleff.
The lack of housing poses "a serious problem," said state Rep. Jack Seiler, D-Wilton Manors, chairman of the Broward County Legislative Delegation. "What you don't want to have happen is to have them just drop off the map."
Lobbyist Ron Book, who pushed for stronger laws, was unsympathetic. "When an individual gets convicted for sexually deviant behavior, at the end of the day nobody wants them living in their apartments," he said.
Critics say the laws create a false sense of security, because most offenders can still be near children during the day.
"It's naive to believe we can solve the problems of sexual abuse by banishing criminals from our communities," said Dr. Jill Levenson, assistant professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton and a sex crimes policy analyst.
In addition, Florida law treats "Romeo and Juliet" offenders — typically, a couple in which one sexual partner is underage — the same as predators and pedophiles. Therapists say that when convicted felons cannot secure a place to live, it's more likely they will resume a life of crime.
The state did not classify Chang a predator. In 2005, authorities charged him with lewd and lascivious battery against afamily member. He said he's not sure what happened because he was drinking and smoking and blacked out.
"I don't own this charge because it's not me," Chang said. "I'm not like those other guys." He served two years and a month and is on probation for 12 years.
"I knew [finding a home] was going to be hard," said Chang. "But I didn't know they would put me under a bridge."
The Department of Corrections told him to be there from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily. At first he was the only one, but within months at least four other men showed up. Some were predators, forced to wear ankle bracelets so they could be monitored.
Every night at about 9:45 p.m., Chang would arrive in his father's red Mercury Tracer with a bottle of water and his cell phone. He said he never felt truly safe, but he learned how to sleep in the car despite discomfort to his 5-foot-11-inch frame. With no bathroom, the mosquito-infested site smelled strongly of urine.
He spent his nights playing games on his cell phone, fishing or listening to his car radio. At 6 a.m., he headed for Miramar to return the car.
His mother, Mercedes Lopez, said she worried about her son's safety.
"You have so many crazy people," said Lopez. "You don't know if someone is going to go there with a gun and shoot everybody."
Miramar city attorney Jamie Cole defends the law, saying not all of the city's housing falls within the ban and "to have sexual offenders living within a short distance of a place where children congregate would be counterproductive."
Chang's attorney, Chris Mancini, said such laws are unconstitutional and create a critical mass of homelessness.
Considering where some of the offenders ended up, Chang said, the halfway house is not bad.
"I get to sleep now," he said. "I have a roof over my head."
So where?
(And this is your second assertion. A while ago you claimed that the sex offenders themselves said they didn't want to find homes. Now it's something else. Will the ground shift again?)
Again, my point is that this ridiculous and impossible situation is not helping anyone, and actually makes children less safe if it is true that these people are dangerous.
Oh well, this isn't a book club, eh?
Men who prey on children-who have been convicted of such an offense should not be out of a prison or mental institutions .
It's not about housing them--it's about the fact they are released. If they have done ANYTHING sexual to a child they should not be out and about. That the ACLU and people like you are concerned about their housing just gets my goat. My assertions ar the same from the get go-crimes against children..don't release them. No release, no housing problems, no victims.
I'm done repeating mysel. Read more thoroughly.
It's kind of rich for you to suggest I didn't read the article. Here's the history: you made a statement, and referred to the article but didn't give a link. I looked it up, read it twice, gave a link, and reported what I found in the article. I did not miss the first sentence there. I covered it above above, in the comment where I gave the link:
Feb 6, 2008, 7:59pm EST
By the way, I read the Sentinel article twice, and I don't see where any of the sex offenders says they don't want to find housing. The journalist does suggest this using the same language you do, but without offering anything more. I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer to sleep under a bridge than find a house to live in. BTW, the half way house mentioned in the article is a reasonable short-term solution.
Where I said "using the same language that you do", that's what I meant, because you wrote the same phrase, except in the present tense.
As for me missing your point, if your point indeed is that pedophiles should be kept behind bars, I don't see how I could have missed it. I have said the same thing, with two qualifications: if that high recidivism rate is demonstrably true, and if the law makes a much more reasonable effort to separate real pedophiles from high school sweethearts and other harmless people.
But if you do not see the difference between claiming these things:
Several them were quoted as saying they don't want to find homes,
Susan A., Feb 6, 2008, 3:22pm EST
and It was mentioned by the reporter that some of the pedophiles did not comply with going to homes found for them.
Susan A., Feb 7, 2008, 8:24am EST
...and what is actually in the article, then there's no point in our discussion, because our criteria for truth and a rational argument differ considerably.
Take care.
Susan is wrong about this, and her misunderstanding about "sex offenders" is responsible for the needless outrage of this article.
If Susan was aware that this problem is caused by the kneejerk reactions of people like her, she would not be so quick to call for "more laws" as the answer to all problems.
The Florida State Senator who propositioned a plain clothes policeman in a deserted bathroom last year is now a "sex offender" under Florida law.
Married men who sneak out and are entrapped (like the US Senator, Larry Craig) are "sex offenders" in Florida.
The former senator may be able to find a place to live that is not near a school, church, meeting place, bus stop, convenience store, and a long list of other prohibited places.
But many people, who have been convicted of lewdness and public indecency are being punished by the hysteria of ignorant people like Susan who support every "crack down" that is unnecessary and stupid.
Some sex offenders present a continuing danger to others, most do not.
Laws should be thoughtful and informed by professionals who have training and experience in assessing risks.
In Florida, they are not.
It is a supreme irony that the state senator arrested as for propositioning another adult was one of the sponsors of the idiotic law that makes every crime involving sex a potential case of a "sex offender".
Peter: I happen to agree with you totally. I am against the stupid crack down, I am against police entrappment i.e. the bathroom incident. I am appalled at the mess our laws have made of all this, lumping everyone together and branding them all with the same iron.
With all due respect Susan, the law doesn't do this, you do. Sex offender is clearly defined by the law. YOU use the term loosely (as do others). Pedophilia requires a victim to be under the age of 14. VERY different and more in tune with your thoughts. But you didn't complain about pedophiles, it was about sex offenders. AGAIN, I caution you to learn the terms and beware of the term "rape" which includes 18 and 17 yr. old CONSENSUAL relations . . . something VERY different from an unknown assailant who rapes a person by force at knife point.
Most of the disagreement in this thread comes from lax definitions and loose use of terms. You're NOT alone . . . when a ballot or vote comes up saying sex offenders should NOT be permitted in parks, people see the term improperly, as you do. And a teenage lover id banned . . . or a drunk.
It's ALL about being exact and precise . . . which I think you appreciate more now but failed to realize initially.
For the record . . . Recidivism rates, while popularly considered high, really vary wildly. I actually have studied this. Recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders vary greatly, ranging from less than 5 percent to more than 50 percent, based on such factors as the victim's gender, the offender's relationship to the victim and whether the offender has received treatment, multiple studies have shown. In general, younger men who abuse boys they don't know have the highest risks of re-offending.
There are, here, 9 year sentences for each count . . . consecutive. We ALL want to protect the kids. Learn the terms and use them properly and you can make great strides. And be real. NOBODY prefers to live under a bridge than in a home. That's absurd.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I woul not think anyone would PREFER to live under a bridge but they are having a problem judging from the interview I saw, some of the men do not want to go elsewhere. Butr, as with homeless in New York, these people aren't al lmentally stable and aren't nec. compliant.
Again, I agree with you. You are spot on. Thank you.
I am damaged, that part will never change-it is what it is-I am a survivor I have done wonderufl things with my life but tht part will never chage, the trauma is there and nothing makes it go away it's like telling an amputee grow a leg and get over it. You cannot . It's not always fixable and I have to deal with that as does my husband. Perhaps you have a little girl or boy-how would you "fix" them? My father went after the offender with a bat. The police told him even if the molester was arrested he'd be out again. We moved. Nothing "fixed" it. It's very easy to make statements like work thru it. Unless you've been a victim you have no idea. None.