Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators

[Pangloss]

The Florida Department of Corrections issued a statement yesterday saying that sexual offenders are to be denied access to shelters in the event of a hurricane. The reason for this is that children at shelters, while typically under parental supervision, are in an unfamiliar environment, and may not be watchable at all times (for example, if the parents fall asleep, which of course is a common occurence at a shelter).

 

As an alternative, the department has set up a program that will allow sexual offenders to enter any state prison. All state prisons are protected against hurricanes to at least the degree that designated shelters are. They won't be incarcerated, but will simply be given access to designated shelter areas, such as meeting rooms or waiting areas, and be free to come and go as they please. They will be subject to the normal rules of all prison visitors, such as wearing an ID tag and being subject to a search, so there are some disadvantages here compared with a shelter.

 

This only applies to sexual offenders who are designated as being disallowed from contact with minors.

 

Here's a link to a story on this at the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale's main newspaper):

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-0807sexoffenders,0,798350.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

 

 

What do you guys think? A reasonable compromise?

[Dak]

whats it like inside a hurricane shelter? (being in the UK, iv never seen one).

 

Is it the kind of environment where a kid could go missing, and a guy could find a private secluded spot to molest them?

[insane_alien]

It seems a fair enough compromise. I'm in the UK also so don't actually know what a shelter looks like.

[Pangloss]

Hurricane shelters are typically elementary or high schools (that is to say, buildings normally used to educate children ranging in age from 5 to 18). They'll typically stick people in the hallways, classrooms and/or gymnasiums, generally just sitting around on the floor or sleeping on cots, etc. All mingled together, with minimal personnel (usually a social worker keeping names at the door; sometimes a police officer or fireman, but not often).

[Douglas]

It seems a bit extreme to me. Children can get lost anywhere....a large department store or a big parade.

 

On a similar topic, I saw the Mayor of Miami Beach on TV, seems he's trying to get the 2500 foot "no pedophile" rule to apply to Miami Beach, which apparently disallows sexual offenders from being anywhere on the beach.

[Dak]

well, i suppose someone could drag a kid off to a secluded classroom or something.

 

but the same prinsiple could be used to bar sex-offenders from trains; parents could become seperated from their kids, who could then be taken to the toilets and raped.

 

Personally, id say that if their that much of a threat, they should still be in jail. And its a parents responsibility, wether at the beach, a hurricane shelter, or on the train, to keep an eye on their kids.

 

a line has to be drawn somewhere, unless we're going to build little isolated villages on remote pacific islands for sex-offenders, but im not sure which side of the line the 'sex-offenders cant use hurricane shelters' thing lys.

 

mind, arent they already barred from going within a certain distance of schools anyway?

[Dave]

To me that seems like a reasonable compromise. There's (usually) a couple of days warning before a hurricane strikes a particular area so there shouldn't be a problem about getting there in time. Just seems like a sensible plan, really.

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

 

What do you guys think? A reasonable compromise?

I bet the logistics would be a mess, but it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

 

 

 

Dak,

 

whats it like inside a hurricane shelter? (being in the UK, iv never seen one).

 

Is it the kind of environment where a kid could go missing, and a guy could find a private secluded spot to molest them?

I lived in Florida for several years, and I've been to a few shelters. Shelters are just large indoor gymnasiums, like what you'd see in a high school or a YMCA (a lot of times shelters are high school gymnasiums), and they come with many many mats and blankets to lay on.

 

Its about as easy to get lost in those places as a lunchroom, so those places dont exactly have what you could call "privacy", and certainly not enough privacy where anyone could take another person and have their way with them (except maybe in a bathroom). But still, it might be better to keep sex offenders out of shelters with kids in the case that they might "accidentally" grab your kid the wrong way.

[Pangloss]

It occurs to me that a predator could try to sneak in, but given the level of awareness of the predator issue in Florida, the ease of use of the Florida predator database, and the fact that wireless laptops outsold desktop PCs over the last year, I'm thinking that a confined space containing thousands of stressed-out parents is probably the last place a sexual predator wants to be during the current hurricane season. (grin)

 

Regarding this point:

On a similar topic, I saw the Mayor of Miami Beach on TV, seems he's trying to get the 2500 foot "no pedophile" rule to apply to Miami Beach, which apparently disallows sexual offenders from being anywhere on the beach.

 

I just want to mention that every single incorporated community south of Orlando and east of the Everglades is considering a 2500-foot rule, and if they all pass them (which seems likely), there will be virtually no place south of Orlando or east of the Everglades where a sexual predator can live. (And that includes the "accidentally slept with a 17 year old with a fake ID that he met at a bar" variety, which are not included in the hurricane shelter ban.)

[Thomas Kirby]

The way we treat the least of us is the way we will learn to treat all of us. The way we treat those who we hate becomes the way we treat those who we love and trust.

[Pangloss]

Meaning?

[Thomas Kirby]

Meaning we humans have got ourselves in a bind.

[Pangloss]

Do you have any suggestions for how we dig ourselves out of this mess, or is this just another one of your your-way-sucks-but-I-don't-have-any-better-suggestions deals?

[Thomas Kirby]

Learn how not to hate. Not even the advent of the atomic bomb has taught enough of us to truly understand or respect the dangers of hate, so we have to teach it to ourselves or perish. It's a lot easier to kill the messenger, though.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see, so if we just learned how to love sexual predators and not hate them, they would stop what they're doing and the children would be saved. I mean it has certainly worked for the British. They tolerated and harbored extremists, and nothing bad's come of that, right?

 

Do you think Jessica Lunsford harbored a secret hatred for sexual predators, Thomas? I wonder if that's what was on her mind when John Couey offered her a piece of candy. No? Well, perhaps it crossed her mind later as he was brutally raping her over and over again. No? Well perhaps it crossed her mind later, as the dirt was filling in over her face, in between gasps for air.

 

You think?

 

 

You know, I wouldn't say that I hate anything, but there are a few things in this world that I strongly wish I saw a lot less of. And no, it's actually not "sexual predators" that I happen to be thinking of at this moment.

[Douglas]

The 2500 ft rule seems a bit restrictive to me. I'm not convinced these restrictions will work, since they only restrict where the predator lives, not where he goes.

I wonder what the civil liberties groups and the ACLU think of this.

[Pangloss]

Yup, I have a lot of problems with the 2500-foot rule as well.

 

The other measures, such as Jessica's Law (25-year mandatory sentence for violent sexual assault against minors age 12 or younger) and the hurricane shelters thing, however, seem quite reasonable to me.

 

The interesting thing (to me) is that most of the people in this thread seem to feel that way as well. Even those of you who scored in the lower-left quadrant. I find that quite encouraging.

[DV8 2XL]

What all of these measures are of course, is a riff on the practice of Shunning sometimes called Disfellowshipping; a very effective form of punnishment.

[BettyLouWho]

What all of these measures are of course, is a riff on the practice of Shunning sometimes called Disfellowshipping; a very effective form of punnishment.

 

I agree. Young children can be seen un-including the ones who behave antisocially. An afternoon on the sidelines in the playground can teach a kid not to grab or hit his/her playmates.

It's too bad that sexual predators are not so easily 'cured'. I like the idea of a one way trip to a Alcatraz-style lock up (with no PC!) for these monsters. A hurricane would be too good for them!

[Tetrahedrite]

The interesting thing (to me) is that most of the people in this thread seem to feel that way as well. Even those of you who scored in the lower-left quadrant. I find that quite encouraging.

Why exactly did you have the impression that people in the "lower left quadrant" (the overwhelming majority at this forum) would be any more favourable to sex offenders than people from the "oh so righteous" right? As one of the 76% of people who fall in that quadrant I find that comment quite condescending, and I believe some other people would as well.

 

edit: just to clarify, I find that comment condescending because it implies that anybody who is left of centre (or Pangloss) is somehow morally inferior to those on the right, which is patently untrue.

[Mokele]

For the whole 2500 foot thing, it seems to me that it's a case of "Not in my back yard" vaguely similar to what you get for nuclear power plants and such things. They've gotta go *somewhere*, but nobody wants them to be nearby.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Why exactly did you have the impression that people in the "lower left quadrant" (the overwhelming majority at this forum) would be any more favourable to sex offenders than people from the "oh so righteous" right? As one of the 76% of people who fall in that quadrant I find that comment quite condescending' date=' and I believe some other people would as well.

 

edit: just to clarify, I find that comment condescending because it implies that anybody who is left of centre (or Pangloss) is somehow morally inferior to those on the right, which is patently untrue.[/quote']

 

I meant it as a joke -- a friendly barb from someone in the lower-right quadrant. But I do apologize for offending you.

[Pangloss]

By the way, a friend of mine in another forum quipped that this was kinda sad, because it would mean no more Catholic priests in hurricane shelters -- surely a loss for all who pray within. ;-)

[Phi for All]

I think the system actually works out in their favor. Would the restrictions against a sex offender entering an elementary school as a shelter be relaxed in the event of a hurricane? I also think the sex offender who is truly repentant would not feel restricted by sheltering in a prison. On the contrary, it gives them virtual immunity from any accusation of wrongdoing, something that might crop up later had they sheltered with children.

Learn how not to hate. Not even the advent of the atomic bomb has taught enough of us to truly understand or respect the dangers of hate, so we have to teach it to ourselves or perish.

Please stop turning every specific issue into a general diatribe against the evils of present day society. I think there are plenty of people who respect the dangers of hate. You tend to make it sound like you are the only enlightened soul in a sea of unbelievers. Sometimes your constant naysaying makes me wonder how you can ever positively affect the world around you.

 

People do good things and people do bad things. Always have, always will.

The 2500 ft rule seems a bit restrictive to me. I'm not convinced these restrictions will work' date=' since they only restrict where the predator lives, not where he goes.

I wonder what the civil liberties groups and the ACLU think of this.[/quote']If you're talking about the 2500-foot rule, I'm pretty sure the ACLU will have no problems defending someone who suddenly can't live anywhere in south Florida. The towns involved all say they're not interested in kicking people out completely but the restriction does just that.

 

If you're talking about this hurricane shelter issue, I think the ACLU would say the category of sexual offender is too broad and the issue of the shelters is a life-threatening one. Do you keep a man out who has a conviction from 20 years ago, has reformed himself but is still on the list and gets caught out in a violent storm? Is violating this restriction another sex-related crime?

[Pangloss]

Sadly, the ACLU has already spoken out against the hurricane shelter compromise.

 

Randall Marshall, legal director of the Florida ACLU, reviewed a copy of the policy Friday faxed to him by the St. Petersburg Times. He too questioned the appropriateness and said it's part of the "almost hysterical" response to sex offenders in the past year and moves to banish them from public spaces.

 

"Communities seem to be tripping over themselves to show how tough they are," Marshall said. People who have been arrested for beating children, he noted, could still show up at shelters. There are rapists, too, not under court order to stay away from children.

 

Marshall said he understood the public safety concerns but taken together, the efforts could have the effect of pushing sex offenders underground, out of supervision of authorities.

 

"If you take people who have served their sentence and are released from prison and try to (reinstate) themselves in society, the more steps you take to isolate and ostracize them ... there are very few options for them to live their lives and not reoffend."

 

He raises a couple of valid points, but the "child beaters and rapists still get in" argument is clearly a two-wrongs fallacy, and he incorrectly implies that this is the result of community government work, when in fact it was a state government decision.

 

http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2005/08/06/State/Stormy_plan_for_sex_o.shtml