Sex Offenders in Bizarre Situation

[Pangloss]

I can't remember if I posted this before, but the story's been updated so it's a good chance to refresh it and/or post it for the first time. (It's Friday the 13th, so I figure I'll cover both my bases to be sure!) This is just one honkin' bizarre story, and one of those crazy things that usually gets a "Florida" tag on FARK (probably did -- I haven't been by there in ages). Stories like this just seem to bake and simmer in the hot Florida sun, what can I say.

 

Anyway, not too many months ago a new law was passed in Miami that increased the buffer distance (2500 ft) that convicted sex offenders have to maintain between their place of residence and any schools, parks, or other facilities where children are in attendance. It seemed like a good idea to most folks at the time, but the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head. The distance was so great, and the number of "protected" sites so numerous, that all the sites overlapped each other, effectively locking up the entire county except for a few small "open" areas, most of which had no available housing to speak of.

 

Most convicted sex offenders simply leave (which was probably the idea -- NIMBY at its ugliest). Those who choose to stay, for the most part, worked something out. But a very small number of men (I believe there are three of them currently) who had limited or no resources got caught in a rather bizarre loophole when they got out on parole.

 

You see, there is actually a facility for paroled felons to go to. A halfway house that helps them get back on their feet. Unfortunately the facility is located within the new restriction limit, and the funds aren't available yet to move the facility. So they can't go there.

 

So the city ordered them to live -- now get this -- underneath a highway overpass.

 

No, really.

 

See, they're parolees -- they're stuck here, unable to leave the area lest they be in violation of their parole. But there's literally no place else the state can put them because of the new law.

 

Bizarre, isn't it? Can't you just hear Joseph Heller rolling in his grave?

 

They actually live outdoors, but under the cover of the Julia Tuttle Causeway, which is one of the bridges connecting downtown Miami to the Miami Beach area. They had to actually set up a special ordinance to "allow" these parolees to live outside -- they're the only parolees in the state who are "allowed" to live outside.

 

Now to be fair, we have had a really wonderful, mild, pleasant winter! But holy cow, doesn't that just seem a little bit ridiculous?

 

And to make matters worse, some of the men don't even speak English, so they're really having a hard time figuring out what their options might be.

 

Well the story was "refreshed" this week when one of the parolees came before a judge. Apparently what happened was some folks in the community came forward to try and help out these men and see if there was a better place to put them.

 

So a lot of time and effort was expended talking to the men, working their way through the judicial system and finally coming before a judge.

 

Who promptly ordered the men right back under the bridge!

 

I'm afraid that's where the story sits at the moment, but I just had to pass it on. Here's a link to a local write-up of this bizarre story:

http://www.local10.com/news/11826349/detail.html

[Dak]

isn't that getting too close to 'cruel and unusual punishment'... i mean, the guy asked to go back to jail...

 

are there any temp-shelters under the bridge, or is it littereally sleaping-bags under the bridge?

[Pangloss]

It's literally sleeping bags under the bridge. A state officer comes by each evening to check and make sure they're where they're supposed to be, but then he leaves. They have no security of any kind, and everyone in South Florida knows exactly where they are between 10pm and 6am every single day.

 

I'm surprised none of them have been mugged or attacked by some irate parent of an abused child.

[JohnF]

This was shown on UK TV last night I think. It made me wonder if the prisons fall within a restricted zone too; that would create a sentencing paradox.

 

I expect the prisons are miles away from anywhere though. In the UK most prisons are quite close to where people live.

[Dak]

It's literally sleeping bags under the bridge. A state officer comes by each evening to check and make sure they're where they're supposed to be, but then he leaves. They have no security of any kind, and everyone in South Florida knows exactly where they are between 10pm and 6am every single day.

 

I'm surprised none of them have been mugged or attacked by some irate parent of an abused child.

 

yeah, definately would have thought that would be in violation of some kind of rights...

 

johnf's comment reminds me of the brass eye special, with the solution to NIMBY of sending sex-offenders to the moon.

 

thing is, if i hadn't been told, i wouldn't have guessed this whole thing was from RL, rather than a parody. bizzare...

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting question about prisons. I don't know the answer, from a legal perspective, but I can tell you that there are sex offenders in prisons within 2500 feet of schools and parks. There's one right down the street from me. It's more of a work facility (at the local landfill) for non-violent offenders. That would seem to actually be more of a threat to a community in terms of sex offenders, but they have a staff there to look after the convicts. They don't have the usual fences and walls, just dormitories and guards.

 

I haven't changed my mind about punishing sex offenders, but two wrongs never make a right. I'm just not sure what can really be done about it. I've been thinking about talking to my dean about getting a security guard to spend a little time there each evening. Unfortunately I don't know if they will want to get in the middle of something that might be unpopular with the parents (who, of course, pay the tuition).

 

According to my wife, who has her ear to the ground in the latino community, some patrol officers in local law enforcement have been going out of their way to keep an eye on the area informally.

[ParanoiA]

That is quite bizzare and I guess that latest development was why I heard something on the radio about it. I'm actually kind of impressed.

 

I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for them though. Sex crimes are murder. Whoever the victim was, before the attack, is dead and gone.

[GutZ]

Personally I don't care that much, but it is unfair to say the least, they are human after all, Isn't that cruel even for a Canine to be left outside all the time? How does he eat, work, hang up his coat.

[Sisyphus]

I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for them though. Sex crimes are murder. Whoever the victim was, before the attack, is dead and gone.

 

"Sex crimes are murder?" Surely there are degrees, no? It's not all rape and child pornography. Technically, statutory rape is a sex crime. That could mean a difference of two or three years - a couple of high school kids, one of whom becomes a "sex offender" pariah for the rest of his life. Indecent exposure is considered a sex crime, also. I know somebody who very nearly became a convicted sex offender when some teenage girls saw him drunkenly peeing on a tree and reported him. Is he a "murderer?" Should he have to live under a bridge for the rest of his life, spit on and constantly in danger from vigilantes?

 

There are some very disturbing aspects of how we deal with sex crimes in this country which make me very uncomfortable from a civil liberties standpoint...

[Pangloss]

That is quite bizzare and I guess that latest development was why I heard something on the radio about it. I'm actually kind of impressed.

 

I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for them though. Sex crimes are murder. Whoever the victim was, before the attack, is dead and gone.

 

Wouldn't that be a case of "judicial activism", ParanoiA?

 

I can understand that sentiment, but we have the rule of law here, so we ought to rule by those laws, wouldn't you agree? Using this as a "final solution" to the problem of sex offenders smacks of vigilante justice. If we're going to deliberately put sex offenders under a bridge as part of their punishment, then I think we should have a vote on that and make that decision.

 

Bear in mind that these offenders include, in theory, young men who happen to pick up slightly underage women with false ID in a bar. They can end up under the bridge just as easily as the "predators".

 

You have to remember that the reason THESE sex offenders are under the bridge is economic, not criminal. Other sex offenders, including some whose crimes were far more serious, are sitting at home watching TV. Shouldn't they have to rot under the bridge too, if we're going to be fair about this "law"?

[Gypsy Cake]

But it's silly because it's not supposed to be a punishment it's just where they live. There's is actually no better accomadation that miami can give them. It's hilarious.

[Haezed]

I'm concerned about these laws but having kids am glad they exist. The thing that bothers me is that the rules are for life and could apply to a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old in some states or a guy who decides to whiz on a building. A couple buck naked in a public park in the ol' chevy doing the deed might be sexual offenders. Others could be just a case of mistaken identity. Not all of them are guilty and somehow it seems we need to reserve these kind of punishments for predators.

 

Again, I'd err on the side of protecting kids and, to a large extent, I don't care too much about their plight. However, the fact that it NEVER ends even thirty years after committing any crime does seem unjust.

 

Let's look forward to the day when we can implant biometrics in them and simply shut them down when they come within ten yards of a kid.

[Pangloss]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I thought you guys might enjoy an update on this bizarre story, on which I first posted here more than two years ago. The story has been in the news recently following a Newsweek article a couple of weeks ago which called the ongoing situation "surreal". After the article Governor Charlie Crist decided to weigh in and see if he could mediate a solution without overriding local laws. That effort initially met criticism but now appears to have broken the stalemate, and the offenders are being gradually moved out into housing.

 

Here's a good Miami Herald article from a few days ago outlining recent developments:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflorida/story/1163394.html

 

There's also a state-level initiative underway now to overhaul overlapping ordinances. That's what caused the problem in the first place, apparently, and the general feeling is that controlling this at the state level will allow for a more sensible approach. Makes sense, but it also means state officials controlling an aspect of local affairs, which could lead to other kinds of trouble down the road. Should be interesting.

[Tolmosoff]

We need to have Congress vote for a permanent Law now!!!.

 

That when a felon is committed in the act of committing a murder of a human being or takeing an inoccent life, also an sexual assault on the inoccent is :

 

When a lawyer gets his client on a life sentence to a short parol out of prison and out to freedom when originally was put in prison by the Judge and Jurry that we pay for and the law is suposed to be permanent is my solution.

 

Have the clients ( LAWYER ) become responsible for his clients actions when out to freedom.

Have his or her lawyer quarranty the safety of the innoccent public 24 hr-24/7 days a week.

Yes a sexual preditor and murderers Lawyer be put in prison when a new crim has been committed by his client.

[Mokele]

So you essentially want to deny legal representation to those accused of crimes? Fantastic plan there, ace. What's next, just shoot them without a trial?

 

Here's a thought: what happens if someone is falsely accused? Now, I know you've watched too much Law & Order: SVU for this to ever cross your mind, but this does happen. How are they supposed to get legal representation when every lawyer is too scared of defending the wrong person to defend anyone?

[SH3RL0CK]

Tolmosff - Many of the worst criminals have public defenders. You know, when the courts appoint a lawyer to them because they cannot afford one on their own. Yep, the lawyer who would prefer working on a case where they would be better paid and one where they could be proud of their work. Do you really imagine many lawyers really want to be known as the guy who defended "the Shropshire slasher"? Lawyers love publicity, but only when it is good publicity; they have lives (as well as family) outside the court just like anyone else.

 

So should these lawyers (who really did not want to represent these people anyway, but someone needed to) be held accountable for the actions of the worst criminals?

 

Also, its isn't always their lawyers who get these worst criminals out on parole. A parole board (not the criminals lawyer) determines when a criminal gets released.

[Tolmosoff]

Horrible murder of an inoccent teen girl that was sent for an erand for her mom and later was murdered by a parolee out free from prison.

 

The sex offender was behind bars was released by his Lawyer and then did it again. What the Hell was he doing out on the streets as a preditor looking for sex ? You tell me guy. That $#@$& Lawyer sould be put into prison in the same jail with his client.

 

I'm sorry but for that lawyer is still equals a big &^#%&* to hell for life with that preditor for his crime.

[Saryctos]

Horrible murder of an inoccent teen girl that was sent for an erand for her mom and later was murdered by a parolee out free from prison.

 

The sex offender was behind bars was released by his Lawyer and then did it again. What the Hell was he doing out on the streets as a preditor looking for sex ? You tell me guy. That $#@$& Lawyer sould be put into prison in the same jail with his client.

 

I'm sorry but for that lawyer is still equals a big &^#%&* to hell for life with that preditor for his crime.

 

Do you feel this lawyer violated the law? It is allowed under law, thus you should direct your frustrations towards that which is the true problem, not merely the messenger.

 

 

I'm really happy to see this getting in the spotlight again, because I'm very upset that this has been going on for so long. Doesn't matter how I feel about their crimes, these people have been screwed by unintended consequences and it is horseshit plain and simple that it has gone on for so long.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Saryctos

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's not his lawyer that let him free. It's the parole board.

[Tolmosoff]

Then the parolee board should pay for the preditor crime they sent him out to do.

 

No release on ( good Behavior ) is no excuse the let him out. Laws are made to separate offenders from society and should not mingle with the public.

 

I guess you mite even let ( Charles Manson ) out on the streets ? I hope not. We have too many cry babies out there with bleeding hearts.

 

The judges conviction and disscretion of the crime should always be valid for life . Also you commit a crime found guilty but tommarro I slap your hand so go steal and rape again don't go with me.

I would sell my home just not to be a neithbor on the same block with a preditor.

[padren]

To avoid "Jerry Springer Syndrome" (polling bias) could we get some statistics on reoffender rates for murderers? I know sexual predators (a subset of sex offenders) have a higher rate of reoffense but given that 1) these criminals don't get out for a long time, if at all and 2) most murders I think are usually 3rd degree and spontaneous/crimes of passion... I think we have a situation where our view of criminals comes from a very small sampling of the worst offenders from a much larger criminal population.

 

Not making excuses for criminals - but they should be treated based on how they actually are, not how we perceive them as a result of a hyper hysterical media.

[Pangloss]

Tolmosoff, I can't tell if you're more stuck on "out of sight, out of mind", or "public safety trumps all". Either way I empathize with your concern, but I don't want to live in that world.

 

At any rate, it's worth keeping in mind that this is a practical matter as much as it is a legal one. If this is how the law is going to be, then we need to figure out a common-sense approach that will make it work. Somehow.

[Severian]

If we just brought back and extended the death penalty a little, we wouldn't have all these problems. If we feel the need to prevent a parolee going within a certain distance of schools, then he shouldn't be on the streets at all.

[Pangloss]

Many children are lost each year to drunk driving. Would extending the death penalty to drunk drivers solve that problem? What about managers who make unsafe toys, or inattentive parents whose children drown in the pool next door?

 

I think penalties work in situations where the potential criminal has a clear line to cross, and therefore do a reality check, before committing the crime. In cases like these the criminal is either under compulsion or isn't aware of the potential, so there is no reality check. Where there's no reality check, a harsh penalty would seem to not address the problem.

 

But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

[iNow]

But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

 

No. You're not. You're spot on.