"We 'R' Not Monsters." "They Treat Animals Better!!!"
These are the words of sex offenders living under a bridge in Florida (Hat tip: Tam):
Tam has a good question in relation to the bridge dwellers: "What happens when the state turns someone out of prison, won't let them live anywhere near anyplace children might be, but doesn't want them living under a bridge, either?"
Where can they go?
The state of Florida is trying to dissolve a community of sex offenders living under a bridge that includes a gym, kitchen, living room and two dogs...
The men have lived under the Julia Tuttle Causeway for a year. They say limited money and strict local ordinances make it nearly impossible for them to live anywhere else.
But state officials are telling them to leave.
"We're urging them to find a residence. We want them to be able to reintegrate into society," said Gretl Plessinger, a spokeswoman for the Florida Corrections Department....
Juan Carlos Martin, a 29-year-old on the sex offender list for lewd or lascivious exhibition to a victim under the age of 16 -- a crime he says he didn't commit -- said it's been impossible for him to leave the bridge. He has been rejected from 15 jobs because of his record and can't find a place he can afford that's in compliance with the law.
Martin sits on his couch and sucks on a cigarette as a tiny white kitten peaks out from behind a stereo that no longer works. A gold crucifix hangs from his neck. He is off probation now, but he says he feels no freedom.
"What the law's doing to us is totally wrong," said Martin, who has lived here about six months. "Society will see that we aren't animals."
Tam has a good question in relation to the bridge dwellers: "What happens when the state turns someone out of prison, won't let them live anywhere near anyplace children might be, but doesn't want them living under a bridge, either?"
Where can they go?
posted by Helen at 4:36 PM
32 Comments:
They have nowhere to go. And no way to live. It's outrageous. Clearly, if their crimes are so horrible that this can be justified then they should not have been set free. And if not, then their sentences are done and they should be left alone. Our politicians have been playing fast and loose with just exactly what does and does not qualify as a sex offense. This guy was declared a sex offender for what, showing his penis to a kid? This makes him subhuman? It's getting to the point where we almost need government funded shelters for convicted sex offenders, just so they don't sit under a bridge and starve to death. This is a great way to take a guy like him, who did very little wrong, and turn him into something truly dangerous.
They should never get out, but I hear the southern US border is pretty easy to cross on foot. They should explore the frontier.
We (the government) keep on passing laws, sex offenders can't live here, they can't live there, yet nobody says where they can live. I saw that there is some trailer park somewhere which accepts sex offenders and not kids. Apparently sex offenders pay their rent on time and don't cause trouble. Trailer park owners take note.
"We want them to be able to reintegrate into society,"
That statement is just plain not true!
Here in Ventura Co, there is a sex offender living in the river bottom because he can't find lodging anywhere. The state pays for a security gaurd to watch him when he is there at night.
According to the newspaper, his days are spent with friends, but he also has been unable to get a job because he doesn't have an address.
How can you keep on movin',
unless you migrate too.
They tell you to keep on movin', but migrate you must not do.
Come on, come on, keep movin',
that's the everlasting cry.
Can't stay, can't go back, and can't migrate, so where in the hell am I?
Part of a depression era song about homeless people.
Of course, they were homeless because of circumstances, not actions.
If they're not "cured" and are liable to reoffend then incarceration is the best choice. Yes, perhaps indefinitely, unless someone wants to offer a Botany Bay solution.
What percentage of them are also psychopaths, btw - I understand the overall rate across the population is 4% or so - and are therefore not curable? Any stats?
This one's a toughy, all right. Like Memphis Steve I believe if their crimes are that horrible they should be kept in jail. If they've served their time they should be left alone.
On the other hand, I'll admit it--NIMBY. No way, no day.
Born on a common near a building site
Where the ground is rutted with the trailor wheels
The local people said to me
"You lower the price of property
You'd better get born in someplace else"
So, move along, get along, move along, get along
Go, move, shift
Good post
The inherent hypocrisy about sex offenders is appalling. However bad the offence, and its bad, it is not as bad as murder. And yet, I have two patients who are convicted murderers, who have served their sentence, one a sentence of 18 years, and are now out and living in the community. And no one minds. Indeed, there is a certain - difficult to qualify but I use the word deliberately - admiration for them. Both killed their wives. You can call it a crime of passion if you like. I just call it a crime.
Thing is, though, we can all of us imagine killing someone. It's a human instinct, sadly. But none of us can imagine committing a sexual offence, particularly a paedophile sexual offence. Well, that is what we all say.
In the UK, the sex offenders have to serve a double sentence. One defined one in jail, then one endless one in the community.
It's wrong.
But I don't have an easy answer.
John
John,
I have always been puzzled by the way sex offenders are treated worse than murderers. It makes no sense since murder is much worse, in my book than a sex offense. The other problem is that there is no distinction made with the sexual predator offender rules in many places. Some of the crimes termed sex offenses are not nearly of the magnitude that others are and there should be some method to distinguish between various crimes so as not to treat the guy who exposed himself or fondled someone in the same category as a rapist.
Wow.
Uhhh, sex offenders, as in offenses against children? Too young, and too small to defend themselves at all? Perhaps too young to understand what is going on?
Don't the abused have the greatest chance of becoming abusers?
It is a character flaw, a personality disorder, correct? No meds for that.
As a dad of three, had someone done something of that nature to one of my children, I'd be in prison. They would be dead. That is all.
Says Dr. Crippen: "The inherent hypocrisy about sex offenders is appalling. However bad the offence, and its bad, it is not as bad as murder. And yet, I have two patients who are convicted murderers, who have served their sentence, one a sentence of 18 years, and are now out and living in the community."
Great, you've got murderers out running around where they can murder again, so the answer is to let the kiddie fiddlers and the rapists out so they can fiddle and rape again? Spare me, and the rest of society, from such logic.
It's pretty clear that sexual offenders are seldom "cured." Granted two horny teens in the back seat shouldn't count as sex offenders, but there many, many more genuine threats on the sex offender lists, and they should be confined, for the rest of their lives if necessary. You can resurrect the state psychiatric hospital, or just put them back in the regular prison, but running around loose is not the answer. Not for them, and not for murderers either.
NIMBY? Not necessarily for me. I don't have any kids and my goal is to lead a quiet life. Frankly, I am not really all that concerned about a guy who might have once looked at kiddie porn or once had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl when he was 18 and had done his time. I think I would take the kiddie sex offenders as neighbors if I could hand over the druggies and the drunks. That would be a good trade.
I've wondered about all the sex offender registries and the regulations concerning where they can and can't live. It's quite a quandry.
Some of these offenders are truly one time offenders, some not. How do you tell the difference? Like br549, I have kids and what I would do to someone who assaulted my kids would make them beg to go to prison.
A couple of weeks ago, I heard a guy call in a talk show. He was a registered sex offender because he was 18 and had consensual sex with his under age girlfriend.
Cham makes a good point. As a society were are trying to legislate everything. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any country in history and nobody cares much. We need to find a different approach to some of this. Maybe we could just let them live in relative freedom on an island like in "Papillon."
Pedophiles are constructed in such a way that they desire sex with kids. Nothing can change that. I’m sure there are people out there who have that particular bent but who have never and will never act on this desire for one reason or another. For those who have offended, I would argue that they should never be set free because they are likely to offend again.
I can imagine that some people have murdered because of a peculiar set of circumstances that are unlikely to arise again. If I had to bet on who is more likely to re-offend, I’d bet on the pedophile.
The political incentives are perverse. It's like the issue of prison rape. Many voters support draconian "throw away the key" measures against prisoners and sex offenders, but there is no constituency for such groups. So politicians have every incentive to ignore the rape issue and to support excessively harsh measures against convicted sex offenders. No pol ever lost an election for being too tough on sex offenders, but any official who advocates less harshness for offenders who have completed their sentences will be blamed for any recidivism. The question of how to treat ex-offenders will not be resolved soon or easily. Treating all of these people as pariahs is not a good solution: many of them don't deserve such treatment, and those who do should probably not be on the street.
The government, as usual, expands the definition of crime in order to snare more criminals. The law enforcement agencies are always looking for more crime. Just like a shoe salesman is looking for another pair of feet to sell to. Remember the couple arrested from a flight for hanky panky? They were arrested under the PATRIOT Act. Are they terrorists? Similarly, too many of the men classified as sex offenders are moral degenerates who dated a 16-year old girl instead of an 18-year old girl.
Someone needs to do something about the distinction, otherwise in a few years sex offender will lose it's meaning and some bleeding heart judge will make a blanketd decision in the other direction and release all of them or expunge their records.
I am currently in violation of Title 13 Sections 141, 193 and 221 of the US Code. I am wondering if I am going to be prosecuted under the Patriot Act too. Or maybe I am going to have to register under some sort of offenders list and my name is going to appear on the Internet. I can't wait to see what happens.
I am skeptical about the benefits of sex offender registration laws. Last year a sexual offenders moved in with his elderly mother in the affluent, otherwise child-friendly neightborhood in which I live. I can't say that I did anything differently as a result of knowing the offender moved in.
The offender eventually got his own place and moved away. I cannot say that I feel my children are now safer than they were before. At best, property values likely increased when he moved away.
I would love to see the actual child molestors and rapists put in special colonies where they can live their lives in peace and quiet as long as they don't leave. Perhaps they could telecommute or start their own companies.
On the other hand, the "sex offenders" who either did something trivial or an obvious one-time things, should be released and allowed to live a life as any other ex-con would.
I have some knowledge of this issue because I have done Psychosexual evaluations on a few offenders and have picked up a little knowledge of the population working with their victims.
They lie. They lie a lot! While all tough and big and bad with little kids, they turn into babbling victims when help accountable.
So, consider the source of the complaints.
Having said that, pedophiles are VERY different from 18 year olds with a 17 year old girlfriend. They are not at all similar.
You cannot put them in the general prison population because they will be perpetrated and while it may carry some emotional satisfaction it is not justice. You cannot let the loose because they have a taste for what they do and they will get your child or nephew or niece if they can. They are bad like that.
I can heartily endorse a minimum security incarceration. Long term. I am part of a group that is trying to make life imprisonment without parole for offenders who reoffend after treatment of offend against more than one child. A central prison would suffice, keep them safe from being raped but keep us and our children safer.
Trey
A lot of you are making a key mistake, but that mistake is understandable. The media and certain people with an ax to grind have succeeded in getting everyone to think the following:
1. "Sex offender" = pedophile
2. "Sex offender" = recidivist
3. "Sex offender" = danger to the community
As someone who has worked in corrections and dealt with incarcerated sex offenders, the reality is the following:
1. Most sex offenders are not pedophiles. Child molesters are actually a tiny percentage of people convicted of sex offenses. Simply urinating in public ("indecent exposure") can get you on a sex offender registry in many states. Soliciting a prostitute is another biggie. Think about that the next time you see ho stings on Cops. Those "johns" get to register as sex offenders for a long time to come.
And one crime that can get you labeled unfairly as a "pedophile" is the example some of you have already given: the 18-year-old who has sex with his 16-year-old high school girlfriend. Often her parents are the ones who push the charges. Some, but not all, states have "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions to statutory rape laws to cover teen love and prevent someone from being labeled for life after a high school romance. The problem is that the online description will simply say the kid was convicted of having sex with a minor, and those who see that will assume he molested some small child.
2. Most sex offenders are not going to reoffend. A small minority of people with psychological problems are exceptions, but the recidivism problem is grossly overblown. No one seems to be able to cite any study proving some of the outlandish 90+% recidivism figures that politicians routinely give as reasons for sticking it to sex offenders. (Since when do you take any politician's word for anything?)
Let's look at some actual figures. A study by the US Department of Justice in 1997 said that 87% of those arrested for sex crimes had no prior sex offense conviction. Recidivism rates, even for child molesters, within three years after release from prison were quite low: well under 10%. A large study using American, British, and Canadian data gave rather higher figures, but this was over a 15-year period. The average for all sex offenders was 24%, but this means that three out of four did not reoffend. In an Ohio study the overall recidivism rate over 10 years was only 8%. The New York figure over 9 years was 10%. Other types of crime, such as theft, have far higher recidivism rates, but we don't force thieves to live under bridges.
3. Also, the danger from strangers to children is likewise grossly overblown. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a whopping 93% of reported sexual assaults against children under 18 were by people the victim knew: family members 34%, acquaintances 59%. For children under 6, 49% of offenders were family members. The guy living under the bridge probably isn't going to rape your kids—but Grandpa or that "funny" Uncle Elmer might.
Don't forget the role that false accusations of abuse and coaching children might play in divorce/child custody cases and children wanting to get back at authority figures. Also, don't forget false rape allegations. The fembots say all men are rapists, remember? Don't forget that all men are under the gun these days and much of the sex offender registry provisions play right into the extreme feminist agenda.
Much of the vitriol against someone labeled as a "sex offender" and forced to register and have his name posted online is unjust. A lot of it violates the standards of human rights and decency we claim as a society we want to uphold. Sooner or later—probably after another registered sex offender is killed or hurt by vengeful people—some court is going to strike down these provisions.
Personally, I'd much rather see online the names of the paroled gang members or drug dealers who might live down the road from me. They present far more danger to me than the average sex offender whose info actually is on a website.
For some DOJ discussion of the complexities of measuring recividism, see
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
and for myths and facts
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
k-man wrote: "Most sex offenders are not going to reoffend."
Pal, I think you are confusing offending, the legal term, with perpetrating, the behavioral term.
You have to get caught to reoffend. "Most sex offenders will not be caught again" is a more correct statement.
I do agree with your points regarding prostitution and two teenagers being consenually sexual as bogus "sex offender" prosecutions.
My concerns are with child sex offenders. There is a 1988 study compiled on self-reports from child sexual perpetrators that placed their average number of victims at 118.
118.
Now, these guys and gals are known to be huge liars, but I wonder how many minimized the number of victims as opposed to how many exaggerated.
But I can tell you from working with people who have been really sexually abused that it can be a huge, lifelong problem and that the people who develop a taste for it are dangerous, sneaky, and pernicious.
It is the sneaky part that worries me. I bet you drive on the freeway, and like me, I bet you speed some times. I have not had a speeding ticket in over 20 years, but I must admit to doing some speeding in that time! I do not speed as much, or as fast, and I pay more attention when I do speed now. In short, I have gotten better at speeding without getting caught.
When you think about that process in terms of sexual abuse and pedophilic activity, it says volumes.
Trey
Trey (TMink), I don't disagree with anything you said. There are nuances, though. Those who are convicted of sex offenses against multiple children should never be allowed to roam the streets again in the first place. They shouldn't be near any children, living under a bridge, or anywhere else but in custody to protect society. I ran into a few (very few) such people in corrections, and I agree that they do grave damage and should never be out again in the first place.
For the other sex offenders, the question has to be asked: if we don't trust them and we expect them to comply with onerous registration and other regulations and submit to constant monitoring, then just why are they being released in the first place? Even murderers and other violent offenders get to walk the streets again without such stipulations after parole and probation end. If we're going to have an online sex offender registry, either we should have something similar for violent offenders (Britain is actually working on this), or the registry should not be as open to the public.
The harsh reality about many child predators is that they are often known to the victim, as the figures I previously cited show, and many are family members. More than once in discussions with fellow correctional employees, I compared notes about how many families we had heard of where some relative was allowed to molest multiple children within that family, but it became the "little family secret" and nothing was ever done—or was done only after countless victims. Parents within those families will willingly allow the relative access to their kids during outings and holidays. Often the children's parents want to deny that abuse exists because of a desire to protect the abuser, especially a spouse. They might even blame the victim for somehow "enticing" the abuser.
I would therefore submit that the instances you cite where child molesters claim to have victimized dozens of children are overwhelmingly family/friends of the victims. This includes the weird guy in the neighborhood whom everyone, including the parents, likes, who has children hanging around his house all the time, then—shock! horror!—turns out to have been molesting the kids. The parents would like him because the kids would be out of their hair when at his house, you see. It is hard to picture a total stranger being able to molest over 100 children otherwise, at least these days (the 1970s were a different era, as standards for adult scouting and sports leaders were far more lax).
Most social services people will tell you the same thing, adding that it is far more typical for mom's new boyfriend of the week or her new husband (child's stepfather) to molest mom's kids than for any stranger on the street to snatch and rape the kids. Adding to the problem is that sentences for incest and child molestation within a family are often far lighter than a stranger committing the same sex crime against the same child would receive. This is called the "incest exception" and is still practiced in sentencing in some states. Another seldom discussed problem is that many single mothers on drugs routinely pimp—or allow a "boyfriend" to pimp or molest—their young children for drugs. No one wants to discuss or touch this issue, but it's very real and adds to the child molestation problem.
Bill O'Reilly has been pushing to have all states adopt a version of Jessica's Law, which would mandate a 25-year prison term for a first offense of sexual abuse against a minor. On his program The O'Reilly Factor, at least two prosecutors have warned Bill outright—to his disbelief, and in my opinion, not to his credit—that such a law will mean that abuse within families simply won't be reported at all. For example, one spouse might not want the other to go to prison for 25 years no matter what was done to the kids, especially if the abuser is the family breadwinner.
We focus on "stranger danger" from convicted sex offenders living under a bridge because of stupid laws when the real problems are far more likely to be close to home. That isn't fair to those guys under the bridge, nor to the continued victims of nasty old Grandpa, Uncle Elmer, or a single welfare mother's latest squeeze.
Without getting into the legal, psychological, or moral issues - isn't it just stupid for these communities and states to be creating homeless people? Making laws that leave paroled criminals in legal, social, and economic limbo is just sloppy lawmaking. The only reason they get away with it is that most of these guys are not violently anti-social. Try the same approach with hardened ex-cons or gang members and see what happens.
sex offender=psychopath
They need to be instititionalized. It's cheaper than policing.
And, yeah, never let out.
I, too, work with offenders. Violent offenders. While I will not yet say I am an expert on sex offenders, I will say that now that I understand the thinking of criminals (and sex offenses ARE crimes), I understand why we must be cautious about sex offenders. (The only exception I will make is for the "young love" issue where the kids get caught up in age difference pettiness.)
Unless the thinking of the criminal is changed, the risk for the same behaviors exists. According to Dr. Stanton Samenow, author of "Inside the Criminal Mind," most offenders perpetrate more than just one type of crime against society, anyway.
As for pedophiles, while I agree with all the stats regarding perpetrating against family members and/or friends of families, it IS important that we be cautious about who we become friends with, for our children's sakes. (i.e., neighbors, coaches, Sunday School teachers, etc.)
Bugs wrote: "isn't it just stupid for these communities and states to be creating homeless people?"
Bugs, if that is truly what the state is doing, it is indeed royally stupid.
But if these guys are living under the bridge as a way of being pitiful and trying to manipulate us and the system, it would be stupid to fall for it!
It seems that all the rest of the sex offenders find a way to live somewhere, why can't these guys?
Trey
Here's an idea, how about special red license plates for life on the cars of those that have had a DUI? That way EVERYONE would be able to instantly evaluate their own safety against this possible "serial killer"
(DUI is responsible for killing men, women, children, whole families, to the tune of 250,000 people a year. That doesn't include the wounded or maimed for life, just the dead. That's extremely higher than the sex offense rate) OR how about forehead tattoos for violent felons? I'd much rather know about the murderer living down the street, than the old man that took liberties with his grandkid. Or how about registration for drug offenders and alcoholics? We all know that's a "life long" problem right? And while we're at it, lets include burglars and shoplifters! We want to watch these people all the time too! Sooner or later we can even think of a reason to watch YOU. What a bunch of hypocrites we are becoming. Sounds like the very definition of "cruel and unusual" punishment to me.
潮吹百大正妹正妹18禁成人網a免費視訊聊天網正妹牆正妹日報無名正妹牆aa片正妹照片正妹百人斬天天看正妹無名正妹正妹裸照成人圖片百分百成人圖片一葉情貼圖片區 av127成人圖片區圖片34c甜心寶貝貼片貼圖片區可愛圖片百分百成人圖片
Post a Comment
<< Home