Miami's tent city for sex offenders

[SaintB]

If it was, would you still be fighting this hard to get them to be treated like other people living in Miami?

I would. They did their time in prison, they're free, let them try and turn their life around.

You wouldn't be disgusted by them since they had sex with a 6 year-old?

Its not a matter of whether or not people are digusted but a matter of ethics and Constitutionally protected rights, like from cruel and unusual punishment which under which this falls.

[Lizardiar]

How about giving the sex-offenders the option of wearing a GPS bracelet in exchange for being able to live just a little closer to schools or parks. Say 300 m.

If they walk into that zone, they breach their conditions and it's back out to the bridge.

Give them an option? No, make the wear the thing.

Also, when they go to jail, they pretty much have a lot of their right taken away, like not being able to vote or own a gun as examples.

[L3 Communications]

Why should child-molesters get a break?

:facedesk:

In the eyes of nature, a 16-year old is pretty damn sexually mature.

They have the nessissary body parts. I contest weather the typical 16 year old is mentally, emotionally, or socially mature. Ever heard of "to young to give consent?"

I said "in the eyes of nature" for a reason. Certainly US laws say it's illegal, but biologically, a 16-year old is sexually mature for the most part. Physically, that is, probably not emotionally however.

Curse my late posting >_<

[Parthenon]

The sex offenders who are bitching about their treatment should have thought of that before they committed their crimes.

Where do people get this idea that a crime, however disgusting, justifies any barbaric treatment whatsoever in retaliation?

There are multiple schools of thought on this taught in legal theory classes. I personally subscribe to the notion of the judicial system as a mechanism of justice through punishment, others view it as a mechanism of rehabilitation, some even look at it as a mechanism for incapacitation. You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

[Allanea]

I don't think you understood the previous poster's argument.

[Conserative Morality]

I said "in the eyes of nature" for a reason. Certainly US laws say it's illegal, but biologically, a 16-year old is sexually mature for the most part. Physically, that is, probably not emotionally however.

Curse my late posting >_<

SOME, US laws. Many states have the age of consent at 16.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

How about giving the sex-offenders the option of wearing a GPS bracelet in exchange for being able to live just a little closer to schools or parks. Say 300 m.

If they walk into that zone, they breach their conditions and it's back out to the bridge.

Give them an option? No, make the wear the thing.

No. Why not give them the option, and see if that works.

It would actually detect breaches, where otherwise enforcement of the zone is left up to all their neighbours watching their every move. Applying less restrictive zones in exchange for being able to track where they are, would probably work.

Those who don't take up the offer are the most likely to reoffend, IMHO. Forcing them to wear the bracelet isn't going to do anything, because they can cut it off.

Also, when they go to jail, they pretty much have a lot of their right taken away, like not being able to vote or own a gun as examples.

A criminal record yes. The sex-offenders registry is far more restrictive. Ridiculously so, in this case.

[The_pantless_hero]

A criminal record yes. The sex-offenders registry is far more restrictive. Ridiculously so, in this case.

Ridiculously so in every case because I can't think of any locale where there isn't a living restriction on sex-offenders. And given the expansion of suburban and rural areas, restrictions that are quickly becoming impossible to obey.

[L3 Communications]

I said "in the eyes of nature" for a reason. Certainly US laws say it's illegal, but biologically, a 16-year old is sexually mature for the most part. Physically, that is, probably not emotionally however.

Curse my late posting >_<

SOME, US laws. Many states have the age of consent at 16.

Really?

[The Romulan Republic]

There are multiple schools of thought on this taught in legal theory classes. I personally subscribe to the notion of the judicial system as a mechanism of justice through punishment, others view it as a mechanism of rehabilitation, some even look at it as a mechanism for incapacitation. You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

I believe that the primary purpose of the Justice system should be public safety, with rehabilitation being a secondary concern. Punishment provides no major benefit so far as I am aware besides satisfying people's sadism and blood lust. Even as a deterrent, its uses are questionable.

However, even if punishment was the primary purpose of the Justice system, it doesn't follow that any punishment, however savage or cruel, is justified.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

I would have thought that plenty of people view "keeping them off the streets" (ie incapacitation) as a key role of legal punishment.

Got some figures?

[Parthenon]

You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

I would have thought that plenty of people view "keeping them off the streets" (ie incapacitation) as a key role of legal punishment.

Got some figures?

I will try to find some of my old notes from Justice Theory to see if I have the figures when I get a chance. The thing you have to realize about incapacitation however is that most people that subscribe to this viewpoint also maintain views of the other schools and so the numbers are not exactly telling in that a person may not want someone on the streets only until they are rehabilitated or given a taste of their own medicine, in essence skewing the data towards the other schools. Pure incapacitation would be notions such as chemical castration, life in prison without parole, even the death penalty when viewed as a permanent means of removing the threat to society and not for retributive punishment.

[Saint Jade IV]

The sex offenders who are bitching about their treatment should have thought of that before they committed their crimes.

Where do people get this idea that a crime, however disgusting, justifies any barbaric treatment whatsoever in retaliation?

There are multiple schools of thought on this taught in legal theory classes. I personally subscribe to the notion of the judicial system as a mechanism of justice through punishment, others view it as a mechanism of rehabilitation, some even look at it as a mechanism for incapacitation. You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

Majority beliefs or opinions aren't necessarily right. Furthermore, justice through punishment has been served when they serve their sentence. Forcing them to exist in subhuman conditions is just torturous inhumane and cruel.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

You need to refrain from the notion that people that view punishment as the goal of the system are minorities when in all actuality the numbers tend to point towards a pretty even split between the schools with incapacitation suffering the lowest followers.

I would have thought that plenty of people view "keeping them off the streets" (ie incapacitation) as a key role of legal punishment.

Got some figures?

I will try to find some of my old notes from Justice Theory to see if I have the figures when I get a chance. The thing you have to realize about incapacitation however is that most people that subscribe to this viewpoint also maintain views of the other schools and so the numbers are not exactly telling in that a person may not want someone on the streets only until they are rehabilitated or given a taste of their own medicine, in essence skewing the data towards the other schools.

So it's only the least popular rationale, if it's not measured properly. I.e. split between the two "schools."

You know, I would have thought the main divide would have been between prevention and punishment. Where does the role of the law in preventing crime come into it -- prevention seems to me THE purpose of punishment.

Pure incapacitation would be notions such as chemical castration, life in prison without parole, even the death penalty when viewed as a permanent means of removing the threat to society and not for retributive punishment.

Less pure incapacitation should be considered too. Aging-out (in jail) is somewhat effective, for sexual offences, so jail isn't only a temporary incapacitation.

Putting a tracking band on the ex-con is partial incapacitation too.

Consider, how long would it take the ex-con to drive 750m, and snatch a child from a park or a school gate? Not long at all, and if the cops are on the way at the start of that time (the tracker sets off a warning) that's a significant improvement on the cops giving chase only after someone has called in the abduction.

[Greed and Death]

what we need is more creative sentences, not just for sex offenses, but for all offenses.
instead of 15 years and your out.
Try 10 years in prison.
2.5 years in a half way home.
5 years highly monitored parole.
5 more years lightly monitored parole.
Then after you've down this you should be a full citizen again.
We need the legislature to enact this sort of thing of course.

[Gauthier]

Why don't they just leave Miami? Seriously, just start walking.

Because in all likelihood just about everywhere else in the United States are going to have similar sex offender laws no matter where they go. No community wants to be seen as accepting of sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they're actual menaces to society or they were labelled as such on a ridiculous technicality like public urination.

[Blouman Empire]

(1) You are making several assumptions based on one sentence of self-reporting of his crime.

(2) I don't think you've thought this through. If I rape a 13-year old in a jurisdiction where 13 is the age of consent, have I done anything wrong?

(3) Legal =/= "perfectly alright" anymore than illegal = evil.

It is perfectly alright in the eyes of the law. (If the age of consent is 13 or lower)

[Gauthier]

Let's look at the root of the problem here.

"Sex Offender" is a very vague catch-all category that can include things that aren't necessarily rape or molestations, such as Indecent Exposure or minors having sex with each other. The fact that getting caught peeing in public in quite a few places in the U.S. can have you registered no different than a hardcore child molestor or rapist should be quite alarming.

Do you really think the possibility that someone whose only crime was peeing in public at the wrong time should be condemned to a life of destitute existence that only tends to harden and reinforce deviant behaviors?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Why don't they just leave Miami? Seriously, just start walking.

Because in all likelihood just about everywhere else in the United States are going to have similar sex offender laws no matter where they go. No community wants to be seen as accepting of sex offenders, regardless of whether or not they're actual menaces to society or they were labelled as such on a ridiculous technicality like public urination.

That's one reason why state Sen. David Aronberg has been working to replace the hodgepodge of county and city ordinances with a new state law. It would set a single 1,500-foot restriction for sex offenders that would enable them to find housing inside of communities.

[url]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... t=1&f=1001[/url]

Yeah, I'm a bastard that way. Finally decide to read the link from the OP, can't be bothered opening a new tab to read the OP. Google instead, and introduce a new source.

[Former Principalities]

Why should child-molesters get a break?

A person who has sex with a 16-year-old is not a child-molester. But ignoring that issue, people do their time, and then they're no longer prison inmaters. If you want them to stay prison inmates, issue life sentences.

Why not classify child molesters as morons who don't deserve to be part of humanity and kill them and bury them in a shallow ditch? surely that would be a solution that would indefinitely rectify the problem.

And if anyone is caught giving "protection" to child molesters they should be jailed for 15 years. No court appeal allowed.

[Blouman Empire]

And if anyone is caught giving "protection" to child molesters they should be jailed for 15 years. No court appeal allowed.

Why not just say no trail allowed either?

In fact if anyone is suspected of molesting any child how about we cchuck them in jail for 20 years straight away. How does that sit with you?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Majority beliefs or opinions aren't necessarily right. Furthermore, justice through punishment has been served when they serve their sentence. Forcing them to exist in subhuman conditions is just torturous inhumane and cruel.

Punishment as a rationale for "justice" (the justice system) probably means providing some satisfaction to those who were wronged (victims, their family and friends) -- quenching their thirst for revenge.

While the thirst for revenge is ugly at times (cruel and inhumane punishments, gloating, persecution in the community in addition to legal punishment) it probably is useful for reducing harm.

How? If the victims and those directly affected by the crime do not see punishment done, they lose respect for the law. They think "law is weak, law is on the side of the criminal" and become less law-abiding themselves. More inclined to take the law into their own hands ... and the result is more harm done in total. Even outright feuds, as happens in gangs and marginalized communities who do not respect the law. Revenge upon revenge, multiple killings and lasting bad blood, for one crime.

I would say that the thirst for revenge should be a factor. But it should not be granted in full measure, because "my eye is worth more than your eye" and that way leads to harsher and harsher penalties, zero tolerance and eventually, the "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" escalation of minor criminal urges.

The media make this problem worse, by making a huge number of people who are not personally affected by a crime, demand harsher penalties because now that they have heard about it, they too demand revenge.

The effect is particularly marked in the case of crimes against children. If two young men fight on the street and one is killed, people who don't know either of them tend to share the blame between the two somewhat. But when a child (particularly a small child) is the one killed or injured or humiliated, it is very much easier to take sides.

It's good that people feel a need to protect other people's children, children they never met. It's good that the presumption of innocence is automatic for children.

But it does mean that the law cannot and should not slake the public thirst for revenge. Only those who were involved before the crime (those who knew the victim) deserve satisfaction of their revenge.

The public need for revenge is ill-informed by the media, it is destructive of justice when it demands blanket revenge based on the worst cases of injustice, and it only leads to greater injustice.

[Grays Harbor]

Let's look at the root of the problem here.

"Sex Offender" is a very vague catch-all category that can include things that aren't necessarily rape or molestations, such as Indecent Exposure or minors having sex with each other. The fact that getting caught peeing in public in quite a few places in the U.S. can have you registered no different than a hardcore child molestor or rapist should be quite alarming.

Do you really think the possibility that someone whose only crime was peeing in public at the wrong time should be condemned to a life of destitute existence that only tends to harden and reinforce deviant behaviors?

I believe you may have set a new record for qualifiers in support of blanket leniency for an entire class of offenders.

The "fact" that some areas of "sex offender" may not be the most just in the system is not an argument for leniency, it is, however, an argument that parts of the classification need looked at and perhaps changed. Cases should be looked at individually, not with a "one size fits all" system such as the 'zero tolerence' nonsense. You think things like public urination should not be listed as a sex crime? Good. Then get your city council, legislature, whatever, to remove it from the list as it doesn't belong there. It isn't a justification for blanket leniency though, especially where child molestation is concerned.

Also, having ankle bracelets or some sort of GPS monitering system as some others here suggested may sound good, but think on this. Who is going to be doing the monitering? Social Services is already grossly overworked and understaffed. The Police are not much better off. The possibility (yes, I am going to use a qualifier as well) that somebody could slip through the cracks in that system is just as likely as not. And then we would have headlines about CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER CAUGHT MOLESTING AGAIN. WHY WASN'T HE STOPPED? Things like that are what the system is trying to prevent.

That the 'sex offender' classification needs to be looked at seriously is not in dispute. There are some cases where the blanket don't fit, such as the one case here in Georgia where the 19 year old kid was convicted of rape and is listed as a sex offender because he was having oral sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Even the girls parents agree that it was a stupid ruling. But these cases are the exception, not the rule, and are an argument in favor of getting rid of the, as I said before, blanket "one size fits all" system. Not everybody placed on the sex offenders list belongs there. They are the exceptions. Most on the list do belong there, and all the sympathy I see here is entirely misplaced as far as those folk are concerned.

If you don't like the idea of stupid things like peeing in the park being labeled as 'sex offender', then work to get it off the list, don't use it as an excuse to excuse those who do belong there.

[Allanea]

Most on the list do belong there, and all the sympathy I see here is entirely misplaced as far as those folk are concerned.

1. Please provide proof of this statement.

2. The majority of even real child molesters do not reoffend.

3. People who react to some random scary newspaper article with THERE SHOULD BE A LAW are the cancer that is killing /usa/.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Also, having ankle bracelets or some sort of GPS monitering system as some others here suggested may sound good, but think on this. Who is going to be doing the monitering? Social Services is already grossly overworked and understaffed. The Police are not much better off. The possibility (yes, I am going to use a qualifier as well) that somebody could slip through the cracks in that system is just as likely as not. And then we would have headlines about CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER CAUGHT MOLESTING AGAIN. WHY WASN'T HE STOPPED? Things like that are what the system is trying to prevent.

Since the GPS anklet idea was mine, I will answer this paragraph.

The beauty of technological solutions like that is that the monitoring is automated. There's an up-front investment in hardware, and after that no police (and it would be police) time is needed unless the system indicates that the anklet has entered one of the proscribed areas of the city.

Furthermore, it would detect the ex-con being near a school etc at all, whereas the residency ban only stops them renting etc within proscribed zones. The zones could be made smaller, allowing a wider range of possible addresses, workplaces, and travel corridors.

Does anyone monitor where the ex-cons sleeping under that bridge go in the daytime? Not that I can see. They could be sitting in the park, hmm?