More than Trolls Under the Bridge

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.html
http://miaminewtimes.com/2007-03-08/news/swept-under-the-bridge/

Miami-Dade county no longer allows convicted  sex offenders to live within 2500 feet - almost a half mile - of any school or any place that children congregate.  And if that doesn't sound harsh enough, one offender was denied residency at an apartment complex because the complex had a pool... where children could certainly congregate.

The answer was to place five offenders under a bridge.  Their probation officers actually placed them there after being able to find any other place for these people to live.  Even those who had family willing to take them in were out of luck because the prospective homes would break the 2500 foot limit.

We all want to protect our children, and certainly these people have done nothing to earn any sympathy, but last I checked even criminals were still human.   It'd sad when someone becomes homeless because they cannot earn a living, but our government is making these people homeless, ruling all residential areas off limits and actually personally escorting these people to their new "home" under a bridge. 

When we commit a crime, we are put in prison as punishment.  When we get out, it is because we have completed our punishment.  In many ways the slate is washed clean.  A business cannot deny you a job just because you have a criminal record (although they can if your crime directly relates to the job you are applying for), for example.  Yet more and more released sex offenders are required to take upon additional burdens such as public sex offender registries and limitations on housing.

How does this even solve the problems of repeat offenses?  Sex offenders regularly are not allowed to have contact with children.  In the case of the apartment with the pool, for example,  I can easily see the offender not being allowed to use the pool when children are around.  That does not terribly burden the offender.  True, he can violate that rule and hang around the pool anyway, but how does housing him a half mile away stop that?  If we wants to abuse a kid, he can still walk over to the pool, or the playground, or the video arcade. 

I'm guessing part of the theory is that living within site of children offers more temptations and thus makes it more like that he will offend again.  News flash: the world is full of temptation.  You can't escape it.  In the off chance that one of these men do find a place to live, what are the chances that there are no children in the area?  How is a group of children more tempting than one child, particularly when lone children are far more vulnerable?  The next logical step here would be to ban them from ever being within 2500 feet of a child at any time, which would pretty much mean voting them off the planet.

More and more, government is trying to appear proactive in protecting the public but then take a hands off attitude in actually dealing with the problem.  If government isn't going to allow these people to live anywhere, then logically they should be constructive and monitoring housing for these people.  Moreover, these sorts of arrangements should be stated at sentencing.  If we choose to make sexual offenses a life sentence, that is a decision our government can make.  However, when we sentence anyone else for life, we provide a roof, a bed and food.  More and more, these sex offenders are doing their time, only to then be effectively told "we've extended your punishment beyond what was given in the courtroom.  We're going to continue to isolate you from society, but you're on your own for that whole roof, bed and food thing."

This scenario is growing in a number of cities.  Up here in sleepy Green Bay there's been recent debate about enacting similar laws which would make 90% of the city off limits as a place of residence for sex offenders.  Where are these people supposed to go?  Imagine what would happen to property values in that remaining 10%. 

What we're looking at is effective segregation.  A whole lot of people aren't bothered by that because these people are seen as deserving it.  No, these people deserved prison.  They've served their time.  If we think they deserve more prison, then we should start handing out longer sentences.  It's reprehensible to make an appearance of being responsible for the community while washing our hands of responsibility for these displaced offenders.  They're becoming second-class citizens.  We might as well just designate a neighborhood for these people, build a wall around it, and make them wear armbands.

You shouldn't be able to persecute someone just because you don't like them and see them as a potential threat.  Everyone is a potential threat. 

Comments

[DeweyS]

As a father of 2 daughters...

Actually, I pretty much agree with you.

I am not, in general, a big fan of "punishment" -- too often it doesn't work. I am a big fan of problem solving. I think the issue here is that the government has no idea how to solve the problem so they just "do something" and if it's "for the children" people have a lot more tolerance of government interference. Judging from the listed records of the registered level 3 sex offenders who live in my town the governments current strategies aren't really that effective.

Other problems I see: all "sex offenders" are tarred with the same brush regardless of their specific offense, and I think there's a great deal of difference between a flasher or a date-rapist and someone offering little girls candy.

I would like to see the long term sentencing left up to judges. We do hire them for, well, judgment and I'd like to see them apply it in the form of specific limits to suit the offense of each individual.