« Man has a problem handling breaking up with girlfriend | Main | Family sues genie who's been harassing them for two years »
Sex offender can't find a home, asks to go back to jail
July 13, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Not to defend actual sex offenders in any way (and I'm sure the regular crowd is well familiar with my viewpoint on this matter) but the treatment they receive is completely unconstitutional. They were found guilty of their crime, served their sentence, and that should be the end of it. There's no allowance under the law to continue to punish certain offenders without any due process. And on a practical note, you either believe that they are too dangerous to let them out of prison and keep them there forever, or let them out free and clear. This "we're going to let you out, but you can't hold this enormous list of jobs, and you can't live in these places, and you have to register and be listed on websites to virtually guarantee that your neighbors will run you out of town on a rail" is insanity, and results in exactly the kind of thing this article discusses.
Posted by: Drake Timbershaft | Jul 13, 2009 11:40:10 AM
Au contraire, DTS. There's no difference with this kind of sentencing than with a DUI offender losing his capacity to drive after prison, or a white-collar criminal who embezzles being kept from working in finance again, or ANY released criminal who has conditions of probation/parole put upon them. It only veers into unconstitutionality when ADDITIONAL sentences or conditions are pronounced AFTER the first phase of punishment is meted out. All of these terms (sex-offender registry, job restrictions, etc.) are part of the original sentencing. So, it's not "without due process"; it was part and parcel to the original trial. So, your idea of "keep them if they are too dangerous" is actually the unconstitutional idea; you want to keep them in prison past the ultimate release date. The only option the penal system would have is to establish that the person in question is dangerous enough that upon release they would be directed to a secure mental health facility rather than into the general public.
As far as restrictions on where to live; this man has made up his mind he wants to live in the town HE chooses, which is now out of the question. SO FIND ANOTHER TOWN. And it's not that difficult to find a residence away from schools and parks.
And it's not "an enormous list of jobs", it's jobs that would put the person in contact with youth or other people that might pose a risk of re-offense. As was quoted, "there are lots of lawns to mow". And ditches to dig, and sandbags to haul, and dishes to wash. We're looking at a man who kinda sorta tried, wasn't happy with the first results, and now wants the state to give him his shelter and three squares a day.
Posted by: Duck Woodiedick | Jul 13, 2009 12:04:33 PM
" And it's not that difficult to find a residence away from schools and parks. " -- it is if the law is 2500 ft. that is a half mile away from any park, school, day care, etc... take a look at a florida map and see what areas that leaves, basically none that are located near work or a bus stop.
i'm not defending the sex offenders actions but im not defending the city either. they prolly call themselves christians too.
Posted by: buddy | Jul 13, 2009 12:11:27 PM
What did they say? Segregation is unconstitutional whether it is de jure segregation or de facto segregation...
...patiently awaiting the first post to
(a) accuse me of "loving" sex offenders.
(b) berate me for "comparing" sexual offenses with racial discrimination.
Have they served their sentences or have they not? If they have, we need to reintegrate them into society. Period. If they have not or are considered to high-risk to integrate back into society, then we ("We") need to either keep them in prison, castrate them (possibly) or kill them. WSome definite action needs to be taken:
Not this shell game which sh!ts all over the spirit of the Constitution as it was written and as it has been interpreted.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 12:20:54 PM
Au contraire back at ya, Woodie. There are definitely a large group of sexual offenders (though admittedly I don't know if it was the case for this particular one) for which this concept of additional restrictions on where they can live and indeed the entire concept of the public sexual offender registry were enacted long after they had been sentenced for their initial crime, and yet they are still required to comply with the rules after their release.
What I can say about this particular case (from TFA) is that 24 of Browards 31 counties have passes laws that essentially do not allow him to live anywhere within their borders. Do you believe that all those were enacted before he went to prison seven years ago? And as for mowing lawns, a quick check of the Broward county business pages show teen unemployment at 24.6%. Do you think a sex offender can get a job mowing lawns when a teenager can't, and that it will provide him with a living wage?
No, to restate my original point (more clearly, because I admit there was some ambiguity the first time), if you're going to treat sex offenders as a subspecies when you let them out of prison, everyone would be best served by simply admitting the fact and sentencing them to eternity in prison. And in particular to our present hysteria of sex offenders, had I the desire to diddle a child, I would be certain to feed said child through a wood chipper when I was done, because the sentencing for child murderers are far lower than that of child sexual predators.
Posted by: Drake Timbershaft | Jul 13, 2009 12:21:09 PM
It's not difficult to find them - in a town where they haven't rigged the map to do do. Leave the county.
By the way, his attorney found him a place to go, and he "can't afford the move"? It's 30 miles away. GIVE HIM A RIDE, Ms. Attorney!
By the way, how does a broke, homeless man afford an attorney? He's past "public defender" eligibility now.
Posted by: Duck Woodiedick | Jul 13, 2009 12:22:18 PM
If I were him, I'd just knock over a convenience store where the clerk doesn't speak English.
Posted by: twerp | Jul 13, 2009 12:27:17 PM
Duck- just because there exist a series of punishments/requirements- punitive or otherwise- that is nominally part of the trial (or due process) of the defendant, if they effectively take away an individuals right to literally find shelter or employment, does the effective outcome eliminate the "due process"?
So you say move to another town. What is the guarantee that the next town or county or state will not enact similar ordinance? Like you said:
"The only option the penal system would have is to establish that the person in question is dangerous enough that upon release they would be directed to a secure mental health facility rather than into the general public."
Perhaps then that is an option that the penal systems needs to exercise more frequently. But, IMO, if the offender, having served their sentence and having been determined NOT to be a continued threat to the public, should be free to continue on their life and not be restricted to living under a bridge.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 12:28:35 PM
This man sounds perfect for a position in our Church.
Posted by: Pope | Jul 13, 2009 12:31:20 PM
DTS, you're guessing, not dealing with facts. States which have enacted laws establishing sex-offender registries have been careful to NOT make them retroactive; when they haven't, it's gone to court and been struck down.
And I hate to break it to all of you, but the system of punishments prescribed by law in this country is ALL ABOUT taking away or suspending your rights when called for under code! When you go to prison, you have many rights taken away from you; the additional tenets of registries and restrictions are extensions of those original punishments. As I said before, when someone serving time for DUI is released from prison, do you want them driving a truck for you? Do you want someone accused of embezzling working the books at your business? What it comes down to is the idea that the "unfairness" of these restrictions is worth the guarantee that these persons will never again impose their mindless acts upon other innocent people. In the long run, we all know what the penalties are for these actions; "if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime"! Don't do it, then whine about what happens to you afterward.
So, DTS and SIL, how comfortable are you having a convicted sex offender move in next door? Just curious.
Posted by: Duck Woodiedick | Jul 13, 2009 12:44:39 PM
Duck, I'm sure I already have that and much worse living next to me. If they are categorized as a serial and/or violent offender with a high likelihood of re-offense than I would not be happy living next door. But what is the percentage of offenders who fit that profile? IMO, the system is failing all of us.
I repeat my argument that you cannot simply use back door punitive measurements to continue punishing someone after they have served the proscribed sentence. This is America. If you want to make it impossible for certain categories of criminals to find effectively function in society ever again than that needs to be written into their sentences. What we have instead is a shifting series of local ordinances.
As for your own examples of the person convicted of DUI or embezzlement, you are proving my point Duck. Both the drunk and the embezzler are not hit with additional, shifting, and potentially arbitrary proscriptions which collectively make it impossible for them to find a living or shelter, or what have you. Whether I would hire them for my company is irrelevant to the discussion. My personal wants or dislikes has nothing to do with the law. Unfortunately.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 1:21:58 PM
im not defending sex offenders but this guy really needs some sympathy he made a really bad mistake went to jail for it for what 5 years? then when he finally gets out he is so poor he has no where to live and his family (if he had one) won't take him back! so the only thing he could do was ask to be taken back to jail. poor guy
Posted by: noneofyourbeeswax | Jul 13, 2009 1:23:35 PM
IT IS A REAL SHAME FOR SURE
Posted by: MONKEY JERKm | Jul 13, 2009 1:24:21 PM
I'm pretty sure if you start making it impossible for additional categories of criminals to live in an increasing conglomeration of towns/counties there would be more public outcry against this. But they are sexual abusers so "to the dogs with 'em". OK, but if that is the way it is to be, lets have that up front, in the sentencing guidelines.
I also think it relevant to bring up the fact that child molesters are far more likely to be a "friend" or family member of the victim than a stranger in which case it is unlikely that the victim would be placed in a vulnerable situation with the offender in the future no matter where they are living. If they are, then CPS clearly needs to investigate the feasibility of that child remaining with those POS parents in the future.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 1:26:57 PM
duck, i would not want someone convicted of dui to be a taxi or bus driver. the same logic applies to not allowing a sex offender to be a teacher or a doctor.
see the equal comparision?
not allowing a sex offender to live somewhere needs to be compared to not allowing someone convicted of dui to live somewhere. actually, lets use your logic here and make it so that someone convicted of dui HAS to leave within 100 ft of a bar. this should prevent them from drinking and driving again. right?
Posted by: buddy | Jul 13, 2009 1:31:03 PM
Um... "there are plenty of lawns to mow"? Coming from a public official? That's just a step below saying, "There are plenty of hamburgers to flip." What an idiot!
Posted by: Sisterblonde | Jul 13, 2009 1:32:44 PM
Oakland Park Commissioner Suzanne Boisvenue says "There are plenty of lawns to mow." However, how many of those lawns are with 2500 feet of kids?
How many lawns do you have to mow to afford a place to stay? I hate public officials that are so clueless about housing and food prices in the area they represent.
Posted by: David | Jul 13, 2009 2:25:31 PM
clueless or don't care, David. Probably both.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 2:36:31 PM
I also wonder what being in a state of a de facto legally mandated homelessness does to ones Psyche. If, upon their release from custody, someone were judged NOT to pose a threat to the general public, that might change very quickly after living under a bridge. Now you don't know what you have- OR WHERE THEY LIVE. Great. Plan.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Jul 13, 2009 2:46:41 PM
I would have to agree with Drake and STIL. I would also add though, that not all sex offenders are there because of kids. There are many there because of older women/men as well. Many states will place you as a sex offender just for public urination, if you really have to go after leaving that bar. And no, I am not now nor ever have been listed as one.
Posted by: anon | Jul 13, 2009 5:06:08 PM
My attempts to find housing all fail,
When those distance restrictions prevail.
My offense, sex-related,
Excludes me. I'm fated,
It seems, to be sent back to jail.
Posted by: KC | Jul 13, 2009 7:08:19 PM
From the article: "I think it's a matter of them not wanting to work or pay for a place to live," said Boisvenue. "There are plenty of lawns to mow."
That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read.
Posted by: The Asshole Guy | Jul 13, 2009 7:36:38 PM
"duck, i would not want someone convicted of dui to be a taxi or bus driver. the same logic applies to not allowing a sex offender to be a teacher or a doctor."
Thought I would make a guest reappearance ....cause of the stupidity of this poster...
I would not care if a person who has been convicted of DUI is a pilot!!!
Past crimes do not dictate there will be future crimes that's what they go to jail for remember? TO LEARN A LESSON...
Some of you guys are finally thinking correctly... others here are completely nuts and should be locked up themselves...(not to mention carded cause ya sound like young children)
Sex offenders should register? Do people who get DUI's register to a offender list? Didn't think so...
Sex offenders should be restricted in work they can EVER have again? Yet half of you have likely be convicted of a speeding ticket and are not restricted from being near a road?
Sex offenders should rot in jail? Why? Murders are even given a chance if convicted to be let go... THINK ON THAT.. you rather have someone who has KILLED either a woman, a child or a man.... than someone who may have just had a relationship with someone under 18...
Christians are stupid and this is the crap when ya get when ya live in a 'idiot nation' aka 'christian nation'
I have thought hard on moving to Britain... where the majority of citizens are atheist... and logic is common place...
Posted by: TheTruth | Jul 14, 2009 5:00:10 AM
thetruth,
i'm not a christian, you dolt. if you used any logic then you would not be an atheiest. there is as much proof that there is not a god as proof that there is a god. a logical person would be agnostic. there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god or gods.
are you seriously comparing a speeding ticket to child molesting? speeding is a civil infraction whereas child molesting is a felony.
oh screw it, you are just acting cunty. im not wasting anymore of my time on you. here's your sign.
Posted by: buddy | Jul 14, 2009 7:41:26 AM
sex offenders who are violent and/or child molesters should be killed... end of story. there is no comparison to larceny and dwi. even murder can happen by "normal" people, but to rape or mutilate another human or touch a child sexually is just plain SICK and there is no place in my neighborhood they can live safely. no therapy, no parole, no f'n respect from me! any one who doesnt understand this can go live with hin under the bridge and leave your job and home to a more deserving family, maybe a victim of some horrible sex crime...
Posted by: r h | Jul 14, 2009 9:22:16 AM
