Just saw a stroy about DC helping Sex offenders find homes

a place in Tampa where 11 sex offenders live in a 4 bedroom house where the landlord charges them 80.00 a week. It seeems the probation officers call and see if they scum lord has any room at the inn. WOW , what kind of liability does the department have if one of these guys reoffend and abuse a neighboorhood child and we placed him in the home. I would never arrange housing for a sex offender.

[Merlin]

It's just a matter of time Florida starts passing clustering laws like some of the other states. Tampa is one of the few cities that hasn't adopted the 2,500 foot rule yet. Clustering or proximity rules are bound to effect us eventually. It's best to keep a low profile and keep your cases out of the news if at all possible.

I have no problems with assisting sex offenders with finding suitable housing; however, good judgement such as not placing 10 or 20 at the same registered address which is broadcasted internationally on a public website is not what I would consider good judgement.

I hope DOC has enough sense to watch where we are placing the sex offenders on supervision. Look at the big mess they had in California.....the Parole Chief got fired, all the sex offenders living close to Disneyland had to move, they put GPS monitors on them, on and on.

We can't control what the media or the public will shine the light on next......but we can control clusters and SOs living near places where children congregate.

[mystikwarrior]

I would never arrange housing for a sex offender.
But you would for any other offender? No problem finding a place for a drug dealer to live because even if he does reoffend and get a 10 year-old at the school down the street hooked on heroin, the media won't make a big deal out of it. Right?

Right on Mystikwarrior! And congratulations on having the most responses at one time on this here site :lol:

[Darth Duck]

Ok, if it is within their orders how do you prevent 100 of them from living in the same house?

Aww, there is much truth in your question, young jedi. :D

[mystikwarrior]

And congratulations on having the most responses at one time on this here site
Sorry if I seem to be posting a lot early here. But Florida has problems and so does DOC. I want to fix it. For you, the offenders and the public.
Look at it this way. Line officers don't want Central Office basing policy on what the media has said, is saying or will say. So why would they determine how they treat offenders on the same basis? Doesn't seem right.

Hey Mystikwarrior- no disrespect intended by the comment- I like to see people tune in and have something to say- just trying to brighten up this place and have a little fun- keep on writing! :lol:

I have no problems with assisting sex offenders with finding suitable housing; however, good judgement such as not placing 10 or 20 at the same registered address which is broadcasted internationally on a public website is not what I would consider good judgement.



So would you help place them in a neighborhood that had children of your close relatives Merlin. ?

I let my sex offenders live at Polk County Jail.

To all of you out there saying, "Do you want one living next to you?" Of course not, and I also don't want that little punk drug dealer who lives in my neighborhood living by me. And yes, he has been reported and arrested MANY times, but he keeps coming right back out to live with his mother. My point is, the known sex offenders are not the ONLY sex offenders out there... there are a whole bunch that are your family, friends and neighbors who haven't been caught yet. How do I know this you ask, well the new cases I get every week that are new sex offenders is my proof. I have a family member with 2 small children who does live several houses down from 2 sex offenders. Her children have been told that if either one even speaks to them, they are to run directly home...they even know what they look like. We as a family have to be careful of the sex offenders whose pictures aren't on the website yet. Just some food for thought. :D

[mystikwarrior]

well the new cases I get every week that are new sex offenders is my proof
Precisely.
If the registered offenders were the ones who are a danger and are responsible for all the crimes, there wouldn't be all those new cases. Florida's sex offender registry grows by a range of 60-80 offenders per week.

To all of you out there saying, "Do you want one living next to you?" Of course not, and I also don't want that little punk drug dealer who lives in my neighborhood living by me. And yes, he has been reported and arrested MANY times, but he keeps coming right back out to live with his mother. My point is, the known sex offenders are not the ONLY sex offenders out there... there are a whole bunch that are your family, friends and neighbors who haven't been caught yet. How do I know this you ask, well the new cases I get every week that are new sex offenders is my proof. I have a family member with 2 small children who does live several houses down from 2 sex offenders. Her children have been told that if either one even speaks to them, they are to run directly home...they even know what they look like. We as a family have to be careful of the sex offenders whose pictures aren't on the website yet. Just some food for thought. :D

I dont want sex offenders on my block because you cant even sell your house then. There was one previously on my block and a lady couldnt even sell her house because of it and when he moved out she found a buyer in 3 weeks. They hurt property values unlike low profile drug dealers who stay out of sight for the most part. I am not talking about the street dealers...

Sorry guest, when you were talking about sex offenders living on your block, I thought you were referring to public safety not the resale value of a home...my bad. :wink:

Sorry guest, when you were talking about sex offenders living on your block, I thought you were referring to public safety not the resale value of a home...my bad. :wink:

I was - your neighborhood is safer without them because they molest children, if they are in a different one less of a chance they molest my children.....most molest close to home I have read....and they hurt home values due to the danger they pose to prospective buyers children....

[Merlin]

Sorry guest, when you were talking about sex offenders living on your block, I thought you were referring to public safety not the resale value of a home...my bad. :wink:

I was - your neighborhood is safer without them because they molest children, if they are in a different one less of a chance they molest my children.....most molest close to home I have read....and they hurt home values due to the danger they pose to prospective buyers children....

Then who's neighborhood should sex offenders live in?

Most of the sex offenders that I supervise molested someone in their family or their girlfriend's children. My second biggest group are teachers, usually pled down, of course. No one wants a sex offender living in their neighborhood, not even me (surprise). Having a 1000' or even a whole mile buffer zone, will not keep all the children safe from predators, if it did, it would have already worked and I wouldn't have any more cases. This would make me incredibly happy, because I don't like people who hurt children, but this is my job, so I do it to the best of my ability to protect your children and mine. I don't know of any neighborhoods who want or don't care that a sex offender is living there. They are a reality, like it or not, and I think a lot of specialist and CC officers are just trying to find the balance.

Sorry guest, when you were talking about sex offenders living on your block, I thought you were referring to public safety not the resale value of a home...my bad. :wink:

I was - your neighborhood is safer without them because they molest children, if they are in a different one less of a chance they molest my children.....most molest close to home I have read....and they hurt home values due to the danger they pose to prospective buyers children....

Then who's neighborhood should sex offenders live in?

Way out in country areas which the 2500 foot rule does but there should be no grandfather clause. My preferance would be with other criminals in Prison. Maybe if enough of them get frustrated with these new rules they wont register and we can get them locked up 5 years for that....

[Merlin]

The intent of the 1,000 foot rule was to prevent pedophiles from living across the street from a school, which in my opinion is a great idea. The unintended consequence of buffer zones lately is the use of buffer zones or local ordinances to ban all sex offenders from society. They have to live somewhere or go underground. How can this possibly have a positive impact on the reoffense rate?

The intent of the 1,000 foot rule was to prevent pedophiles from living across the street from a school, which in my opinion is a great idea. The unintended consequence of buffer zones lately is the use of buffer zones or local ordinances to ban all sex offenders from society. They have to live somewhere or go underground. How can this possibly have a positive impact on the reoffense rate?

there has been no spike in offenses since these 2500 foot rules and quite a few offenders have been arrested for not registering due to the new rules making them eligible for 5 years at prison protecting society from them....these new rules are protecting society....

Most of the sex offenders that I supervise molested someone in their family or their girlfriend's children. My second biggest group are teachers, usually pled down, of course. No one wants a sex offender living in their neighborhood, not even me (surprise). Having a 1000' or even a whole mile buffer zone, will not keep all the children safe from predators, if it did, it would have already worked and I wouldn't have any more cases. This would make me incredibly happy, because I don't like people who hurt children, but this is my job, so I do it to the best of my ability to protect your children and mine. I don't know of any neighborhoods who want or don't care that a sex offender is living there. They are a reality, like it or not, and I think a lot of specialist and CC officers are just trying to find the balance.

Arent your new cases people who are not prior sex offenders - the 2500 foot rule is working in my opinion - most of the new arrests on past sex offenders are for not registering lately not commiting a new sex offense since these laws are driving them from our vulnerable children....

no offense Guest but as a tax paying citizen of this country..i hope and pray you are not an LEO drawing a check on my taxes. the way you talk and your opinion lead me to conclude you are a hate mongering individual who needs even more therapy then the average sex offender.....at least their crime is out in the open...while yours is in the dark and hidden....maybe we should shove all sex offenders and all hate mongering bigots like yourself into a room for 24 hrs...the ones who come out go free with no restrictions whatsover.....sound like a good ideal?

no offense Guest but as a tax paying citizen of this country..i hope and pray you are not an LEO drawing a check on my taxes. the way you talk and your opinion lead me to conclude you are a hate mongering individual who needs even more therapy then the average sex offender.....at least their crime is out in the open...while yours is in the dark and hidden....maybe we should shove all sex offenders and all hate mongering bigots like yourself into a room for 24 hrs...the ones who come out go free with no restrictions whatsover.....sound like a good ideal?

no offense but somehow I think sex offenders have learned about this site....the rules are good for keeping sex offenders from re-offending.

Sex Offenders on supervision are out there whether we like it or not, (and of course we don't like it - who in their right mind does!) and they have to live somewhere. Personally, I don't care if a bunch of them live in the same house/motel because at least I know where they are, and can make the neighborhood aware, and the police can also try to look out for any illicit activity. The harder we make it, the more of them will go underground, and yes, if they are caught, hopefully they will go to prison, but in the meantime, I am more worried about what or who they are doing when we don't know where they are!! In addition our beloved legislature, trying to pander to the public hysteria has "created" sex offenders out of some cases that are not truly sex offenders and if any specialist out there says they don't have any of those, I would not believe them. Lets deal with the reality of the situation and try to concentrate on the ones who truly are a danger to society!

[Merlin]

Sex Offenders on supervision are out there whether we like it or not, (and of course we don't like it - who in their right mind does!) and they have to live somewhere. Personally, I don't care if a bunch of them live in the same house/motel because at least I know where they are, and can make the neighborhood aware, and the police can also try to look out for any illicit activity. The harder we make it, the more of them will go underground, and yes, if they are caught, hopefully they will go to prison, but in the meantime, I am more worried about what or who they are doing when we don't know where they are!! In addition our beloved legislature, trying to pander to the public hysteria has "created" sex offenders out of some cases that are not truly sex offenders and if any specialist out there says they don't have any of those, I would not believe them. Lets deal with the reality of the situation and try to concentrate on the ones who truly are a danger to society!

I'll go along with that. I think the term "sex offender" is being used synonymously with "monster". Now that the rules directed towards the monsters are clear (well sorta) maybe it's time to focus on a real risk class system to identify the sex offenders, preds and monsters and tailor the rules accordingly.

Think about the average incest offender we have on our caseload.....now tell me how GPS or the 1,000 foot rule would have prevented him from inappropriately touching his daughter. I believe we are focusing on the wrong stuff. If an offender has a history of molesting someone he knows, and gets a new conviction and placed on supervision, is it more important we GPS him or should we be restricting him from living with children? According to 948.30 the prior sex offenders with new convictions are only mandated to get GPS. What about therapy? What about contact with children? It makes no sense to let a pedophile who's now on supervision for cocaine live with children. What were they thinking?

i dont' think even the average sex offender has a problem with rules...i think most of their problem with them comes with the constant changes....in some cases decades or years after their crime and release from any kind of probation/parole....i mean what do you think a judge would say if the legislature passed a law tomorrow that said anybody conviced to a drug offense 20 years ago now has to register once a month and have their photo and address and work information on the internet? that would be a major lawsuit....and they would win it....but for some reason sex offenders seems to be anything's allowed and the hell with the constitution...in no other crime can a prosecutor come in and announce to the jury " we think he did this last year or we suspect he did this to somebody but he's never even been charged before let alone convicted"......would be an instant mistrial with prejustice in any other type of case so why not here? i mean i thought according to you the law is the law and must be obeyed and if they can't keep up with the changes goodie....let's VOL them and lock em up....

[mystikwarrior]

They hurt property values unlike low profile drug dealers who stay out of sight for the most part.
I imagine the sex offenders stay out of sight just as much. Except for that TV van parked outside the house 24/7/.
Curious if you actually know the criminal histories of your neighbors up and down the block? Think you could sell your house for good money in a few weeks if it was common knowledge that a convicted murderer lived across the street? Especially if his victim was a neighbor he decided he didn't like?

most molest close to home I have read
Actually most molest in the home. As in the home they and the victim both live in. Most stranger offenses are actually perpetrated at locations well away from the offender's home.

The intent of the 1,000 foot rule was to prevent pedophiles from living across the street from a school, which in my opinion is a great idea.
Yes, but 1,000 feet is not 'across the street'. 500 feet would be equally effective. But I ahve to come back to the registry. Who cares where the offender lives if there's a registry and website telling everybody that is where they live?

How can this possibly have a positive impact on the reoffense rate?
Depends on which side you're on. Some here and elsewhere rightfully believe that getting an offender in prison on any premise is a 'good' thing. And with the latest trend of classifying failure to register as a sexual offense simply boosts the reoffense rate and helps prove that sex offenders are indeed incurable. Just look at all those 'new' sex crimes.

...(and of course we don't like it - who in their right mind does!)
You contradict yourself. You use 'sex offender' as a blanket term and then later allude that some sex offenders aren't sex offenders in the typical sense. Why don't you be more specific in terminology? "Sex offender" is a status due to regulations and has nothing to do with the actual sexually-related offense used to apply that status. A 'child molester' on the other hand is that due to the physical act of having molested a child. Likewise a rapist is such because they raped someone. So do you have a problem with 'sex offenders'? Or some sub-classification based on the actual offenses committed?

[quote]They hurt property values unlike low profile drug dealers who stay out of sight for the most part.
I imagine the sex offenders stay out of sight just as much. Except for that TV van parked outside the house 24/7/.
Curious if you actually know the criminal histories of your neighbors up and down the block? Think you could sell your house for good money in a few weeks if it was common knowledge that a convicted murderer lived across the street? Especially if his victim was a neighbor he decided he didn't like?

most molest close to home I have read
Actually most molest in the home. As in the home they and the victim both live in. Most stranger offenses are actually perpetrated at locations well away from the offender's home.

The intent of the 1,000 foot rule was to prevent pedophiles from living across the street from a school, which in my opinion is a great idea.
Yes, but 1,000 feet is not 'across the street'. 500 feet would be equally effective. But I ahve to come back to the registry. Who cares where the offender lives if there's a registry and website telling everybody that is where they live?

How can this possibly have a positive impact on the reoffense rate?
Depends on which side you're on. Some here and elsewhere rightfully believe that getting an offender in prison on any premise is a 'good' thing. And with the latest trend of classifying failure to register as a sexual offense simply boosts the reoffense rate and helps prove that sex offenders are indeed incurable. Just look at all those 'new' sex crimes.

...(and of course we don't like it - who in their right mind does!)
You contradict yourself. You use 'sex offender' as a blanket term and then later allude that some sex offenders aren't sex offenders in the typical sense. Why don't you be more specific in terminology? "Sex offender" is a status due to regulations and has nothing to do with the actual sexually-related offense used to apply that status. A 'child molester' on the other hand is that due to the physical act of having molested a child. Likewise a rapist is such because they raped someone. So do you have a problem with 'sex offenders'? Or some sub-classification based on the actual offenses committed?[/quote:1cpn7cyb]

If a convicted robber etc. lived in the neighborhood I doubt it would affect property values because his picture and address arent on TV all day and it doesnt have the deserved stigma a sex crime carries (especially one with a minor involved).

The 2500 foot ordinances do work because it forces offenders to move way out in country areas where they are not in proximity to as many children which tempt them to molest again. (same as keeping an alcoholic away from a bar).

The only people that shouldnt be on that registry possibly are ones who had consensual sex with a 16 year old and the parents just pressed hard to charge him due to hating the guy for whatever reason. All pedophiles should be tracked as much as possible to let them know society is watching them....

Sex offenders molest children -clear you haven't read the statues.
Most of mine (90%) are what used to be called statory rape cases.
Your children are safe provided she isn't 15 (going on 30) and dresses like a hooker and has such low self esteem -old Jimmy (20 going on 13) looks good to her.

Sex offenders are the new N*ggers and this is the south

[NIGHT RANGER]

What do you want us to do? We all know that the news media runs DOC, why don't you just keep on doing stories on sex offender issues and I guarantee the "cream of the crop" in Tallahasse will respond with a policy change. As officers we do our best having to deal with the self rightous news media and spineless generals up at central office.

If I had it my way, I would put a good bit of sex offenders in prison for life and have them all castrated.

Now go and blow your nose Channel 8.

The 2500 foot ordinances do work because it forces offenders to move way out in country areas where they are not in proximity to as many children which tempt them to molest again. (same as keeping an alcoholic away from a bar).

So what you're saying is that our politicians have found a cure for pedophilia? Having moved around a lot in my lifetime both in congested cities and in rural areas I never once had a situation where my geographical area effected my sexual activity. Do we have reports and stats to back this up? Can you say without question that living in the rural areas definately cures pedophilia and will without question reduce sexual impulses? Considering how far sex offenders are willing to travel to meet and molest children I somehow have a real hard time believing that the ones in the populated areas reoffend more. But, surely you've based your opinion on facts; so let's hear what they are? Or is the 2,500 foot rule all about getting him off your caseload and on to someone else's?

About this 2500' rule that Guest considers the holy grail for preventing sex offenses...Guest, there is this show that comes on NBC, it's called NBC Dateline. Well, on this program week after week, in large cities and rural areas, the perverts, most never having been convicted of any sexual offense before the show, drive MILES AND HOURS to meet what they think is a young girl or boy for the purpose of having sex. I have also had offenders violate for not registering and they get a slap on the wrist, so the law is only as effective as those who have the power (judges and legislature) to enforce it wield it. Why would you subject all the good people who happen to live in the rural areas to all the sex offenders that you don't want living near you? Finally, if it turns out that the 2500 foot rule didn't have the positive effect you wanted, what measurement do you think would be effective?

[Darth Duck]

Yeah, "guest" :evil:

[Darth Duck]

I don't know, I have yet to see an offender get five years for failure to register on the first, or twentieth offense.

[Darth Duck]

Besides, if we lock everybody up what would we have to do?

I don't know, I have yet to see an offender get five years for failure to register on the first, or twentieth offense.

I know they seem to just give them probation for that wanting to avoid their argument for not registering at trial. The good thing however is the ones that are just being sentenced for that are getting about 1-2 years of supervision and since they have a prior and they were busted after 9/1/05 they are put on GPS tracking for their supervision and if they violate then,
I am sure they will have no problem giving them a year or more in the pen......

Besides, if we lock everybody up what would we have to do?

There is enough Conditional Releases and Really Violent Offenders to keep the Specialists busy..... :D

The 2500 foot ordinances do work because it forces offenders to move way out in country areas where they are not in proximity to as many children which tempt them to molest again. (same as keeping an alcoholic away from a bar).

So what you're saying is that our politicians have found a cure for pedophilia? Having moved around a lot in my lifetime both in congested cities and in rural areas I never once had a situation where my geographical area effected my sexual activity. Do we have reports and stats to back this up? Can you say without question that living in the rural areas definately cures pedophilia and will without question reduce sexual impulses? Considering how far sex offenders are willing to travel to meet and molest children I somehow have a real hard time believing that the ones in the populated areas reoffend more. But, surely you've based your opinion on facts; so let's hear what they are? Or is the 2,500 foot rule all about getting him off your caseload and on to someone else's?

They said on the news that the cities that enacted these 2500 foot rules have seen an exodus of offenders while neighboring counties have had an increase in those offenders moving to their county due to no 2500 foot rule. The bottom line is the counties without an ordinance have put their children more at risk than the counties that have them. Those people you talk about on TV hopefully get busted and convicted so the ordinance will keep them out of the smart cities. You are correct I dont have numbers that show if an offender is more likely to offend in a certain area but common sense would dictate that if you have less sex offenders in your city you have less of a chance of one offending there again...

Guest, I still think you're missing my point. Your concern is "stranger encounters" and I'm telling you that these guys will DRIVE, WALK, TAKE A BUS, etc. to get to that child. The ordinances look good on paper, but if you have guys disappearing, then I don't know how effective it really is. I do know that the D/S I work with was proud of his extremely low absconder rate...this guy bust his ass to catch missing sex offenders. Now, he has told me that his numbers are climbing because they can't find a place to live. In my county, we have quarterly PCIs where DOC searches the sex offenders and LEOs check on the released sex offenders...to me that is more effective to know where they are and for them to know that you will be checking on them no matter what their status is.

Guest, I still think you're missing my point. Your concern is "stranger encounters" and I'm telling you that these guys will DRIVE, WALK, TAKE A BUS, etc. to get to that child. The ordinances look good on paper, but if you have guys disappearing, then I don't know how effective it really is. I do know that the D/S I work with was proud of his extremely low absconder rate...this guy bust his ass to catch missing sex offenders. Now, he has told me that his numbers are climbing because they can't find a place to live. In my county, we have quarterly PCIs where DOC searches the sex offenders and LEOs check on the released sex offenders...to me that is more effective to know where they are and for them to know that you will be checking on them no matter what their status is.

How can having less offenders in your city make it more dangerous?

There has been no spike in offenses against children since these ordinances went into effect that I have heard of - but I have read reports the cities that passed them have had a lower rate of registered offenders offending against children probably due to their lower numbers in those cities now. I say a city is better off with less of them than a lot more of them even if a deputy knocks on their door every couple of weeks.

way to go , now they are homeless sex offenders.Arrest them all.

way to go , now they are homeless sex offenders.Arrest them all.

There is still places for them to go - just 2500 foot away from where children congregate. Then they dont have the temptation as much and the children are usually at a safer distance from the sex offenders. Helps everyone.

common sense would dictate that if you have less sex offenders in your city you have less of a chance of one offending there again...

True. So you would agree that the 2,500 foot rule has nothing to do with preventing sexual abuse. As you say, if you ban them from your city they would move and reoffend somewhere else.

So if moving them to another city still results in a possible reoffense perhaps your city should consider another ordinance that might actually STOP reoffenses. Have they considered killing all the registered sex offenders? This would help you by getting rid of those pesky pervs and prevent them from coming to my neighborhood.......sounds like a good plan, no?

There is still places for them to go - just 2500 foot away from where children congregate. Then they dont have the temptation as much

Just curious how many offenders you have on your caseload who were tempted to molest/rape because they lived 2,499 feet from a park. My caseload must be different than yours. Most of my guys molested children they knew....you know the date the single mom deal because her 13 year old daughter looks 18? Or the ones with the Lolita neice age 11 and come on to them? I've yet to hear a case that sat in his house, which was 2,499 feet from a school, and suddenly jumped in his car to snatch a kid from the park only 2,499 feet away. My oh my, I had no clue this was going on....how many cases do you have like this?

There is still places for them to go - just 2500 foot away from where children congregate. Then they dont have the temptation as much

Just curious how many offenders you have on your caseload who were tempted to molest/rape because they lived 2,499 feet from a park. My caseload must be different than yours. Most of my guys molested children they knew....you know the date the single mom deal because her 13 year old daughter looks 18? Or the ones with the Lolita neice age 11 and come on to them? I've yet to hear a case that sat in his house, which was 2,499 feet from a school, and suddenly jumped in his car to snatch a kid from the park only 2,499 feet away. My oh my, I had no clue this was going on....how many cases do you have like this?

No offense but it sounds like you are suffering from a form of the stockholm syndrome with your sex offenders. Just look at your comments almost justifying an adult having sexual relations with an 11 and 13 year old girl. A person who would sleep with an 11 year old is a very disturbed individual and is capable of sexually assaulting anyone if they dont even have the morals or restraint to not sleep with 11 year olds. The farther way from most children that sex offenders are the better. Perhaps you should reconsider your line of work if you really think they arent a threat and Maybe you might want to refresh yourself with Florida statutes and how make these sick crimes a major offense against society.

common sense would dictate that if you have less sex offenders in your city you have less of a chance of one offending there again...

True. So you would agree that the 2,500 foot rule has nothing to do with preventing sexual abuse. As you say, if you ban them from your city they would move and reoffend somewhere else.

So if moving them to another city still results in a possible reoffense perhaps your city should consider another ordinance that might actually STOP reoffenses. Have they considered killing all the registered sex offenders? This would help you by getting rid of those pesky pervs and prevent them from coming to my neighborhood.......sounds like a good plan, no?

The cities that havent passed these ordinances are not looking out for their children's safety. The simple act of registration while giving the public useful information has failed to lower the re-offnse rate enough so these ordinances are needed to get them farther awy from most children. There are country areas in the state they could lead comfortable lives in while not threating the children in most of our neighborhoods. Yeehaw Junction area comes to mind or even better they could relocate out West to a state like Wyoming with vast open country where concerned citizens wouldnt be harassing them as much making their lives more pleasant and then everyone wins the concerned citizens and the sex offenders.

[mystikwarrior]

There has been no spike in offenses against children since these ordinances went into effect that I have heard of - but I have read reports the cities that passed them have had a lower rate of registered offenders offending against children probably due to their lower numbers in those cities now. I say a city is better off with less of them than a lot more of them even if a deputy knocks on their door every couple of weeks.
Obviously you haven't been following the news about what's going on in Miami Gardens, eh?

There has been no spike in offenses against children since these ordinances went into effect that I have heard of - but I have read reports the cities that passed them have had a lower rate of registered offenders offending against children probably due to their lower numbers in those cities now. I say a city is better off with less of them than a lot more of them even if a deputy knocks on their door every couple of weeks.
Obviously you haven't been following the news about what's going on in Miami Gardens, eh?

Show me the article that states the 2500 foot rule has led to an increase in the reoffense rate of sex offenders and I will read it.

[mystikwarrior]

The simple act of registration while giving the public useful information has failed to lower the re-offnse rate enough so these ordinances are needed to get them farther awy from most children.
The reason registration didn't make a significant change in the reoffense rate is because it is already very small. Still is small.
Sorry, but Florida doesn't add 70 offenders a week to the registry because the ones already on it are reoffending.
If the premise were true, that prior offenders commit all the new crimes as well, Florida's registry would still be very close to the 2,000-3,000 people it started with 10 years ago. Instead it's ten times larger. Where did the other 27,000 come from? Mars?

The simple act of registration while giving the public useful information has failed to lower the re-offnse rate enough so these ordinances are needed to get them farther awy from most children.
The reason registration didn't make a significant change in the reoffense rate is because it is already very small. Still is small.
Sorry, but Florida doesn't add 70 offenders a week to the registry because the ones already on it are reoffending.
If the premise were true, that prior offenders commit all the new crimes as well, Florida's registry would still be very close to the 2,000-3,000 people it started with 10 years ago. Instead it's ten times larger. Where did the other 27,000 come from? Mars?

True but the Supreme Court doesnt let us register people as sex offenders before they commit that crime and we dont have a way for sure to know who will commit those crimes - but we do know after the crime is commited who will.

I never knew that these beings known as "They" had so much accurate information to share with us! Guest, where are you getting your information? Just because you say it and it sounds good doesn't make it true. I happen to live in a this thing called a city, so there isn't a lot of options with all the ordinances. And now the rural suburbs are springing up little parks all over the place. If "they" want to pass a one mile ordinance, I could really care less. My problem is that I get these sex offenders with no viable place to live. The legislature made no plans or offers no strategy re: finding suitable housing for these offenders. All the resources I used to have no longer want to deal with sex offenders. Maybe in your neck of the woods the sex offense rate has gone down, but I get new cases several times a month and some of our sex offenders have reoffended, usually after they have absconded. There is no one step solution to this problem.

yes and we know that 85% of the ones who commit a sex crime will never commit another one! so why are we wasting limited money and manpower tracking and harassing them? and with treatment which for some reason florida doesn't provide in prison during that first stay it drops even lower.....maybe there is a reason florida needs all those sex criminals? maybe that PRIDE industry they have....got to keep those manufacturing centers humming....and making billions.

I never knew that these beings known as "They" had so much accurate information to share with us! Guest, where are you getting your information? Just because you say it and it sounds good doesn't make it true. I happen to live in a this thing called a city, so there isn't a lot of options with all the ordinances. And now the rural suburbs are springing up little parks all over the place. If "they" want to pass a one mile ordinance, I could really care less. My problem is that I get these sex offenders with no viable place to live. The legislature made no plans or offers no strategy re: finding suitable housing for these offenders. All the resources I used to have no longer want to deal with sex offenders. Maybe in your neck of the woods the sex offense rate has gone down, but I get new cases several times a month and some of our sex offenders have reoffended, usually after they have absconded. There is no one step solution to this problem.

Well if the sex offenders refuse to obey society's rules then the we have something called a county jail for them to stay in. There is plenty of open space away from most children in places like Yeehaw Junction. Maybe I am wrong but these sex offenders just seem to want to remain near places where children congregate and society needs to make it clear that is not acceptable.

It sounds to me worried citizen, that your gripe is with the legislature not the probation officers. I don't harrass my offenders, but I let my presence be known to them. When I get a new case, I explain to them that I am required to walk through their house, that they may be subject to search and that I may came out very late at night to do my mandatory curfew checks. I also explain this to their family when I initially go out to their home. I am very straight forward with them and they have told me that they appreciate that because they know where they stand with me, unlike some of their "nice" officers who violated them "for no reason". A mistake is 2+2=5. These offenders made a conscious decision to violate a child. I simply enforce the orders of the court and the laws of the legislature.

where can they live? I am being told they cannot live at motels/hotels and now that they can't live by swimming pools.
Did the legislature change the statute? I thought it was schools, parks, playgrounds and day cares and everything else had to be proscribe by the judge. DId I miss something?

No offense but it sounds like you are suffering from a form of the stockholm syndrome with your sex offenders. Just look at your comments almost justifying an adult having sexual relations with an 11 and 13 year old girl. A person who would sleep with an 11 year old is a very disturbed individual and is capable of sexually assaulting anyone if they dont even have the morals or restraint to not sleep with 11 year olds. The farther way from most children that sex offenders are the better. Perhaps you should reconsider your line of work if you really think they arent a threat and Maybe you might want to refresh yourself with Florida statutes and how make these sick crimes a major offense against society.

Emotional rants don't show me how credible your statements are. If you have no cases that were triggered by living 2,499 feet from a school and if it's true most of your cases molested family members, close friends or someone they knew/groomed, and if it's true they are a serious threat to society then why would you be in favor of any rule/ordinance that is proven to be non-effective? There have been studies which prove proximity rules have no effect on recidivism, yet you welcome banning/isolating them from society. Have you studied the phsychological impact on people when they feel isolated?

You don't have to convince me these guys are a serious threat. All I'm saying is that we should deal with the threat instead of ignoring it by using the smoke screen called a buffer zone. If sex offenders should not be around children we'd be far better off with an ordinance that forbids sex offenders from living with children since most of them offended in the home.

I'm simply amazed that people think kicking the offenders out of their city will stop them from moving in with a lady somewhere else and possibly molesting her children.

If you want to solve a problem (problem being reoffenses) you have to identify the problem. The problem never was the parks, playgrounds or schools within 2500 feet, yet you don't say it was and solve this by moving the offender.

Just curious. If you had a problem such as a tooth ache, went to see a dentist and he told you the solution was to amputate your left pinky, would you believe that would stop your tooth from hurting?

No offense but it sounds like you are suffering from a form of the stockholm syndrome with your sex offenders. Just look at your comments almost justifying an adult having sexual relations with an 11 and 13 year old girl. A person who would sleep with an 11 year old is a very disturbed individual and is capable of sexually assaulting anyone if they dont even have the morals or restraint to not sleep with 11 year olds. The farther way from most children that sex offenders are the better. Perhaps you should reconsider your line of work if you really think they arent a threat and Maybe you might want to refresh yourself with Florida statutes and how make these sick crimes a major offense against society.

Emotional rants don't show me how credible your statements are. If you have no cases that were triggered by living 2,499 feet from a school and if it's true most of your cases molested family members, close friends or someone they knew/groomed, and if it's true they are a serious threat to society then why would you be in favor of any rule/ordinance that is proven to be non-effective? There have been studies which prove proximity rules have no effect on recidivism, yet you welcome banning/isolating them from society. Have you studied the phsychological impact on people when they feel isolated?

You don't have to convince me these guys are a serious threat. All I'm saying is that we should deal with the threat instead of ignoring it by using the smoke screen called a buffer zone. If sex offenders should not be around children we'd be far better off with an ordinance that forbids sex offenders from living with children since most of them offended in the home.

I'm simply amazed that people think kicking the offenders out of their city will stop them from moving in with a lady somewhere else and possibly molesting her children.

If you want to solve a problem (problem being reoffenses) you have to identify the problem. The problem never was the parks, playgrounds or schools within 2500 feet, yet you don't say it was and solve this by moving the offender.

Just curious. If you had a problem such as a tooth ache, went to see a dentist and he told you the solution was to amputate your left pinky, would you believe that would stop your tooth from hurting?

Somehow I think if a study was done on sexual crimes it would clearly show most were done within that 2500 foot radius, including the reoffenses. Since these ordinances are new, we will have the data proving their effectiveness in a couple of years. One thing I do know for sure is that most sexual offenses are within the 2500 foot ordinances because I have had many cases that have had to move when their rental agreement ended, and some dont have to move only because they or a relative owned the home before the ordinance went into effect grandfathering them at that residence unfortunately. Having these offenders live around parks, playgrounds etc. is asking for trouble because they see the kids more often right outside their door tempting them ( you wouldnt want a crack head living in a known drug area seeing the stuff all the time tempting him). If the lady you speak of moves the offender in and has her kids molested as a result then I hope she lives with that terrible thing she allowed to happen the rest of her life because she is to blame also for exposing her children to a "known" sex offender which can easily be identified. The police will run the person's name for you if you dont have a computer. Now of course with the new offenders we dont have a crystal ball - but we do have foresight with known sex offenders.

Somehow I think if a study was done on sexual crimes it would clearly show most were done within that 2500 foot radius, including the reoffenses.

True. Likewise, if we conducted a study somehow I think you will find that most sex offenders committed their crimes in the state of Florida. Based on your logic, maybe I should prepare an interstate compact transfer request on all my sex offenders. Or should we adopt a statewide ban and lock them all up in our prisons?

If you conducted a study on all the sex offenders in the nation you would probably find that 100% were breathing oxygen before and during their crime. We can conclude based on your faulty logic that oxygen causes sex crimes. Further, if we move all of them to the moon we'll end this epidemic.

Somehow I think if a study was done on sexual crimes it would clearly show most were done within that 2500 foot radius, including the reoffenses.

True. Likewise, if we conducted a study somehow I think you will find that most sex offenders committed their crimes in the state of Florida. Based on your logic, maybe I should prepare an interstate compact transfer request on all my sex offenders. Or should we adopt a statewide ban and lock them all up in our prisons?

If you conducted a study on all the sex offenders in the nation you would probably find that 100% were breathing oxygen before and during their crime. We can conclude based on your faulty logic that oxygen causes sex crimes. Further, if we move all of them to the moon we'll end this epidemic.

The other states have wised up - in the South at least they will find anyway to not accept a sex offender lately. Have you tried an ISC move with one lately it is almost impossible. Let me put it this way no matter what people thimk I just can not see how having a sex offender living in close proximity to children can make our children safer. You really dont believe if they lived in the outskirts of the counties that reoffenses of sex crimes would go down? We will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

No1 Important you are right my problems are with both the state and national legislature that is wasting billions of dollars and 100's of thousands of manhours watching 600,000 sex offenders when they really only need to be watching 50-70 thousand of them passing all these feel-good laws that have no relation with actualy law enforcement but make the public feel good.....just like according to almost every study conducted in the last 10 years..and hate to break it to guest sex crimes are not a new thing....just these new restriction laws are.....the average Parole/Probation officer is just trying to work understaffed and underfunded with more and more rules and regulations being piled on top of each other....making their jobs harder and the exoffenders life more miserable...as for studies showing how these offenses happen within the 2500 foot limit i would point guest to indiana where they passed these laws in 2002 and were finally allowed to enforce them in 2005 and now the state prosecutor's association which screamed we need them has now a year later told the state man did we screw up these need to be changed.....

March 15, 2006

Iowa's Residency Rules Drive Sex Offenders Underground

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — One cornfield beyond the trim white farmhouse where the Boland family lives and a road sign warns, "Watch for children and dogs," is a faded motel.

For years a layover for budget-conscious motorists and construction crews, the motel has lately become a disquieting symbol of what has gone wrong with Iowa's crackdown on sexual offenders of children. With just 24 rooms, the motel, the Ced-Rel, was home to 26 registered sex offenders by the start of March.

"Nobody wants to have something associated with sex offenders right beside them," said Steve Boland, a farmer and father of two who learns about his newest neighbors every few weeks when sheriff's deputies stop by with photographs of them.

"Us showing the kids some mug shots sure wasn't going to help," Mr. Boland said. "How were they going to remember that many faces?"

The men have flocked to the Ced-Rel and other rural motels and trailer parks because no one else will, or can, have them. A new state law barring those convicted of sex crimes involving children from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center has brought unintended and disturbing consequences. It has rendered some offenders homeless and left others sleeping in cars or in the cabs of their trucks.

And the authorities say that many have simply vanished from their sight, with nearly three times as many registered sex offenders considered missing since before the law took effect in September.

"The truth is that we're starting to lose people," said Don Vrotsos, chief deputy for the Dubuque County sheriff's office and the man whose job it is to keep track of that county's 101 sex offenders.

The statute has set off a law-making race in the cities and towns of Iowa, with each trying to be more restrictive than the next by adding parks, swimming pools, libraries and bus stops to the list of off-limits places. Fearful that Iowa's sex offenders might seek refuge across state lines, six neighboring states have joined the frenzy.

"We don't want to be the dumping ground for their sex offenders," said Tom Brusch, the mayor of Galena, Ill., which passed an ordinance in January.

But even as new bans ripple across the Midwest, the rocky start of the Iowa law — one of at least 18 state laws governing the living arrangements of those convicted of sex crimes — has led to a round of second-guessing about whether such laws really work.

"Nobody wants sex offenders in their area, and on its face, it makes sense that people wouldn't want them near day cares and schools," said Scott Matson, a research associate at the Center for Sex Offender Management, a nonprofit project financed by the federal Department of Justice. "But there are consequences of removing them."

While some of the Iowa's largest cities, like Des Moines, have become virtually off limits for those convicted of sex crimes involving children, the new rules have pushed many to live in groups away from their families, in places like the Ced-Rel, or the Red Carpet Inn in nearby Bouton, where nine offenders rent rooms.

Michele Costigan, whose driveway is right across Highway 30 from the Ced-Rel in this rural stretch just outside Cedar Rapids, said she had stopped leaving any of her four children at home alone, had told them to dial 911 if anyone they did not recognize pulled into the family driveway, and was considering moving.

Last fall, Deputy Vrotsos told about 30 of the offenders that they would have to move to meet the requirements of Iowa's law, which he said made about 90 percent of the city of Dubuque off limits.

Some complied, he said, moving to trailer parks, across the Mississippi River into Illinois, to motels or, in the case of one man who had been living with his parents, to a truck at the Ioco Truck Stop on the outskirts of town. But at least three of the offenders have disappeared, Deputy Vrotsos said, giving false addresses or not providing any address at all.

The effectiveness and fairness of the restrictions has become a matter of great debate.

Some law enforcement officials say they believe that restrictions keep the most serious sexual predators away from places where they would be most likely to hurt a child again. But others argue that while such laws are politically appealing, there is little empirical evidence to suggest a connection between recidivism and proximity to schools or day care centers, and that the policies are too broad, drawing in, for example, people who as teenagers had sex with an under-age girlfriend.

In Arkansas, a 2001 study found that sexual offenders of children often lived near schools, day care centers and parks. Those results suggested, said Jeffrey T. Walker, a professor from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock who was a co-author of the research, that residency restrictions could be a reasonable deterrent.

But studies for the Colorado Department of Public Safety in 2004 and the Minnesota Department of Corrections in 2003 have suggested that where an offender lives appears to have no bearing on whether he commits another sex crime on a child.

A flurry of new legislation is being considered all over the country. More legislatures are considering joining a dozen that already use satellite tracking devices on offenders. Others, including Iowa, are considering harsher prison sentences for those who attack children. Lawmakers reason that they would not have to worry about recidivism if offenders rarely emerged from prison.

Jerry Behn, a Republican state senator, proposed Iowa's residency law after a constituent called him to point out that a registered sex offender was living in a home that looked out over a schoolyard in Boone, Mr. Behn's hometown.

The legislation passed overwhelmingly in 2002, but was challenged in a lawsuit. A federal judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but a three judge panel from the appeals court overturned the ruling.

Almost immediately, other states felt the reverberations. Chief Steven M. O'Connell of the East Dubuque, Ill., police said he began getting "an appalling number" of calls from offenders from Dubuque who wanted to know if they could legally live in his town instead. Sheriff Timothy F. Dunning of Douglas County, Neb., not far from Council Bluffs, Iowa, said that new sex offenders rarely moved to town in the past, but that since last fall, 28 had arrived.

Despite the problems, legislators in Iowa are unlikely to ease the distance restriction anytime soon, said State Senator Larry McKibben, a Republican who is leading a legislative task force on sex offender policies.

"It may have created some hardships for sex offenders," Mr. McKibben said. "But over all, I feel like with the spate of sex offenders in the past few years, this has at least caused parents to be more aware of what is going on."

Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the Iowa Association of County Attorneys, which opposes the law, said it had created a "false sense of security" for Iowa residents.

"This is very close to banishment," Mr. Ritchie said. "They quit registering with the sex offender registry and they start sleeping under bridges and at rest stops"

Don Zeller, the sheriff here in Linn County, said however that he had heard a lot of concerns from people over sex offenders in the county, 30 of whom face charges for not complying with the state law's residency restrictions.

Before September, Sheriff Zeller said, he knew where 90 percent of Linn County's sex offenders were living, and today he knows where slightly more than half live. Just before Christmas, the sheriff said, one man began spending his days inside the sheriff's office because he had no where else to go.

what's your point?

what's your point?

Guest, my point is people who are driving those in society they dont like underground are causing more problems not less.

which is also my point...this continue changing and uprooting of sex offenders who have served their sentences and moved on with their lives serves no purpose what so ever and seem to be causing more problems then it is solving...and sooner or later it will cause the repeal of megan's law and all it's off shoots under the expost portion of the us consititution. only reason megan's law squeaked by the first time was it was for information only...not punishment....i think you would be hard to argue that now which means it's illegal.....but so far the us supreme court has managed to duck the question but they won't be able to forever.

which is also my point...this continue changing and uprooting of sex offenders who have served their sentences and moved on with their lives serves no purpose what so ever and seem to be causing more problems then it is solving...and sooner or later it will cause the repeal of megan's law and all it's off shoots under the expost portion of the us consititution. only reason megan's law squeaked by the first time was it was for information only...not punishment....i think you would be hard to argue that now which means it's illegal.....but so far the us supreme court has managed to duck the question but they won't be able to forever.

I was surprised the Supreme Court allowed the Jymmy Ryce Center to remain (holding people for their past sex offense for an indeterminate amount of time after their prison time was over) but they did by their ruling on another state's similar program. They seem to go with the prevailing public opinion on things like sex offenders so they will probably come up with a reason to allow buffer zones, tracking etc. after the sex offenders sentence is done saying due to public safety or whatever it is constitutional.

[Merlin]

I was surprised the Supreme Court allowed the Jymmy Ryce Center to remain (holding people for their past sex offense for an indeterminate amount of time after their prison time was over) but they did by their ruling on another state's similar program. They seem to go with the prevailing public opinion on things like sex offenders so they will probably come up with a reason to allow buffer zones, tracking etc. after the sex offenders sentence is done saying due to public safety or whatever it is constitutional.

I have no problems with society identifying dangerous offenders and keeping them locked up as long as we aren't abusing the system and locking up people that are not high risk. As a matter of fact, I think the death penalty is appropriate for offenders who rape children under 12. As long as we continue to focus on the dangerous offenders and provide appropriate punishment/consequences there's no reason in the world we should need buffer zones.....it's a cop out IMO.....they make no sense and have no effect on recidivism. Let's quit playing paddy cake and get down to business. :!:

I think the death penalty is appropriate for those who rape anyone.

[Merlin]

A new state law barring those convicted of sex crimes involving children from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center has brought unintended and disturbing consequences. It has rendered some offenders homeless and left others sleeping in cars or in the cabs of their trucks.


Thanks for posting an article on the Iowa chaos, Dave. You don't really think the consequences were unintended do you? Heck, they knew what they were doing. Miami did the same thing when they raised it up to 2,500 feet. The icing on the cake was the DOC no hotels/motels rule. The consequences are INTENTIONAL. No one in their right mind can rationalize why a sex offender can't be half a mile from civilization. It's all about making rules, whether they are relevant to deviant behavior or not, so the offender trips up and goes to prison. We'd be far better off actually trying to reduce the probability of sexual abuse with effective management instead of knee jerk reactions IMO.

[Darth Duck]

Merlin, you are getting into the basis of law. It is not what is right, it is what is right for most. Sex offenders are the new pariahs. The laws are intended to keep as many of them behind the fence as much as possible. The Constitution is as flexible as the will of the people. The majority of citizens do not care what happens to sex offenders. I you work for the department and try to sift through the right and wrong of violating them, etc you are taking a gamble with your job.

"You must have men, men who are capable of killing without judgement. Because it is judgement that defeats us"- Col. Walter E Kurtz

Merlin, you are getting into the basis of law. It is not what is right, it is what is right for most. Sex offenders are the new pariahs. The laws are intended to keep as many of them behind the fence as much as possible. The Constitution is as flexible as the will of the people. The majority of citizens do not care what happens to sex offenders. I you work for the department and try to sift through the right and wrong of violating them, etc you are taking a gamble with your job.

"You must have men, men who are capable of killing without judgement. Because it is judgement that defeats us"- Col. Walter E Kurtz

Oh, I never try to sift through the right and wrong of violating anyone....that's why we have Judges. As long as I get 'em in jail it's all good. There's nothing wrong with letting the Judge sort them out.

Have you ever considered other ways to manage sex offenders more effectively in the community? I'm not talking at the PO level. Just curious. Think outside of the box Duck.

I you work for the department and try to sift through the right and wrong of violating them, etc you are taking a gamble with your job.



That is true - If a sex offender does something, Region will try to get you for not violating the guy 3 months ago for not checking the proper box on his blue form - it has gotten almost to that point.

[Merlin]

I you work for the department and try to sift through the right and wrong of violating them, etc you are taking a gamble with your job.



That is true - If a sex offender does something, Region will try to get you for not violating the guy 3 months ago for not checking the proper box on his blue form - it has gotten almost to that point.

I hear ya. And to some extent (don't shoot me) I agree with them getting on us if we don't violate our people. We certainly need to remain proactive, unfortunately many of the folks from the old school let too many things slip and slide. My only concern is that we remain focused on the right stuff. Are we watching for red flags, back sliding, relapses, contact with children, participation in treatment, so on and so forth. Are you too busy looking at the boxes that weren't checked on the WMR that you forgot to do a drug test? See what I mean? We can't let the bean counters distract us from the mission is what I'm saying. Children's lives are at risk.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-st ... C1-00.html (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/05/20060605-C1-00.html)

COMMENTARY
Forums to tackle fears about sex offenders
Monday, June 05, 2006
ANN FISHER



Roughly 1,768 convicted sex offenders now live in Franklin County. You can check for yourself on the county or statewide sex-offender Web sites, but you’ll only get a fraction of the story.

Former state-prisons director Reginald A. Wilkinson appointed a task force a few years ago to address the information gap regarding sex offender services. From that, a local coalition has formed, and all agreed that community education should be part of the picture.

David Berenson, the state prisons expert on sex offenders, is the main speaker in what will be an ongoing series of community forums on the topic.

Berenson talks quickly because there’s a lot to say. There are myths to debunk. There are fears to quell. There are warnings to issue — and they don’t involve overgrown teenagers who were caught having sex with their underage girlfriends.

We only can save ourselves by understanding that the greatest threats of sex assault and pedophilia are from people we know, people our children know. People we trust. People who haven’t and might never be caught.

Overall, the repeat rates for sex offenders is lower than that of other criminals. Most, about 75 percent, don’t re-offend. But when they return to the community, they are isolated and labeled. Instead of bringing them into the fold so they may take emotional responsibility for their actions, we push them away. These are the ones with hope of redefining themselves. Our greatest defense against them is to know them.

When you break down offenders into subgroups defined by their victims, it becomes clear that child molesters — pedophiles — are a minority but pose the greatest ongoing threat. That’s not only because their targets are young and innocent but also because they usually don’t respond to treatment.

Pedophiles tend not to change and are difficult to fathom, Berenson said, because they operate from a completely different frame of reference than most people.

"It could be like a difference between species," he said. "It’s that radically different from how we think."

We should know more about this group, how to identify them, when to trust that funny feeling we sometimes get around certain people, when to listen to our children and really hear what they’re saying.

The public forums are a good start, because they bring us together as a community with the officials who manage the services and help us find more of the common threads that bind us.

As of last September, 9,300 sex offenders were housed in the state’s prisons. When most of them eventually join the more than 6,100 already under supervision in Ohio communities, others will take their places.

We need to accept that they are among us and, when possible, help them reintegrate. For most, that’s all they need.

The problem, which Berenson said is nothing short of a public health issue requiring serious collaboration, will not go away. We can’t legislate it away. We can’t jail them all forever.

To schedule a public forum in your community, contact Dawn Chodorow, chairwoman for the Local Re-entry Steering Committee, at 614-252-0660.

Ann Fisher is a Dispatch Metro columnist and can be reached at 614-461-7589 or by e-mail.

afisher@dispatch.com

[mystikwarrior]

The majority of citizens do not care what happens to sex offenders.
So true Darth. But it cuts both ways. The majority of citizens don't care one way or the other. They don't care if there IS a buffer law or if there ISN'T a buffer law. It's not a big deal to them because they are proper parents who are aware of the people they associate with and their children are in contact with.
Politicians and public perception are media-driven. But reading what one paranoid woman in one city in Florida thinks is not an automatic indicator that the majority of Floridians agree with her.

I also agree. I have always thought the 1000' rule was more than adequate- it keeps a sex offender/predator from living next door or across the street from a school, park, etc.- just let the specialist supervise their caseload.

The majority of citizens do not care what happens to sex offenders.
So true Darth. But it cuts both ways. The majority of citizens don't care one way or the other. They don't care if there IS a buffer law or if there ISN'T a buffer law. It's not a big deal to them because they are proper parents who are aware of the people they associate with and their children are in contact with.
Politicians and public perception are media-driven. But reading what one paranoid woman in one city in Florida thinks is not an automatic indicator that the majority of Floridians agree with her.

Get real - If you asked the citizens if they are for an ordinance that would literally ban all places for sex offenders to live in their city and make most eventually have to move, at least 95% would agree - What town are you talking about Mistikwarrior ? Fantasy Land?

:?: :twisted:
There are few choices for sex offenders. The DOC can't keep them in prison, unless they get the Rice Act.

Realistically, the Probation Officer is ahead of the media and getting ready for the case review, if s/he directs the offender to a known location which meets the current 1000' or longer requirements. Try the efficiency apts on South US 41 in Collier County! They meet the criteria and the prison release officer (with funding from PRIDE) sends the offender to a known 'safe' location. The PLC gets done on time and the local LEO knows exactly where to the find the offenders.

Whoops! that one got out of the bag. But who cares, it meets the rules and keeps the officer off the Re-review list for another month.

It's better than the offender shacking up with his old girlfriend....of course, she never has the kids when the CPO makes their visits.

:wink:

to find a abandon warehouse and make it into 200.00 a week rooms for sex offenders. Anyone want to invest in this with me?

Had a retired officer who was considering buying a nursing home that was abandoned to do this very thing.I think it will work very well. If you have a lot of land surrounding yours. Especially if one measures from frount door to frount door.

to find a abandon warehouse and make it into 200.00 a week rooms for sex offenders. Anyone want to invest in this with me?

probably would make a lot of money - but if the county got wind of what you were going to do they would move a bus stop to make it off limits to most sex offenders - they might even create a fake park with like 1 merry go round to stop it.

Originally published June 10, 2006

OKLAHOMA CITY // Oklahoma has become the fifth state to allow the death penalty for certain sex crimes, although legal scholars questioned the constitutionality of the new state law.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... e.nat10jun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nat10jun)
10,0,164581.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

try this link

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... -headlines (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nat10jun10,0,164581.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)

I'll vote for that!!

Ditto for death.

i am sure the supreme court has already ruled on this once but i guess it will have to again now that the states trying to recreate nazi germany have instituted the death penalty for sex offenses...they have already ruled the only time the death penalty is appropriate is when the criime results in the death of an individual....not for patting a somebody on the butt! and with as many people now being cleared by project innocence after 10-20-30 years in prison for a crime they didnt' commit either because of illegal moves by the prosucution, stupidity or ignorance on the part of their underpaid public defender lawyer, or mistaken eye witness or DNA evidence i doubt if the supreme court is going to expand the crimes calling for the death penalty if anything they seem to be making it even more and more harder to apply.

i am sure the supreme court has already ruled on this once but i guess it will have to again now that the states trying to recreate nazi germany have instituted the death penalty for sex offenses...they have already ruled the only time the death penalty is appropriate is when the criime results in the death of an individual....not for patting a somebody on the butt! and with as many people now being cleared by project innocence after 10-20-30 years in prison for a crime they didnt' commit either because of illegal moves by the prosucution, stupidity or ignorance on the part of their underpaid public defender lawyer, or mistaken eye witness or DNA evidence i doubt if the supreme court is going to expand the crimes calling for the death penalty if anything they seem to be making it even more and more harder to apply.

You are right they wont allow the death penalty for that but they will allow all the 2500 foot rules to stand so municipalities can better protect their citizens children - worried citizen.

if anybody could show one bit of proof that a 2500 ft exclusion zone would protect anybody i would be all for it to an extent..but there is no evidence to show that and in fact according to the people actually providing the therapy the exact opposite is true...that not only are the 2500 ft rules uprooting former offenders and their families who last time i looked still were still unconvicted and supposidly still had some rights....there is no relation to where an offender lives and where the crimes occured. but as for the actual rule i am sorry but i just dont' think it's consititutional to come in and tell somebody because we changed the law last week you now have 30 days to get out of the home you have owned for decades or go to jail...and we don't care where you go it's not our problem....move then give us that address then we will check it out and see if it's legeal...if it's not then you can move your tail again. and what happends if they extend it to 3000 ft are they supposed to pack up and move again...i am sorry but eventually it is time to move on.

worried citizen-can i plz have your dc# ? it is so obvious you are a pissed-off sex offender. you committed a disgusting crime, deal with it! if your officer makes you move, start packing! and stop pretending you are just concerned about sex offender's constitutional rights-guess what ? they lost them when they decided to rape / assault children. so get over yourself and keep going to treatment.
if it was up to me, we'd keep all sex offenders in prison, then you solve 2 problems: they serve their time and they have a place to live.

if anybody could show one bit of proof that a 2500 ft exclusion zone would protect anybody i would be all for it to an extent..but there is no evidence to show that and in fact according to the people actually providing the therapy the exact opposite is true...that not only are the 2500 ft rules uprooting former offenders and their families who last time i looked still were still unconvicted and supposidly still had some rights....there is no relation to where an offender lives and where the crimes occured. but as for the actual rule i am sorry but i just dont' think it's consititutional to come in and tell somebody because we changed the law last week you now have 30 days to get out of the home you have owned for decades or go to jail...and we don't care where you go it's not our problem....move then give us that address then we will check it out and see if it's legeal...if it's not then you can move your tail again. and what happends if they extend it to 3000 ft are they supposed to pack up and move again...i am sorry but eventually it is time to move on.

it does help many offenders are moving out of the 2500 foot rule counties (cities) making them safer

worried citizen-can i plz have your dc# ? it is so obvious you are a pissed-off sex offender. you committed a disgusting crime, deal with it! if your officer makes you move, start packing! and stop pretending you are just concerned about sex offender's constitutional rights-guess what ? they lost them when they decided to rape / assault children. so get over yourself and keep going to treatment.
if it was up to me, we'd keep all sex offenders in prison, then you solve 2 problems: they serve their time and they have a place to live.

Didn't Jerry Inman start packing when he EOS'd? No doubt he was one of those pissed off sex offenders who gladly left the state of Florida......oops.....Jimmy Ryce?.....nopes, we'll just let him move out of state because that's like what we do best....shove offenders out of our reach.....SO tx?....why bother because we hate them all and we'll just look for another reason to lock him up when he gets out. Did proximity rules work in his case? Well let's see, can you count the number of state lines he crossed to prey on his victims? If you had to plan a funeral for your child because of a sex offender who traveled hundreds of miles to rape and kill I sincerely doubt you'd be spewing this nonsense. No offense, but there's some serious problems with how we are managing sex offenders. Stranger danger is a serious problem....but these strangers are traveling far more than 2,500 feet to prey.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/14/Pasco ... _buf.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/14/Pasco/Zephyrhills_keeps_buf.shtml)

ZEPHYRHILLS - After hearing from a number of residents, including a sex offender, City Council members postponed action Monday on a proposal to further limit where sex offenders may live.

The proposed ordinance would require sex offenders to live at least 2,500 feet from schools, school bus stops, churches, day care centers, public parks, playgrounds and public libraries. The current limit is 1,000 feet.

Mayor Cliff McDuffie opposed the measure.

"I despise these people. I do not think extending 1,500 feet will keep them from doing what they want," McDuffie said. "By doing this, you're saying, 'You can't live in the city of Zephyrhills.' If you're going to do that, why not drug pushers, etc? It's up to law enforcement to take care of this and keep them in jail. Don't let them back on the street."

Council member Luis Lopez agreed, citing research that shows that extending the distance doesn't necessarily prohibit offenses.

"Sexual offender is a wide category," Lopez said.

He said the ordinance was written too generally. He would prefer the draft to be aimed at the more dangerous category of sexual predator.

Council member Danny Burgess supported increasing the distance and said he felt better "knowing that a sexual offender can't sit on his porch watching little girls on the playground.

"I understand they have rights and are human beings, but I also understand that they've violated other people's rights."

Council member Kent Compton, who introduced the discussion at the last council meeting, asked City Attorney Joseph Poblick about the ordinance. Poblick thought this ordinance would pass a constitutional test but said the proposed 2,500-foot distance would practically eliminate people from moving to Zephyrhills.

Police Chief Russell Barnes said school bus stop locations are always changing and that including them in the ordinance would be an "administrative nightmare." As more areas are excluded, he said, increasing justification would be required to avoid challenges to the ordinance, which he hoped to avoid.

"I agree with residency restrictions," Barnes said. "The issue is: Where can they go when they're away from home?"

Unless prohibited specifically by their probation conditions, sexual offenders can go anywhere they want, Barnes said.

"Thus far, we've had no issues with the sexual offenders living in the city limits that we know of," he said.

Registered sex offender Lonnie Borton gave an emotional, personal account of how the new law would affect people like him - those who he said may not be guilty. He lives and works in the city.

"I walk around every day with a target on my back," he said.

Borton said he was falsely accused and forced into a plea bargain and had to register as a sexual offender.

"All it takes is an accusation," he said. "And that's what happened to me. I'm not a person who's ever done this."

With no decisions finalized and many questions to be answered, City Manager Steve Spina suggested tabling the issue until more information is gathered from other law enforcement agencies about how such ordinances are handled.

The proposed ordinance would require sex offenders to live at least 2,500 feet from schools, school bus stops, churches, day care centers, public parks, playgrounds and public libraries. The current limit is 1,000 feet.

Mayor Cliff McDuffie opposed the measure.

"I despise these people. I do not think extending 1,500 feet will keep them from doing what they want," McDuffie said.

I wonder why Mayor McDuffie doesn't think this will stop sex offenses?

worried citizen-can i plz have your dc# ? it is so obvious you are a pissed-off sex offender. you committed a disgusting crime, deal with it! if your officer makes you move, start packing! and stop pretending you are just concerned about sex offender's constitutional rights-guess what ? they lost them when they decided to rape / assault children. so get over yourself and keep going to treatment.
if it was up to me, we'd keep all sex offenders in prison, then you solve 2 problems: they serve their time and they have a place to live.

Didn't Jerry Inman start packing when he EOS'd? No doubt he was one of those pissed off sex offenders who gladly left the state of Florida......oops.....Jimmy Ryce?.....nopes, we'll just let him move out of state because that's like what we do best....shove offenders out of our reach.....SO tx?....why bother because we hate them all and we'll just look for another reason to lock him up when he gets out. Did proximity rules work in his case? Well let's see, can you count the number of state lines he crossed to prey on his victims? If you had to plan a funeral for your child because of a sex offender who traveled hundreds of miles to rape and kill I sincerely doubt you'd be spewing this nonsense. No offense, but there's some serious problems with how we are managing sex offenders. Stranger danger is a serious problem....but these strangers are traveling far more than 2,500 feet to prey.

Can anyone tell me if DC is responsible for the rehabilitation of offenders and their integration into the community? I believe at one time they were, but based on what I see and hear it seems they aren't anymore. Honestly, I'm confused. Granted, offenders like Jerry Inman aren't amenable to rehabilitation or integration. One would think after he raped an inmate in the prison his criminal record would reflect same; but, it doesn't.....so much for enforcing the laws and protecting the community ....oops that would require responsible behavior. Civil commitment would have been a responsible action......hmmm....when are we going to get real and deal? This madness has to end.

[mystikwarrior]

it does help many offenders are moving out of the 2500 foot rule counties (cities) making them safer
Really? Show me a city or county, any city or county anywhere in this country that enacted a 2500-foot rule and there has not been a single sex offense since then. For that matter, ask those parents in Miami Gardens how well their 2500-foot law is working.

[mystikwarrior]

I wonder why Mayor McDuffie doesn't think this will stop sex offenses?
Because he has a brain, something a few here seem to lack.
Did you not see that there has not been a single issue of a sex offender in that city taking advantage of their proximity to a school or park to commit a new crime?
Laws that are passed to 'prevent' something that doesn't happen anyway are a waste of time and resources. The city would be far better off to expend those resources on education and prevention of the 95% of offenses that are perpetrated in the home by people the victim knows very well or is related to.

[mystikwarrior]

Can anyone tell me if DC is responsible for the rehabilitation of offenders and their integration into the community?

You tell me. From the DOC-CC page:
Correctional Probation Officers provide referrals to resources necessary to assist offenders in successfully completing the conditions of supervision and transitioning into the community through employment, treatment programs, and support services.

Looks like that is part of the job. Funny though. I didn't see anything in the mission statement to the tune of "Correctional Probation Officers are to spend most of their time devising ways to make life as miserable as possible for their caseloads in the hopes that the offender can be violated and sent to prison where they belong."

Can anyone tell me if DC is responsible for the rehabilitation of offenders and their integration into the community?

You tell me. From the DOC-CC page:
Correctional Probation Officers provide referrals to resources necessary to assist offenders in successfully completing the conditions of supervision and transitioning into the community through employment, treatment programs, and support services.

Looks like that is part of the job. Funny though. I didn't see anything in the mission statement to the tune of "Correctional Probation Officers are to spend most of their time devising ways to make life as miserable as possible for their caseloads in the hopes that the offender can be violated and sent to prison where they belong."

Did you forget the definition of referrals? DC refers the offenders back to the jails where they can complete their conditions of supervision. Kinda nice how that works, eh?

[mystikwarrior]

Kinda nice how that works, eh?
Yep. If we just take all the criminals and lock them up for various flat lengths of time and dispense with probation. parole, conditional release and all the other terms used to describe supervision, Florida will find itself crime-free. Forget the anger management, drug abuse, sexual abuse, vocational and GED classes and programs. They're a waste of time.
And surely after 5 years flat time an armed robber will have learned his lesson and immediately upon release get a job at Publix in the produce department, there to spend the rest of his days as a productive and crime-free society member.

Excuse me now while I go to the bathroom to throw up :roll:

no offense but i am pissed off because i see this country going down the same road germany traveled in the 1930's ending up with adolf hitler......as for comitting a disgusting crime..your ignorance is showing by leaps and bounds as according to latest studies only about 20% of the individuals on the megans laws registry's actually have a charge envolving a child...so i think you should go back to your rock and craw under it.



worried citizen-can i plz have your dc# ? it is so obvious you are a pissed-off sex offender. you committed a disgusting crime, deal with it! if your officer makes you move, start packing! and stop pretending you are just concerned about sex offender's constitutional rights-guess what ? they lost them when they decided to rape / assault children. so get over yourself and keep going to treatment.
if it was up to me, we'd keep all sex offenders in prison, then you solve 2 problems: they serve their time and they have a place to live.

"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."

Start with DC!

it does help many offenders are moving out of the 2500 foot rule counties (cities) making them safer
Really? Show me a city or county, any city or county anywhere in this country that enacted a 2500-foot rule and there has not been a single sex offense since then. For that matter, ask those parents in Miami Gardens how well their 2500-foot law is working.

The cities with them have less offenders now meaning less of their children have been molested since. They just showed the other day where a city without one had tripled their number of offenders since the surrounding ones passed one. Simple Math triple the sex offenders triple the number of possible sex offenses against your children.

no offense but i am pissed off because i see this country going down the same road germany traveled in the 1930's ending up with adolf hitler......as for comitting a disgusting crime..your ignorance is showing by leaps and bounds as according to latest studies only about 20% of the individuals on the megans laws registry's actually have a charge envolving a child...so i think you should go back to your rock and craw under it.

Ok-pardon me for not including sex offenders who commit crimes against adults, as according to you there shoulod be a distinction. A sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender.
If you find yourself with nowhere to go because of new residence restrictions for sex offenders, come down to South FL-we have plenty of space for homeless sex offenders in our local jail. And we all know how much fellow inmates love sex offenders. The special treatment will be on the house.
Still, I am going to need your DC#, as this could be a case note of some sort.
Ok, now I will go "craw" under my rock, as you suggested.
:lol:

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/14/Pasco/Zephyrhills_keeps_buf.shtml

ZEPHYRHILLS - After hearing from a number of residents, including a sex offender, City Council members postponed action Monday on a proposal to further limit where sex offenders may live.

The proposed ordinance would require sex offenders to live at least 2,500 feet from schools, school bus stops, churches, day care centers, public parks, playgrounds and public libraries. The current limit is 1,000 feet.

Mayor Cliff McDuffie opposed the measure.

"I despise these people. I do not think extending 1,500 feet will keep them from doing what they want," McDuffie said. "By doing this, you're saying, 'You can't live in the city of Zephyrhills.' If you're going to do that, why not drug pushers, etc? It's up to law enforcement to take care of this and keep them in jail. Don't let them back on the street."

.

Is this Mayor stupid or something? Law enforcement cant predict when the sex offender will molest again but the stupid mayor has the power to rid his city of them unlike the Police Dept through 2500 foot ordinance. And by not doing it he endangers the children and puts out a welcome mat for sex offenders from cities kicking them out to come to his city and molest there - what an idiot....

[Merlin]

Is this Mayor stupid or something?

Not at all. He knows he can't justify a ban with real facts so, why expose bigotry and ignorance in the public domain?

it does help many offenders are moving out of the 2500 foot rule counties (cities) making them safer
Really? Show me a city or county, any city or county anywhere in this country that enacted a 2500-foot rule and there has not been a single sex offense since then. For that matter, ask those parents in Miami Gardens how well their 2500-foot law is working.

Can you tell us about Miami Gardens or provide a link to a newsclip?

it does help many offenders are moving out of the 2500 foot rule counties (cities) making them safer
Really? Show me a city or county, any city or county anywhere in this country that enacted a 2500-foot rule and there has not been a single sex offense since then. For that matter, ask those parents in Miami Gardens how well their 2500-foot law is working.

The cities with them have less offenders now meaning less of their children have been molested since. They just showed the other day where a city without one had tripled their number of offenders since the surrounding ones passed one. Simple Math triple the sex offenders triple the number of possible sex offenses against your children.

How sad. What's most amazing is that even though these ordinances are creating havoc they keep trying to pass them. I see this SO frenzy like a methamphetamine habit. Nothing good will EVER come out of this.

[mystikwarrior]

The cities with them have less offenders now meaning less of their children have been molested since.
Back that up. Show me a verified reduction of stranger/stranger sex offenses with child victims in a Florida city with a 2500-foot rule.

[mystikwarrior]

Can you tell us about Miami Gardens or provide a link to a newsclip?
http://www.local10.com/news/9265263/detail.html

Miami Gardens, thanks to their new 2500-foot rule, is home to a single registered sex offender.
And for the sake of information only, Miami Gardens runs about 80 rapes per 100,000 population each year. Tampa, with no 2500-foot rule, runs 55 per 100,000.

Can you tell us about Miami Gardens or provide a link to a newsclip?
http://www.local10.com/news/9265263/detail.html

Miami Gardens, thanks to their new 2500-foot rule, is home to a single registered sex offender.
And for the sake of information only, Miami Gardens runs about 80 rapes per 100,000 population each year. Tampa, with no 2500-foot rule, runs 55 per 100,000.

Child molestations will be shown to be way down when the numbers come in for the 2500 foot cities - it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also? :roll:

Can you tell us about Miami Gardens or provide a link to a newsclip?
http://www.local10.com/news/9265263/detail.html

Miami Gardens, thanks to their new 2500-foot rule, is home to a single registered sex offender.
And for the sake of information only, Miami Gardens runs about 80 rapes per 100,000 population each year. Tampa, with no 2500-foot rule, runs 55 per 100,000.

Also you have to look at the repeat offense numbers, of course a 2500 foot rule wont stop a first time caught sex offender because he wasnt identified as of yet by society.

[/quote] it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also? :roll:[/quote]

partly true and partly false

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also? :roll:[/quote]

partly true and partly false[/quote]

Somehow I think most pedophiles molested within 2500 feet of a place where children congregate whether in their home or not.

[Merlin]

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also? :roll:

partly true and partly false[/quote]

Somehow I think most pedophiles molested within 2500 feet of a place where children congregate whether in their home or not.[/quote]

Somehow I think your logic is flawed. For example, let's do a study and see how many poedophiles were breathing oxygen during their crime. I'm thinking 100% of them probably were (feel free to test this in the real world). Now, according to your flawed logic we should deprive them of oxygen because it caused them to molest.

Show us examples where a pedophile was triggered to molest because he lived 2,499 feet from a bus stop or school?

[Merlin]

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also?

Nopes. You are correct. This is why we have registries, GPS and sex offender probation. Like you say, the offenses occur inside or near the home so obviously the location of the home has no bearing on the cause of sex crimes. The best we can do is tell the community where these guys live and monitor their whereabouts.

I believe we can also help dispel some of these myths by analyzing some of the "over the top" buffer zones. If we focus on facts by sorting out the bigotry and emotion I think the unintended consequences will be much clearer.

Now, take your poker face and PO hat off. Tell me how the Iowa state buffer rules have helped reduced the probability of children getting hurt?

[mystikwarrior]

Child molestations will be shown to be way down when the numbers come in for the 2500 foot cities
Not possible. Why? Because only 15% of offenses are by repeat offenders. I don't know what you call "way down", but when you're starting with such a low figure there isn't a lot of room for reduction.
We were told 12 years ago that registration would stop molestations. 10 years ago we were told that wasn't enough and community notification was needed to actually stop them. Here we are 10 years later and there has been no significant change in offenses. Because we keep concentrating on the wrong group. You could take every single registered offender in Florida and lock them in prison and the next day there would be another 20 sex offenses. And the next day. And the next. By the end of the year there would have been another 2,000 offenses.

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas
Somewhat true. It's also a known fact that very few sex offenders are pedophiles, which is a clinical designation.

Somehow I think most pedophiles molested within 2500 feet of a place where children congregate whether in their home or not.
Maybe so. But as we've seen in many cases it's nearly impossible to NOT live within 2500 feet of such places. The question is, did the victim COME from that place? Was the act facilitated BECAUSE there was a school nearby? If a serial molester keeps getting victims from Wal Mart, who the heck cares if there's a school three blocks from his house? He obviously doesn't.
Last year Davie enacted a 2500-foot rule. First thing that happened afterwards is some guy exposed himself to a couple young girls at a park. The guy lived somewhere else outside Davie.

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas - do you say that is wrong also?

Nopes. You are correct. This is why we have registries, GPS and sex offender probation. Like you say, the offenses occur inside or near the home so obviously the location of the home has no bearing on the cause of sex crimes. The best we can do is tell the community where these guys live and monitor their whereabouts.

I believe we can also help dispel some of these myths by analyzing some of the "over the top" buffer zones. If we focus on facts by sorting out the bigotry and emotion I think the unintended consequences will be much clearer.

Now, take your poker face and PO hat off. Tell me how the Iowa state buffer rules have helped reduced the probability of children getting hurt?

Registries help some but dont go far enough. If these pedophiles are banished from a city, they will most likely not molest in that city again, but in the city or county where they live without the ordinances when they move because that is near where they live or where their residence is. It sure is a proper solution. Let the stupid cities harbor the sex offenders if they are that dumb.

yea those stupid cities....one of them might wise up and hit those smart cities with a nice fat lawsuit for dumping their problem on them....kind of like the ultimate toxic waste dumping...i mean after all you claim they are completely dangerous lible to reoffend at any time and then dump them on an area that doesn't have the manpower or structure to handle them and then are suprised when they reoffend....god help those smart cities when a smart sneaky victim's lawyer ripes them a new one for dumping....

yea those stupid cities....one of them might wise up and hit those smart cities with a nice fat lawsuit for dumping their problem on them....kind of like the ultimate toxic waste dumping...i mean after all you claim they are completely dangerous lible to reoffend at any time and then dump them on an area that doesn't have the manpower or structure to handle them and then are suprised when they reoffend....god help those smart cities when a smart sneaky victim's lawyer ripes them a new one for dumping....

Are you naive or something? When the courts allow cities to restrict residences like this obviously this will negate any lawsuit. Yes you may get a verdict from people disgruntled in the stupid cities but it would never pass judicial muster in the appellate courts or the supreme court. And with our current supreme court these 2500 feet restrictions are most likely here to stay. Now if the 9th court of appeals was the supreme court sex offenders might have a chance but unfortunately for sex offenders they are not.

[quote]Child molestations will be shown to be way down when the numbers come in for the 2500 foot cities
Not possible. Why? Because only 15% of offenses are by repeat offenders. I don't know what you call "way down", but when you're starting with such a low figure there isn't a lot of room for reduction.
We were told 12 years ago that registration would stop molestations. 10 years ago we were told that wasn't enough and community notification was needed to actually stop them. Here we are 10 years later and there has been no significant change in offenses. Because we keep concentrating on the wrong group. You could take every single registered offender in Florida and lock them in prison and the next day there would be another 20 sex offenses. And the next day. And the next. By the end of the year there would have been another 2,000 offenses.

it is a known fact that pedophiles molest in their own home or nearby areas
Somewhat true. It's also a known fact that very few sex offenders are pedophiles, which is a clinical designation.

Somehow I think most pedophiles molested within 2500 feet of a place where children congregate whether in their home or not.
Maybe so. But as we've seen in many cases it's nearly impossible to NOT live within 2500 feet of such places. The question is, did the victim COME from that place? Was the act facilitated BECAUSE there was a school nearby? If a serial molester keeps getting victims from Wal Mart, who the heck cares if there's a school three blocks from his house? He obviously doesn't.
Last year Davie enacted a 2500-foot rule. First thing that happened afterwards is some guy exposed himself to a couple young girls at a park. The guy lived somewhere else outside Davie.[/quote:9y6761mr]

let's not talk about broward county! i'm tired of getting cases from broward... you get a file and nothing is correct - not even the court order!


i've read the ordinance - yet officer's apply the law retroactively.

[Merlin]

let's not talk about broward county! i'm tired of getting cases from broward... you get a file and nothing is correct - not even the court order!


i've read the ordinance - yet officer's apply the law retroactively.

No! Let's do talk about Broward, Dade and all the other counties creating havoc in Florida. Can you give us examples of how POs are misinterpreting the laws or are otherwise not in compliance with DC standards?

let's not talk about broward county! i'm tired of getting cases from broward... you get a file and nothing is correct - not even the court order!


i've read the ordinance - yet officer's apply the law retroactively.

No! Let's do talk about Broward, Dade and all the other counties creating havoc in Florida. Can you give us examples of how POs are misinterpreting the laws or are otherwise not in compliance with DC standards?

PO's are shipping cases that are supposed to be grandfathered in on the ordinances down there. A PO made one move and then he was locked up in the other county because he ran out of motel money there and had no address. All due to the PO saying because he stayed at another residence 2 nights before his court date that the real residence was no longer valid which was b.s. PO's down there just want sex offenders shipped out or locked up plain and simple.

[Merlin]

PO's are shipping cases that are supposed to be grandfathered in on the ordinances down there. A PO made one move and then he was locked up in the other county because he ran out of motel money there and had no address. All due to the PO saying because he stayed at another residence 2 nights before his court date that the real residence was no longer valid which was b.s. PO's down there just want sex offenders shipped out or locked up plain and simple.

Yep. I've seen some real sneaky games in my area as well. Too bad the Judge didn't know the PO was BSing.

As long as we are careful not to get caught up in a web of deceit and obvious bias, mainly bleeding over from the redneck towns with the ordinances, we'll be ok in the long run. If I see BS I call them on it. I'm glad you aren't afraid to speak up either. Some POs seem to live in that prison culture mentality..no offense to anyone just my observations and thoughts.

when a PO is caught sandbaging a sex offender by act's like that as well as obviously falsefing court documents...he/she should join the sex offender in the local jail..maybe even the same cell...then they could settle their argument!

when a PO is caught sandbaging a sex offender by act's like that as well as obviously falsefing court documents...he/she should join the sex offender in the local jail..maybe even the same cell...then they could settle their argument!

I guess raping children makes them tough guys. That's why they have to be seperated at prison because they are such tough guys. :roll:

let's see...

ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.


Broward County officers rejected 14 PLC's on an offender because of the Davie law; yet, the offender's crime was committed in 1999. Reading the case notes of the PLC's, placements were rejected because private home owners had swimming pools and or swing sets in their yards.

An officer in Palm Beach County made an offender move from his residence - a residence where the offender lived for 4 years - to move because of their city's ordinance. A week later the officer realized he made a mistake and allowed the offender to move back. Well, too late. PBSO went to his residence and told him he had to move out or he would be arrested for living within 1 block of a school bus stop.

I've seen cases rejected because of the "other placed children regularily congregate, as PRECRIBED BY THE COURT. The Court , not the Department of Corrections or the officer! 948.30 clearly states schools, daycare centers, parks or playgrounds. The statute does not include swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys. I acknowledge the fact no one wants a sex offender living near places where kids congregate. I also acknowledge that I cannot forbid an offender from residing somewhere he is legally entitled to reside. If it was legistative intent to preclude sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys, they could easily have said so.

I have read on this site where the 1000 foot law and the 2500 foot ordinances are reducing sex crimes. Hog-wash! Housing restrictions appear to be largely fear-based myths fueled by the media. The myths being: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) concept of "starnger-danger". Despite widespread popularity, there is no evidence that sex offender housing restrictions prevent sex crimes or increase public safety. In fact, disrupting offender's stability and social bonds actually increase the psychosocial stressors which can lead to reoffending.

let's see...

ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.


Broward County officers rejected 14 PLC's on an offender because of the Davie law; yet, the offender's crime was committed in 1999. Reading the case notes of the PLC's, placements were rejected because private home owners had swimming pools and or swing sets in their yards.

An officer in Palm Beach County made an offender move from his residence - a residence where the offender lived for 4 years - to move because of their city's ordinance. A week later the officer realized he made a mistake and allowed the offender to move back. Well, too late. PBSO went to his residence and told him he had to move out or he would be arrested for living within 1 block of a school bus stop.

I've seen cases rejected because of the "other placed children regularily congregate, as PRECRIBED BY THE COURT. The Court , not the Department of Corrections or the officer! 948.30 clearly states schools, daycare centers, parks or playgrounds. The statute does not include swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys. I acknowledge the fact no one wants a sex offender living near places where kids congregate. I also acknowledge that I cannot forbid an offender from residing somewhere he is legally entitled to reside. If it was legistative intent to preclude sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys, they could easily have said so.

I have read on this site where the 1000 foot law and the 2500 foot ordinances are reducing sex crimes. Hog-wash! Housing restrictions appear to be largely fear-based myths fueled by the media. The myths being: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) concept of "starnger-danger". Despite widespread popularity, there is no evidence that sex offender housing restrictions prevent sex crimes or increase public safety. In fact, disrupting offender's stability and social bonds actually increase the psychosocial stressors which can lead to reoffending.

the legislature didnt want a 10 page long list thats why it states "or other place where children regularly congregate". which last time I looked kids hang out at swimming pools quite a bit. The officers were doing their job and not taking any chance with these pedophiles. I have yet to see the spike of registered offenders reoffending due to stress from these ordinances and it seems it may have put the fear in them and they are maybe offending less since the microscope is on them. Are these treatment specialists giving these sex offenders their misguided talking points I sometimes wonder.

let's see...

ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.


Broward County officers rejected 14 PLC's on an offender because of the Davie law; yet, the offender's crime was committed in 1999. Reading the case notes of the PLC's, placements were rejected because private home owners had swimming pools and or swing sets in their yards.

An officer in Palm Beach County made an offender move from his residence - a residence where the offender lived for 4 years - to move because of their city's ordinance. A week later the officer realized he made a mistake and allowed the offender to move back. Well, too late. PBSO went to his residence and told him he had to move out or he would be arrested for living within 1 block of a school bus stop.

I've seen cases rejected because of the "other placed children regularily congregate, as PRECRIBED BY THE COURT. The Court , not the Department of Corrections or the officer! 948.30 clearly states schools, daycare centers, parks or playgrounds. The statute does not include swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys. I acknowledge the fact no one wants a sex offender living near places where kids congregate. I also acknowledge that I cannot forbid an offender from residing somewhere he is legally entitled to reside. If it was legistative intent to preclude sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of swimming pools, golf courses or bowling alleys, they could easily have said so.

I have read on this site where the 1000 foot law and the 2500 foot ordinances are reducing sex crimes. Hog-wash! Housing restrictions appear to be largely fear-based myths fueled by the media. The myths being: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) concept of "starnger-danger". Despite widespread popularity, there is no evidence that sex offender housing restrictions prevent sex crimes or increase public safety. In fact, disrupting offender's stability and social bonds actually increase the psychosocial stressors which can lead to reoffending.

the legislature didnt want a 10 page long list thats why it states "or other place where children regularly congregate". which last time I looked kids hang out at swimming pools quite a bit. The officers were doing their job and not taking any chance with these pedophiles. I have yet to see the spike of registered offenders reoffending due to stress from these ordinances and it seems it may have put the fear in them and they are maybe offending less since the microscope is on them. Are these treatment specialists giving these sex offenders their misguided talking points I sometimes wonder.

SO THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT WRITE UP A 10 PAGE LIST?? THEY HAVE HAD MORE THAN AMPLE TIME TO AMEND 948.30 TO SAY ...WHERE CHILDREN CONGREATE AS PRESCIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. INSTEAD OF SENTENCING JUDGE.

THEY HAVEN'T AND NO ONE ELSE HAS GIVEN THE POWER TO DC OR THE KNUCKLE DRAGGING TROGODYTES WE ARE HIRING FOR P.O.'S. YOU DWEEBS JUST SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW!

I GUESS YOU HAD YOUR FINGERS CROSSED.

ON OUR SIDE OF THE FENCE WE TORMENT SEX OFFENDERS ON THE OTHERSIDE THEY STOMP INMATES TO DEATH. MAKES YOU PROUD DOESN'T

SO THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT WRITE UP A 10 PAGE LIST?? THEY HAVE HAD MORE THAN AMPLE TIME TO AMEND 948.30 TO SAY ...WHERE CHILDREN CONGREATE AS PRESCIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. INSTEAD OF SENTENCING JUDGE.

THEY HAVEN'T AND NO ONE ELSE HAS GIVEN THE POWER TO DC OR THE KNUCKLE DRAGGING TROGODYTES WE ARE HIRING FOR P.O.'S. YOU DWEEBS JUST SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW!

I GUESS YOU HAD YOUR FINGERS CROSSED.

ON OUR SIDE OF THE FENCE WE TORMENT SEX OFFENDERS ON THE OTHERSIDE THEY STOMP INMATES TO DEATH. MAKES YOU PROUD DOESN'T

Talk like this is why we got the sex offender problem in the first place. Crazy people trusting sex offenders more than officers thinking we were just out to get them. Now due to some highly publicized cases the people are speaking through their legislators and councilman and creating safer zones to protect their children.

Talk like this is why we got the sex offender problem in the first place.

I disagree. Talk like this is healthy. Disapproving a placement simply based on the fact that he's a registered sex offender while ignoring the fact that his sex crime occured AFTER the qualifying offense date in the appropriate ordinance in question is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

How would you like to get a speeding ticket for driving 59 miles an hour in a 60MPH zone just because the LEO felt that it was unsafe for you to do so?

Talk like this is why we got the sex offender problem in the first place.

I disagree. Talk like this is healthy. Disapproving a placement simply based on the fact that he's a registered sex offender while ignoring the fact that his sex crime occured AFTER the qualifying offense date in the appropriate ordinance in question is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

How would you like to get a speeding ticket for driving 59 miles an hour in a 60MPH zone just because the LEO felt that it was unsafe for you to do so?

All that matters with most of the local 2500 foot ordinances is wether you lived at your residence before they passed it or not but luckily even if you did if you had a rental agreement you must vacate to the 2500 foot distance at once upon the ending of the current lease if you are a sex offender in that municipality.

You do understand the local ordinances have nothing to do with the state laws and the date of offense is meaningless with them just the fact you are a registered sex offender. The only thing they couldnt do was make you move if you lived there before they passed it, so sex offenders who owned their homes or lived with relatives who wouldnt make them leave are free to stay even with the local ordinances but the others must eventually leave or in some case leave right away and no new registered sex offenders can move in.

Talk like this is why we got the sex offender problem in the first place.

I disagree. Talk like this is healthy. Disapproving a placement simply based on the fact that he's a registered sex offender while ignoring the fact that his sex crime occured AFTER the qualifying offense date in the appropriate ordinance in question is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

How would you like to get a speeding ticket for driving 59 miles an hour in a 60MPH zone just because the LEO felt that it was unsafe for you to do so?

All that matters with most of the local 2500 foot ordinances is wether you lived at your residence before they passed it or not but luckily even if you did if you had a rental agreement you must vacate to the 2500 foot distance at once upon the ending of the current lease if you are a sex offender in that municipality.

All that matters is that we enforce the laws. That doesn't mean make up our own because we hate offenders. What the hell is this about?


(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.


Broward County officers rejected 14 PLC's on an offender because of the Davie law; yet, the offender's crime was committed in 1999. Reading the case notes of the PLC's, placements were rejected because private home owners had swimming pools and or swing sets in their yards.

[quote]Talk like this is why we got the sex offender problem in the first place.

I disagree. Talk like this is healthy. Disapproving a placement simply based on the fact that he's a registered sex offender while ignoring the fact that his sex crime occured AFTER the qualifying offense date in the appropriate ordinance in question is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

How would you like to get a speeding ticket for driving 59 miles an hour in a 60MPH zone just because the LEO felt that it was unsafe for you to do so?

All that matters with most of the local 2500 foot ordinances is wether you lived at your residence before they passed it or not but luckily even if you did if you had a rental agreement you must vacate to the 2500 foot distance at once upon the ending of the current lease if you are a sex offender in that municipality.

All that matters is that we enforce the laws. That doesn't mean make up our own because we hate offenders. What the hell is this about?


(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.


Broward County officers rejected 14 PLC's on an offender because of the Davie law; yet, the offender's crime was committed in 1999. Reading the case notes of the PLC's, placements were rejected because private home owners had swimming pools and or swing sets in their yards.[/quote:3gok73cs]

Your sex crime could have been in 1985 with the local ordinances - date doeasnt matter only when you moved into your residence - it must be before the ordinance passes and you are made to move when your lease is up if it is not your own place. You just keep posting the state law which is seperate from the local ordinances.

Are you saying this is a state law? If so, what statute? It's news to me. I never heard of a 2,500 foot state law. Your vast knowledge on this subject is astounding.


ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.

Are you saying this is a state law? If so, what statute? It's news to me. I never heard of a 2,500 foot state law. Your vast knowledge on this subject is astounding.


ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.

you were the one saying when you were convicted matter and it doesnt with most ordinances.

what town is that from, most I have seen offense date means nothing.

Most towns with them now many people having to move are not even on supervision because their time was done.

you were the one saying when you were convicted matter and it doesnt with most ordinances.

what town is that from, most I have seen offense date means nothing.

I wasn't the one who posted it. I assumed the officer who brought up the abuse of power issues in Broward posted it from one of the local towns in his county.

I am also assuming that if it is true PLCs are being disapproved at the rate he stated without regard to offense date, and if in fact he posted the correct local ordinance for the city in question, then Broward County has a lot of issues requiring immediate attention. [/quote]

you were the one saying when you were convicted matter and it doesnt with most ordinances.

what town is that from, most I have seen offense date means nothing.

I wasn't the one who posted it. I assumed the officer who brought up the abuse of power issues in Broward posted it from one of the local towns in his county.

I am also assuming that if it is true PLCs are being disapproved at the rate he stated without regard to offense date, and if in fact he posted the correct local ordinance for the city in question, then Broward County has a lot of issues requiring immediate attention. [/quote]

I just read Deltona's and those in central Florida and being a sex offender who has to register is the only requirement basically no offense dates. I guess Davie jumped the gun with theirs and thought they had to model it after the state 2004 rule but they didnt.

I just read Deltona's and those in central Florida and being a sex offender who has to register is the only requirement basically no offense dates. I guess Davie jumped the gun with theirs and thought they had to model it after the state 2004 rule but they didnt.

Correct. So let's get right to the issue. Is it true DOC personnel are disapproving PLCs for SOs with offense dates before 2004 in Davie? And if so, would you agree that DOC is over-stepping it's authority?

I just read Deltona's and those in central Florida and being a sex offender who has to register is the only requirement basically no offense dates. I guess Davie jumped the gun with theirs and thought they had to model it after the state 2004 rule but they didnt.

Correct. So let's get right to the issue. Is it true DOC personnel are disapproving PLCs for SOs with offense dates before 2004 in Davie? And if so, would you agree that DOC is over-stepping it's authority?

reading it the way I do if that is the only reason, but if they are doing it due to the 1000 foot rule upon release and the pool it could be justified under the "other places where children congregate" viewpoint I guess.

I just read Deltona's and those in central Florida and being a sex offender who has to register is the only requirement basically no offense dates. I guess Davie jumped the gun with theirs and thought they had to model it after the state 2004 rule but they didnt.

Correct. So let's get right to the issue. Is it true DOC personnel are disapproving PLCs for SOs with offense dates before 2004 in Davie? And if so, would you agree that DOC is over-stepping it's authority?

reading it the way I do if that is the only reason, but if they are doing it due to the 1000 foot rule upon release and the pool it could be justified under the "other places where children congregate" viewpoint I guess.

The prison release offense date for the 1000 foot state rule is 10/1/95 or after it appears but once their time is done they could live anywhere if there was no city ordinance unless their offense was 2004 or after I think.

The prison release offense date for the 1000 foot state rule is 10/1/95 or after it appears but once their time is done they could live anywhere if there was no city ordinance unless their offense was 2004 or after I think.

That makes sense to me. But, keep in mind we 'defer' to probation on split sentences so all releasees will not have the 1,000 foot rule necessarily because the CRD portion of the sentence is ignored if he comes out on probation.

The prison release offense date for the 1000 foot state rule is 10/1/95 or after it appears but once their time is done they could live anywhere if there was no city ordinance unless their offense was 2004 or after I think.

That makes sense to me. But, keep in mind we 'defer' to probation on split sentences so all releasees will not have the 1,000 foot rule necessarily because the CRD portion of the sentence is ignored if he comes out on probation.

thats what we are told. but we are told the probation overriding only takes away the 1000 foot rule on the bus stops and nothing else while they are under sex offender probation.

thats what we are told. but we are told the probation overriding only takes away the 1000 foot rule on the bus stops and nothing else while they are under sex offender probation.

Chapter 947 is very clear. We defer to probation. There's no mention about defering only those conditions DOC wants defered. You may want to read the chapter sometime....or better yet maybe you should give a copy to your management.

thats what we are told. but we are told the probation overriding only takes away the 1000 foot rule on the bus stops and nothing else while they are under sex offender probation.

Chapter 947 is very clear. We defer to probation. There's no mention about defering only those conditions DOC wants defered. You may want to read the chapter sometime....or better yet maybe you should give a copy to your management.

I think the other things come from the statute sex offender conditions not the same law that applies to the control relesees.

(1) Effective for probationers or community controllees whose crime was committed on or after October 1, 1995, and who are placed under supervision for violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145, the court must impose the following conditions in addition to all other standard and special conditions imposed:

(a) A mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The court may designate another 8-hour period if the offender's employment precludes the above specified time, and the alternative is recommended by the Department of Corrections. If the court determines that imposing a curfew would endanger the victim, the court may consider alternative sanctions.

(b) If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition on living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate, as prescribed by the court. The 1,000-foot distance shall be measured in a straight line from the offender's place of residence to the nearest boundary line of the school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children congregate. The distance may not be measured by a pedestrian route or automobile route.

(c) Active participation in and successful completion of a sex offender treatment program with


there it is where children congregate even if on probation for those sex offenses.

DOC in this environment will liberally interpret that for sure.

I think the other things come from the statute sex offender conditions not the same law that applies to the control relesees.

If you defer to probation that means you apply the conditions on the probation order. If the 1,000 foot rule isn't a condition of probation then it's not DOC's job to add rules that were not court ordered.

I think the other things come from the statute sex offender conditions not the same law that applies to the control relesees.

If you defer to probation that means you apply the conditions on the probation order. If the 1,000 foot rule isn't a condition of probation then it's not DOC's job to add rules that were not court ordered.

look at above post its legislated in there.

The as prescribed by the court means the judge can specifically make additions.

The as prescribed by the court means the judge can specifically make additions.

So what you are saying is if a split gets released and you looked at the probation order and it didn't have the 1,000 foot rule you'd take it back to court if his offense qualified under the statute (duty to uphold). And if he didn't have a qualifying case then you in fact would not pretend there was a 1,000 foot rule and enforce it anyway, corect? Don't know how long you've been around, but there's plenty of cases coming out that were sentenced before the 1,000 foot rule was born. Do not assume all case have or will get the 1,000 foot rule.

The as prescribed by the court means the judge can specifically make additions.

So what you are saying is if a split gets released and you looked at the probation order and it didn't have the 1,000 foot rule you'd take it back to court if his offense qualified under the statute (duty to uphold). And if he didn't have a qualifying case then you in fact would not pretend there was a 1,000 foot rule and enforce it anyway, corect? Don't know how long you've been around, but there's plenty of cases coming out that were sentenced before the 1,000 foot rule was born. Do not assume all case have or will get the 1,000 foot rule.

according to the statutes the 1000 foot rule appears it should only be applied to those who did their crimes 10/1/95 or after. The only ones I have seen recently released with an offense prior to 10/1/95 were cond. releases due to 85% rule not being in effect on most of them sentenced before that date.

Come to think of it I havent done a placement on any sex offender recently with an offense date prior to 10/1/95.

Come to think of it I havent done a placement on any sex offender recently with an offense date prior to 10/1/95.

There are plenty of cases around still with old offense dates and unfortunately no standard SO conditions.

Come to think of it I havent done a placement on any sex offender recently with an offense date prior to 10/1/95.

There are plenty of cases around still with old offense dates and unfortunately no standard SO conditions.

I am talking about ones just getting released from prison. I have had a number of placements in the last few months and they all had dates 10/1/05 or after if I remember correctly.

10/1/95 I mean.

A big argument for the local 2500 foot ordinances should be the fact that if a sex offender is not on supervision and his offense date is before 2004 that he can live right next to a school or anywhere. If the media was aware of that fact almost every town would pass an ordinance for sure. I think most people are not aware of this and think the 1000 foot rule applies to all of them because this is never mentioned in the news.

[mystikwarrior]

Now due to some highly publicized cases the people are speaking through their legislators and councilman and creating safer zones to protect their children.
Highly publicized cases that would have still happened if such ordinances had been in place.

[mystikwarrior]

if you had a rental agreement you must vacate to the 2500 foot distance at once upon the ending of the current lease if you are a sex offender in that municipality.
Ever read Florida's Landlord-Tenant laws? When the term of a lease expires, that lease remains in effect in perpetuity afterwards until either the tenant vacates or a new written lease is agreed to.

[mystikwarrior]

You do understand the local ordinances have nothing to do with the state laws and the date of offense is meaningless with them just the fact you are a registered sex offender.
Not even close to true. Some ordinances ahve been written to state that status as a registered offender is all that is needed. Indian River County comes to mind right away. Others have copied the state 1,000-foot law verbatim, which applies only to IN-STATE convictions for offenses after October 2004. Some others fall in between.
This is why the Legislature tried to pass a bill setting a statewide 1,500-foot distance and preempting any and all local laws and ordinances. It's the only way for it to be uniform and understandable. Alas the Senate ran out of time.

if you had a rental agreement you must vacate to the 2500 foot distance at once upon the ending of the current lease if you are a sex offender in that municipality.
Ever read Florida's Landlord-Tenant laws? When the term of a lease expires, that lease remains in effect in perpetuity afterwards until either the tenant vacates or a new written lease is agreed to.

How they write the ordinances up you have to leave when your agreement is up like at the 9 month mark. It doesnt matter if it says it extends monthly or whatever in the contract. Thats what the lawyers say.

Now due to some highly publicized cases the people are speaking through their legislators and councilman and creating safer zones to protect their children.
Highly publicized cases that would have still happened if such ordinances had been in place.

That guy in West Florida was within 2500 feet I believe and Couey you are probably right but think of all the cases of reoffending by subject's in or near their home not on the TV much that could have been prevented if they didnt live in that city.

You do understand the local ordinances have nothing to do with the state laws and the date of offense is meaningless with them just the fact you are a registered sex offender.
Not even close to true. Some ordinances ahve been written to state that status as a registered offender is all that is needed. Indian River County comes to mind right away. Others have copied the state 1,000-foot law verbatim, which applies only to IN-STATE convictions for offenses after October 2004. Some others fall in between.
This is why the Legislature tried to pass a bill setting a statewide 1,500-foot distance and preempting any and all local laws and ordinances. It's the only way for it to be uniform and understandable. Alas the Senate ran out of time.

I corrected myself on that but what we need to do as PO's is get the word out to the other cities that people who did their acts prior to 2004 are free to live right next to an elementary school when their supervision ends. Most think the 1000 foot rule applies to every case. This should create enough of an uproar by concerned citizens to get the ordinances passed in most cities in Florida.

[mystikwarrior]

It doesnt matter if it says it extends monthly or whatever in the contract.
Nope. But state law says it does extend. State law always trumps local law.
Granted, most landlords are going to ask to have a new written lease signed so the point is somewhat moot. I merely point it out because there are loopholes all over the place. Whether or not people will take advantage of them remains to be seen. If they do, it will be in situations where Uncle Bob owns the duplex Mr.SO is living in.

It doesnt matter if it says it extends monthly or whatever in the contract.
Nope. But state law says it does extend. State law always trumps local law.
Granted, most landlords are going to ask to have a new written lease signed so the point is somewhat moot. I merely point it out because there are loopholes all over the place. Whether or not people will take advantage of them remains to be seen. If they do, it will be in situations where Uncle Bob owns the duplex Mr.SO is living in.

Mr smarty why have the COPS made them move then when it ended. Also they have made it clear to the landlords that they cant extend it once the ordinance passed. The Deltona and recent ordinances do trump state law they make the 2500 foot rule applicable to every sex offender not just since 2004 or 1995 if on supervision like the state has. The only thing they cant do is make people move eho lived there prior to the passing if they own the place or a relative does etc. Davie, FL jumped the gun with their ordinance falsely thinking they had to copy the state with the 2004 date I guess.

Every sex offender who messed with a 15 yr. old or younger anyway.

It's the City of Davie's sex offender ordinance.

Are you saying this is a state law? If so, what statute? It's news to me. I never heard of a 2,500 foot state law. Your vast knowledge on this subject is astounding.


ARTICLE III. SEX OFFENDERS

Sec. 16-31. Sex offender residency prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, to reside within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park (including linear parks), playground or other place where children regularly congregate.
(b) A person who violates this section and whose conviction under Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, was classified as a felony of the third degree, second degree, first degree or higher, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceedone thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) This section applies to any person convicted of a violation of Sections 794.011, 800.04, 827.071, or 847.0145, Florida Statutes, for offenses that occur on or after October 1, 2004.

you were the one saying when you were convicted matter and it doesnt with most ordinances.

what town is that from, most I have seen offense date means nothing.


DAVIE, FLORIDA

you were the one saying when you were convicted matter and it doesnt with most ordinances.

what town is that from, most I have seen offense date means nothing.

I wasn't the one who posted it. I assumed the officer who brought up the abuse of power issues in Broward posted it from one of the local towns in his county.

I am also assuming that if it is true PLCs are being disapproved at the rate he stated without regard to offense date, and if in fact he posted the correct local ordinance for the city in question, then Broward County has a lot of issues requiring immediate attention. [/quote]


You made safe assumptions, but: 1) I do not live or work in Broward County and 2) the ordinance was a click and paste from the City of Davie's web page.

The information posted is accruate and in the offender's case notes.

PO's are shipping cases that are supposed to be grandfathered in on the ordinances down there. A PO made one move and then he was locked up in the other county because he ran out of motel money there and had no address. All due to the PO saying because he stayed at another residence 2 nights before his court date that the real residence was no longer valid which was b.s. PO's down there just want sex offenders shipped out or locked up plain and simple.

Yep. I've seen some real sneaky games in my area as well. Too bad the Judge didn't know the PO was BSing.

As long as we are careful not to get caught up in a web of deceit and obvious bias, mainly bleeding over from the redneck towns with the ordinances, we'll be ok in the long run. If I see BS I call them on it. I'm glad you aren't afraid to speak up either. Some POs seem to live in that prison culture mentality..no offense to anyone just my observations and thoughts.


Interestingly, a majority of the areas passing the ordinances are not what one would consider conservative areas of the state. The areas passing the laws would be better described as liberal.

Every sex offender who messed with a 15 yr. old or younger anyway.

do you do 'blow' before posting your thoughts?

Every sex offender who messed with a 15 yr. old or younger anyway.

do you do 'blow' before posting your thoughts?

do you do it before thinking of messing with a child. You need to go to a website better suited for your kind. No dont do that or you will violate your supervision. My bad.

Would a moderator please delete this thread? it is getting out of hand with sex offenders posting here now.

Thanks

Would a moderator please delete this thread? it is getting out of hand with sex offenders posting here now.

Thanks

I'm not a SEX OFFENDER or anyone from the public domain. I work for the State. If you dislike what a person writes, simply ignor it. Or, are you suggesting censorship? That's rather childish, I think.

Every sex offender who messed with a 15 yr. old or younger anyway.

do you do 'blow' before posting your thoughts?

do you do it before thinking of messing with a child. You need to go to a website better suited for your kind. No dont do that or you will violate your supervision. My bad.

It's not really your bad! It's the "my bad" of the person who sold your the computer.

BTW, not all sex offender are prohibited from accessing the internet. Are you a specialist? If you are, please brush up on the terms and conditions of sex offender supervision. You can them in FS 948.