Jub wrote:I was going by the fact that, at least some US states, restrict where 'sex offenders' can and can't live. Shouldn't they be free to reintegrate into society once they serve their time or is justice being served by keeping tabs on them at all times? If they aren't ready to be released when their sentences are up then the laws aren't working correctly, if they are then keeping tabs on them is pointless.
I don't know of any first-world country that refuses to restrict the rights of convicted felons even after release. You'd find few people who would argue violent felons should be able to legally purchase firearms or that they should be able to take a job as a law-enforcement officer. The problem is when knee-jerk and extremely vague laws start casting wide nets to restrict rights and/or privileges with no benefits to society. "Candy Laws" do not work. They accomplish nothing. Laws designed to tell sex offenders where they can and can't live only serve to push offenders "off the grid" and make them almost impossible to track. These laws aren't just useless, they're actively dangerous.
Flagg wrote:Which I disagree with as it just forces them to move into unincorporated areas. But if it's within reasonable distances of playgrounds, schools, and school bus stops I don't care. It's not like we are restricting where people who have done nothing wrong can live, it's targeted at convicted pedophiles and serial predators. I cry at night for their struggles.
Yea, because sex offenders can't own cars and drive to these locations. Fuck, Texas doesn't even have a law to keep them from hanging out at playgrounds. Other states pass laws banning sex offenders from even using the library. It's dumb. The ones trying to reintegrate get fucked because they are essentially second-class citizens (even more so than "regular" felons). The ones looking to get out and go back to violence find it easier because listing yourself as homeless isn't against the law.Just keep pushing them out until they're someone else's problem.
Miami Beach wanted to keep sex offenders as far away from children as possible. So officials there came up with a plan that, on the surface, would seem to do the trick. An ordinance passed last year makes it unlawful for those convicted of a serious sex crime to live within 2,500 feet of any school, public bus stop, day care center, park, playground "or other place where children regularly congregate." The city could have saved some ink by simply writing: "No sexual predators allowed in Miami Beach." That, in essence, is the effect of the law. "The whole city is basically covered by this," says Mayor David Dermer. "As far as I'm concerned, it worked well."
When other cities heard about it, Dermer's office was deluged with calls. And so began the domino effect: As towns began to realize that neighboring jurisdictions might enact strict sex-offender residence rules, they scrambled to do the same, not wanting to be without an ordinance or have a relatively lax law that could serve as a welcome. More than 50 Florida municipalities, and 20 others from around the country, requested a copy of the ordinance from Miami Beach.
Work in the city? Fuck you. you don't deserve a job. Now go be jobless and homeless out in the sticks with no incentive to try and reintegrate. Hey, there's also less cops around in case you wanted to assault more people.
Iowa's law, for example, has made as much as 90 percent of the land area in major cities off-limits to sex offenders. As a result, 21 sex offenders wound up grouped together in a down-at-the-heels motel outside of Cedar Rapids this spring. Others have resorted to living in their vehicles--essentially homeless and hopeless, which only puts more pressure on them to re-offend, criminal justice officials note.
But making sure they can't live near me makes me safer.... or something. But hey, there's nothing
morally bankrupt by pushing "serial predators" out into the unincorporated areas so that any crimes they do commit will have fewer resources available to catch them with.....