Sex Offenders Have Nowhere to Live, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

Topic started on 4-11-2010 @ 12:17 PM by dbloch7986

Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules

Source Article

Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and homelessness a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders can live from parks or schools.

Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.

Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities.

Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.

This is an article about, "Jessica's Law". The judge makes some good points about lack of correlation between proximity to where children congregate and likelihood to commit a sex offense.

While I do not condone sex offences, I think relieving the restrictions of this law and allowing them to maintain a permanent residence is less dangerous than having them wandering around as homeless vagrants. I also think it is better than having them living on the taxpayer's dime in prison.

I also think sex offender laws are far to strict and that we are on our way to burning at the stake anyone who bathes their child or changes his diaper. Or even takes a picture of their kid in the bath.

I read a story about a guy who was drunk, peeing in public and a kid happened to see him. Now he is a registered sex offender. Is that fair to you? I don't think so.

Please read the article before posting and please refrain from rash or angry responses. Think about what you're saying before you say it.

Example is: "We should kill them all." That is a rash response that was not thought out. I am not looking for shallow responses. I want to make you think.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:24 PM by The Sword

reply to post by dbloch7986

I agree that laws like "Jessica's Law" go too far in their intent to protect children. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect children. However, if a registered sex offender wants to become a productive member of society again, they're pretty much screwed by this law.

Actually, sex offender laws themselves are too stringent to where offenses like the one you mentioned (public urination witnessed by a child) are not actual sex crimes, and yet are grouped as them.

Also, it's better that people have a place to live and work IF they are willing to reform themselves. People do go into treatment for sex crimes and they can beat the odds that society has placed upon them (odds that they will always re-offend, etc).

Society as a whole is intolerant and arrogant and would prefer that people be crushed underfoot for their crimes, even if they try to reform and become productive members again. This behavior has to be examined and the laws have to be examined as well. As the OP said, it's more dangerous to have homeless sex offenders on the loose, especially those who may have not gone through treatment and are more likely to re-offend.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:33 PM by earthdude

Not only sex offenders. My father was caught with a prohibited flower and after serving his time he could not find a nieborhood that was not a "Crime Free" zone. He was not allowed to live in a place with this lable. We found a few streets that were outside of this zone and this is where he lives, in outlaw village. So much for integrating back into society. He was forced into a criminal area and I hope he does not get robbed or killed.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:34 PM by Wildbob77

Perhaps someone needs to start a "sex offender" town. There would be no children, no schools, no playgrounds. Then we wouldn't have to sit around worrying about when sex offenders can find a place to live

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:35 PM by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by dbloch7986
I also think sex offender laws are far to strict and that we are on our way to burning at the stake anyone who bathes their child or changes his diaper. Or even takes a picture of their kid in the bath.

I read a story about a guy who was drunk, peeing in public and a kid happened to see him. Now he is a registered sex offender. Is that fair to you? I don't think so.

I don't necessarily think it's a matter of the laws being too strict, but more the manner by which they're applied in some cases ... with the baby in a bath tub analogy being a perfect example. What initially started out as a means by which to protect children from those looking to exploit them or do them harm has since become a coverall application for nearly Anything someone takes offense to or finds even the slightest bit ... immoral, in Their opinion.

I'd imagine there's hardly a family photo album around that doesn't have Something in it that Could be seen by Someone as being in violation of such Blanket application of the child exploitation/indecency law(s) in many states.

... much the same as with many laws currently on the books we see being applied in a manner or fashion which would seem a far cry from their initial core intent or purpose.

With regards the sex offender/housing issue, perhaps it would better serve public interest if the distances were reduced and the law(s) were actually enforced. ?

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:39 PM by Brood

I'm personally disgusted at the name. Once again American legislature takes on an appealing, innocent name for a dastardly fascist notion. Psychologically, physically, and rationally, this does not work. Psychologically, forced seclusion never helped anyone's mental state. Physically, people can live 1,000 miles away from a school or park and still get there. Rationally, this is people seeking further vindication after the law has already enforced punishment, and in turn creating more problems than it solves by forcing sex offenders to not have homes at all... might they sleep.... at a park? A school?

Kudos to deflecting the death penalty enthusiasts in the OP. There's only so much Babbling Neanderthal Syndrome I can tolerate here on ATS.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:40 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by dbloch7986

Yes these laws our overdone, and an overreaction. When our neighborhoods are planned by the government and zoned to house people near schools and parks, and tax dollars are used for public services in areas where more people live I would venture to say Sex Offenders have taxation without representation. They pay for these services and are banned from them. Their job opportunities are limited because of their status as Sex Offenders. My personal opinion is that we need an overhaul in the Sex Offender laws. I do not need to know about the whereabouts of a guy in his 20's who frontally mooned someone, or inappropriately touched his date without her consent.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:41 PM by The Sword

reply to post by Wildbob77

We might as well herd them into ghettos like Hitler did to the Jews.

The laws work out well for politicians because they make the politicians look like they're tough on crime, while creating new crime due to the amount of people forced to scrounge for a living.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:42 PM by GoalPoster

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Perhaps someone needs to start a "sex offender" town. There would be no children, no schools, no playgrounds. Then we wouldn't have to sit around worrying about when sex offenders can find a place to live

they have . . . it's called PRISON and those miscreants should be stuck in those holes for life, married to some other lifer named Brutus.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:45 PM by crazydaisy

reply to post by dbloch7986

Well don't that just break my heart!! I know one that has a place to live, right next door to where I live. He disappeared for a couple of weeks and the cops kept coming around. A neighbor told me it was because he didn't report his new address to his parole officer. The arsehole is back, and wow does he ever lay low. Child molester at that - we didn't know this when we bought our house a year and a half ago.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:46 PM by The Sword

reply to post by GoalPoster

I knew it wouldn't be long before a response like this would come along.

Then again, don't cry when your tax dollars go to house people like this.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:46 PM by Ophiuchus 13

reply to post by dbloch7986

Fk dem they cant be patient like the rest so..... Genetically they are weak so.... Snacks

give em a lil city somewhere they can all gather and do what they do. Like a farm

edit on 11/4/10 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:47 PM by Brood

Originally posted by crazydaisy
reply to post by dbloch7986

Well don't that just break my heart!! I know one that has a place to live, right next door to where I live. He disappeared for a couple of weeks and the cops kept coming around. A neighbor told me it was because he didn't report his new address to his parole officer. The arsehole is back, and wow does he ever lay low. Child molester at that - we didn't know this when we bought our house a year and a half ago.

And you think its someone else's responsibility to protect your children from him? Sounds like some super parenting. Do you know what some people would do if they knew where child molesters live? That's why they don't tell people where they live.

edit on 4-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:52 PM by strangleholder1

After giving this some thought and not wishing to appear rash, I think we should kill them all. Perhaps using some sort of Running Man style game show.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:53 PM by Brood

Originally posted by GoalPoster

they have . . . it's called PRISON and those miscreants should be stuck in those holes for life, married to some other lifer named Brutus.

Sex offenses > Murder?

Feminist propaganda has truly had its way with your mind.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:54 PM by onequestion

This is the same as performing background checks for employment.

Obviously if someone cannot find gainful employment, there is going to be a negative affect for the cause. All of these laws, and rules that are setup are detrimental to society. The reason for all of this is simple, FEAR.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:55 PM by Brood

Originally posted by strangleholder1
After giving this some thought and not wishing to appear rash, I think we should kill them all. Perhaps using some sort of Running Man style game show.

And I think that we should kill anyone who believes in the death penalty... so I can feel safe bringing my children back to the United States without being executed for slipping on the sidewalk and landing on some old fart's lawn... not after having to listen to him go on about his "rights and freedoms"

edit on 4-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 12:56 PM by Tykonos

I have no sympathy for such offenders. Sure, if they are released back into society they will need a place to live but they've made their bed in my opinion.

The poor kids that they fiddled with have to live a lifetime with what they have been through.

How would you feel if a convicted child abuser moved in next door to your family? You can't keep an eye on your kids all the time.

The same goes for rapists, how would you feel knowing a convicted rapist, released from jail moved into the house next door to you? Would you not worry about your wife or girlfriend?

It's all very well giving people a second chance but when a sex offender comes knocking on your door to ask for a cup of sugar I'm sure many will want to upsticks and move.

I'm all for chemical castration of some sorts. Take away the ability to cause future sex crimes.

edit on 4-11-2010 by Tykonos because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 01:00 PM by xiphias

Not saying sex offenders should be given special treatment, but keep in mind that a lot of "registered sex offenders" are teens under the age of 20, who happened to hook up with a person a year or two too young.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 01:00 PM by peck420

reply to post by strangleholder1

You do realize that growing number of "sex offenders" are under age and were charged with nothing more than having a nude pic of a girlfriend under 18? (Both parties involved being under 18)

Or the 3 girls and 3 boys charged and labelled as "sex offenders" because one of the girls emailed her friends a picture of her baby brother having a bath.

If the label "sex offender" was still reserved for ACTUAL sex offenders, then sure, your idea has merit