Legal

At least trolls can live under the bridge...

pO157.

Posted to Legal on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Remember the state that makes sex offenders spend life under a bridge due to the registry residency laws? What happens when they get banished from the only  bridge they've ever called home? They have to march to the Everglades swamp and set up camp there.

Everybody knows sex offenders (pdf) have it rough. Even those never convicted of a crime can be labeled as such. Even after they get out, if they become homeless due to the penalties of the registry they can be tossed back in prison forever.

On Friday, a group of men who are either convicted sex offenders or who have been convicted of non-sex offenses but forced to conform to the restrictions imposed on those on the registry were subsisting under the Oakland Park Boulevard Bridge. That is, until the police and Department of Transportation showed up, armed with no trespassing signs and complaints from neighbors. Despite being ordered to live under that structure by the Department of Correction to comply with a tough Florida law mandating that sex offenders cannot spend the night within 2,500 feet of any place children congregate, the felons were tossed out and told to find someplace else. The closest place they could find that fit the bill? The Everglades. So, they packed up, hiked out west, and set up a small tent city.

Now living in a small collective of one tent, a battery powered TV and DVD player, and a rusty grill for five people, the men spend each night together before dispersing. Interestingly, during the daytime there are no restrictions on their movements or activities, so they are free to go anywhere they please.

The offenders wonder how they will be able to continue to even live in society with the Sex Offender Scarlet Letter pushing them further and further into the fringes. "We're 12 to 15 miles from the nearest bus stop. I need to work, I want to work, but how am I supposed to function on a daily basis when I can't promise them I can even be there on time? There's nothing out here," said Dana Oakes.

One of the men who is not a sex offender, but forced to live the restrictions of one, says he simply hopes to be allowed to live in peace. "Hopefully nobody's going to complain about it and we can be left alone for a while."

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, Florida, sex offenders, trolls, bridges, fee fi fo fum I smell an Englishman (all tags)

This story: 15 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
7

Delusions of righteousness

teaweed.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM EST

4.80 (informative, brilliant, astute)

When I hear the phrase "sex offender" I think pedophile, but pedophiles are very rare. Of these few, the great majority are near and dear to their victims. They are the priest, the stepfather, the uncle, or the babysitter. One need not look these monsters up on a registry; they are closer to home than that.

Many sex offenders might more aptly be called caught-with-their-pants-downers: the drunk guy who went skinny dipping in his apartments' pool and someone called the police; the couple caught in a park; the 24 year old dating a 15 year old with vengefully protective parents. I don't want to deny that sex crimes are committed, but I think an embezzler or a false advertising registry would do more for the public good.

We can pretend that a registry of sex offenders will keep our little ones safe from child molesters, and it would be a harmless delusion, except that the registries are filled with real people. Registries won't protect us from the lightening strike out of the clear blue that stranger abductions are. They certainly won't protect us from the norm of friend/family transgressions.

Sex offender registries are wrong for two basic reasons:

  1. They're not helpful. They do not help prevent sex crimes.
  2. They're harmful. They prevent people from reintegrating into society after they've paid their debt to society for their crimes.

1

Re: At least trolls can live under the bridge...

skeeter1.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:29:44 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

If you haven't done so, you might want to check your zip code and see who lives near you.  I found 34 of them in my area (a fairly nice neighborhood).  One was living next to my friend, but he's currently back in jail.  

Reminds me... I should polish up the Smith & Wesson and put some fresh ammo in it.

there's only one way to find out...

2

^ 1

Re: At least trolls can live under the bridge...

Lou.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:37:16 AM EST

4.80 (funny, interesting, brilliant)

Reminds me... I should polish up the Smith & Wesson and put some fresh ammo in it.

Makes sense...I mean, who wants to be murdered by a dirty gun with stale ammo?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

5

^ 2

a shot of bourbon in a dirty glass

gerrymander.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:24:53 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

Real men, that's who.

8

^ 1

Re: At least trolls can live under the bridge...

PenitenziAgite.

Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST

3.00 (funny)

You'll be putting more than one kid through college with the wrongful death suit coming your way...

I thought S&W made bicycles nowadays...

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

3

let's compromise

skeptic.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST

4.00 (interesting, interesting)

It seems unreasonable to me that after serving the sentence for the crimes they committed, sex offenders are nonetheless still treated as criminals and not allowed to live normal lives.  I do understand the thinking, however.  A person who is inclined toward sex offenses is not going to lose that inclination, such things are very deeply ingrained.  Some people have enough self-control that they do not act on their anti-social impulses, but the impulses are not going to disappear.

How about this.  We release sexual offenders from jail, when they have served their sentences, with no restrictions on how they live their lives, but if they are convicted of a second offense they are then classified as incorrigible and given life sentences with no chance of parole.  It's sort of like the "three strikes and you're out" law, only in this case we allow only two strikes because the crimes are particularly loathsome.

4

^ 3

Devil's Advocate

pO157.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST

4.00 (interesting, informative, interesting)

It seems unreasonable to me that after serving the sentence for the crimes they committed, sex offenders are nonetheless still treated as criminals and not allowed to live normal lives.  I do understand the thinking, however.  A person who is inclined toward sex offenses is not going to lose that inclination, such things are very deeply ingrained.  Some people have enough self-control that they do not act on their anti-social impulses, but the impulses are not going to disappear.

Why not apply the above logic to addiction? I think we all know the chances of kicking a crack habit are pretty slim, and people on that drug tend to do some crazy, violent things. How about a crackhead registry? That way you can know which areas to avoid buying a house in so you don't wake up at 3am to some idiot armed with a screwdriver kicking your door in.

6

^ 4

Re: Devil's Advocate

skeptic.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

You make a logical argument.  However, there is an even better solution to the problem of dangerous drug addicts.  Let them have their drugs.  Nicotine is as addictive as heroin, yet of those two drugs only one tends to cause the kinds of crimes of which you complain.  It is only the heroin addicts who wind up kicking your door in, hoping to steal enough to be able to buy more heroin.  The cigarette addicts don't have to do that.  That's the difference between a legal market and a black market.  Illegal drugs are (with the possible exception of marijuana which does have important medical uses) bad for your health, but so what?  Let people harm their own health if they so desire.  Let us recognize that we all own our own lives and can risk them as we see fit, as long as we do not endanger the lives of other people in the process.

Drug addiction is a victimless crime, unlike sexual offenses (unless we include masturbation as a sexual offense, and we have gotten beyond that degree of Puritanism).  Hence, it is much easier to legalize drugs than to condone sexual crimes.

9

^ 6

All Of Them?

uncarved block.

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

    Y'know, six years ago I might have agreed with this line of thinking, though I'd already had enough experience with meth (a very little was all it took) to make me believe that legalizing it would be a disaster. Having worked for a couple years now at at a business that offers cash for just about anything, I no longer believe that all addiction is a victimless crime, or that it's only illegal drugs that create crime.
    Direct examples happen for me just about every day. One notable gentleman was trading in up to five portable CD players a week (he worked at a car wash, but none of the stolen players ever had a follow up from the police, so there was little we could do-- at least that current manager, anyway), and spent the money on beer and airplane bottles of alcohol (and cigarettes too)-- I saw this personally more than once, as the liquor store next door is where we all buy snacks. He stood out more than the others (a real grade A asshole), but there have been others. With the booze right next door, closing the loop is a lot easier than it might be otherwise. And this is on top of a notable minority of customers who are likely buying illegal drugs as well, with items that may or may not belong to them.
    So what would be legalized, if I had my druthers? Marijuana, clearly; the fact it's still illegal is a testament to the stubbornness, idiocy even, of some of the political class*. Heroin? Probably. The problems with withdrawal are what inspires the crime, not the actual drug, and the volume of casual users would indicate that it's far more controllable than the earlier propaganda/exploitation flicks showed. LSD? A tough call, but I'd be in favor of legalization if theme parks, or at least safe areas, were part of the package. Violence isn't really part of the high, in my experience, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see someone behind the wheel of a car either, especially in the first four hours of the trip. Cocaine and crack? Right out. Anger, paranoia, loss of self control; this isn't just propaganda, but something I've seen and lived. Ecstasy and other designer drugs? I guess so, but it would be interesting to think about what would happen if E went from a party drug to a casual use drug.
    If there's a theme to my picks, I'd guess I'd go with "control": is the addiction easier or harder to control than alcohol? If yes, then get it off the books; if no, then keep it illegal. Will this happen? Probably not :)

    *My pet theory- feel free to disagree- is that legalizing pot would be the fastest way to get other, harder drugs under control and reduce their usage. Once kids smoke dope and realize it isn't that bad, it undermines a lot of the warnings about drugs like heroin and meth-- drugs the dealers want to encourage, because the profits and transportation are so much better. Taking pot out of the picture would also allow law enforcement to focus on the more serious drugs as well, without having to bust (in theory) every teenager who owns a bong.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

10

^ 9

Re: All Of Them?

pO157.

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST

4.00 (funny)


    Direct examples happen for me just about every day. One notable gentleman was trading in up to five portable CD players a week (he worked at a car wash, but none of the stolen players ever had a follow up from the police, so there was little we could do-- at least that current manager, anyway), and spent the money on beer and airplane bottles of alcohol (and cigarettes too)-- I saw this personally more than once, as the liquor store next door is where we all buy snacks. He stood out more than the others (a real grade A asshole), but there have been others. With the booze right next door, closing the loop is a lot easier than it might be otherwise. And this is on top of a notable minority of customers who are likely buying illegal drugs as well, with items that may or may not belong to them.

So I'm taking it he never accepts the offer for Bookman's trade credit? Maybe he got burned by a vendor in the past and so he has a problem with company scrip.

11

^ 10

Something For Nothing

uncarved block.

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:59:41 PM EST

4.00 (interesting, interesting)

    Well, the guy always claimed to have a lot of credit, but we never saw him come close to using it . . which was interesting, because he abuse our listening/preview option all the time. (Yes, customers can listen before they buy, so long as they leave collateral.) After previewing 5-10 CDs a week, he still never bought one, despite all this alleged credit he had lying around. This was how he finally got kicked out for good-- he left his ID and took three of our CDs, which we thought was a fair trade for axing his ass for good.
    The guy was just a penny pinching hustler, that's all. He repeatedly hustled the tax on dollar purchases out of the liquor store owner, for example. (Eight goddamn cents!) It's fairly easy to spot thieves like him, too, because they never complain about lowball cash offers. We had one woman, fencing stolen CD audiobooks for her guy friends, who would accept two bucks in cash for fifty dollar Robert Jordan CD books-- and not even blink. When you didn't actually pay for something, every dollar you get is pure profit, right?
    I should stress that most of the business is giving credit to snowbirds and locals who want to turn in their Nora Roberts, James Patterson or Louis Lamour paperbacks and get some more. It sounds as if you live in a much sketchier neck of the woods, and I'd never dare say this is some kind of slum. But that's why this kind of crap stands out so much. Should be clear I love the job, since I talk about it so much, but these kinds of incidents are easily the biggest blemish on otherwise fine work. The worst are sketchy looking adults trading in kids books for cash. No matter how often it happens, the next time just feels worse than the time before.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

12

^ 11

Re: Something For Nothing

pO157.

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

Since you deal so much in cash for random items, do you have the requirements of a pawn shop (eg taking down photo ID info in exchange for buying the stuff)? I understand your store cannot do anything about it since the cops wont get involved, but I am just wondering what your bosses do to protect themselves (if anything).
It seems like a liability.

13

^ 12

Yes

uncarved block.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST

4.00 (informative, informative)

    I believe under the law we are pretty much considered a pawn shop, so there are some requirements. Anything with a serial number (console, television, camera, etc) gets the paperwork, as does any CD or DVD transaction over $50. (They are all held for three weeks in storage, to give time for all involved to find out where their stuff went.) Any cash trade requires a valid ID, and yes, even for a nickel-- I've done it, more than once. It's a minor hurdle, just enough to keep everyone involved with enough ass covering, but if you're willing to steal, why not use a fake ID?
    I should have been more clear on the theft issue: it's not that the cops won't get involved, but that there's usually nothing done unless the victim takes steps to track down their stolen stuff. We do see the police once in a while- too much and we'd get shut down!- mainly with things like hand held consoles, like a Nintendo DS or a PSP. Even once had a hard drive with child porn on it get taken as evidence, but the cops were really after that guy-- they came in for the drive literally hours after he traded it in, so it was clear they were tailing him. With the portable CD players, my guess is that everyone who lost one figured it was just that- lost- and never thought to find out if someone had stolen it.
    Is it a liability? Yes and no. We could be even sleazier, and not get shut down, but most of us who work for Bookmans has fairly high elan, so the day to day workers wouldn't like to see this happen. Really, quite a funky place to work, even if the pay is low. The tangible benefits are great though, especially if you're a bit of a pack rat :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

14

^ 9

Re: All Of Them?

thefadd.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

it would be interesting to think about what would happen if E went from a party drug to a casual use drug.

Nothing really. The few people I've seen use it on a day-to-day basis were essentially using it in an increasingly uphill battle to boost serotonin levels and treat depression. They tended to come off as sadder, slightly more cracked out caffeine addicts.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

15

^ 9

Re: All Of Them?

skeptic.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

I am not an extremist on this issue.  I think that you have made an excellent analysis of the drug problem and I am perfectly willing to accept your proposal.  As a society we really need to think more clearly about the very serious social problem of drug abuse, and find the most practical way to deal with it, by means of a mixture of legalization of some drugs, appropriate regulation of all drugs, medical assistance for drug addicts, and continued banning of the more harmful drugs.

This story: 15 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment