$7.5 million in federal stimulus money to help homeless sex offenders

[momtective]

A slice of $7.5 million in federal stimulus money is being offered to help homeless sex offenders and predators living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway to cover rent, housing and utilities.


http://www.miamiherald.com/1460/story/1215036.html?storylink=mirelated


Un-freaking-Believable!:furious:

 

[julie2]

THIS REALLY IRRITATES ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:furious:

 

[Boyz_Mum]

"Lawmakers and others say the stimulus money still won't solve the larger issue: Where do sexual predators and offenders live in a state with such restrictive residency laws?"

(Snipped from OP article)

Are we supposed to feel bad for these "people" that the restrictive residency laws are strict? There isn't a better solution that can be had than spending 7.5 million for something that isn't a solution? That's one expensive band aid. Bullets are cheaper... I'm just sayin. :furious:

 

[Mr. E]

From the article:

Kevin Morales, who has lived under the bridge for three years, said he doesn't plan to move until the state enforces its own 1,000 foot boundary -- no matter how much money he is offered.
``Are we picky about where we want to live?'' he said. ``I guess yes. I want to find a place that's suitable for me.''

What place is that? One with potential victims nearby?

How about putting that money towards victim advocacy instead, and let the sex offenders figure out their own way. They made their choices, and now that means dealing with the consequences.

 

[believe09]

I cannot jump on the bandwagon with hating this idea, no matter how much I want to. They have to be given a place to live where they can be tracked until a better solution is created. Given the number of stories just in the last year featuring sexual predators who prey on the most vulnerable, it is essential that they be given some kind of incentive to go where they can be watched....jmo.

 

[Truthful Lies]

I honestly don't care if they are living there...that bridge is nowhere near residential areas...the only residents are pretty much high-rise condos well out of the way of the bridge. Biscayne is an island..and the beaches are frequented by people (like Windsurfer beach), etc., but I spent a lot of time there as a child, and you don't just wander around near the bridge....

 

[ImaFrayedKnott]

Here's the solution: Take that 7.5 million and fence off about 300 acres somewhere that's not developed yet....forest somewhere, or the desert, whatever. Build a nice thick wall around it, and just throw all of the SO's in there. Let them fend for themselves...problem solved.

 

[Boyz_Mum]

I cannot jump on the bandwagon with hating this idea, no matter how much I want to. They have to be given a place to live where they can be tracked until a better solution is created. Given the number of stories just in the last year featuring sexual predators who prey on the most vulnerable, it is essential that they be given some kind of incentive to go where they can be watched....jmo.

At first when I read, I felt like you do. One thing made me wonder though, if they are placed somewhere to keep an eye on them, does it open up the situation for some sort of civil rights violation lawsuits? If they've already served their punishments, does it violate their rights if they are monitored closer? (Does that make any sense? My words aren't coming out very well today. )

 

[ziggy]

Heard a guy on the radio today and he is on parole. He was busted for drugs, did his time, lost his wife and family and is turning his life around but there is no help for him with housing etc. He has to check in with a parole officer so in a sense he's being monitored.

It's just not fair.

It's time to realize there is no rehabilitation for these people.

Is it a good idea to build a facility and let them all live there? No, wouldn't they just feed each other's desires by sharing their preferences? I guess not unless it's a prison.

I think we need to revisit having someone civilly committed for their inability to control their behavior within a safe societal norm. Once they've done the criminal time, then the civil issue takes over and they are locked up for good.

I am FURIOUS that stimulus money - to be used TO CREATE JOBS AND HELP OUR ECONOMY - is being used for this purpose. It's a noble job for a community organizer or private charity but not our tax dollars.

I usually feel let down by the conservative politicians but I always feel let down by the left. Social programs are out of control.

 

[believe09]

At first when I read, I felt like you do. One thing made me wonder though, if they are placed somewhere to keep an eye on them, does it open up the situation for some sort of civil rights violation lawsuits? If they've already served their punishments, does it violate their rights if they are monitored closer? (Does that make any sense? My words aren't coming out very well today. )

I get what you are saying honey-I was presuming most of these folks have to register or on probation. If they do not have a fixed address, it is hard to keep track of them.

Yes they have all kinds of first amendment rights violations, I would suspect. It is no different than being racially profiled to a degree, with the exception that racial profiling is not based on common sense. (JMO) The thing is, SO's are going to be the usual suspects whenever there is a sex related offense in the area. Would you rather know where they are or not?

I would rather they have a fixed address where they should register, and all of the proper precautions should be taken. I have two level 3's within a mile of me and both myself and my children know them by sight. We do not make a big deal about it, but they know that these two men are not friends of children even if they pretend to be. FWIW, I think it stinks because I prefer not to teach my children to isolate people who have made bad choices. But the mother in me cannot be less vigilant.

I think that it stinks to be isolated and potentially be opened to vigilante justice and having first amendment rights violated-BUT, I did not make the choices that they made. I and my children have just as much right to be informed and safe as these folks do to walk around under the terms of their probation/sentences.....

 

[StephanieH]

When I lived in the suburbs of Kansas City, there was a sex offender house a few blocks away from us. There was never one single problem with them because they were monitored 24/7. They were driven to work, not allowed to leave without staff, etc. If people KNOW where they are, they can make sure there is no bus stop near them, that kids are supervised and the like. Plus, in Kansas, all sex offenders are required to report, so all of the information was available on the net. I would rather have them be in one place than spread out all over the community. Just my two cents.

 

[wonders]

A permanent prison cell should have been their only home for the rest of their lives.

It makes me hopping mad.

 

[StephanieH]

A permanent prison cell should have been their only home for the rest of their lives.

It makes me hopping mad.

Wonders, if we are going to let murderers out due to lack of space, I really don't see them keeping sex offenders in for life. It's just not reality. So..what are we going to do with them once they ARE released? The choices are to keep an eye on them and know where they are, or just free them and hope they don't do anything. I prefer the former.

Yeah, it makes me mad that people who commit crimes cost the taxpayers money, but this is ultimately LESS expensive than keeping them in prison. And although sex offenders can't be rehabilitated as easily as a murderer, they can successfully keep it under control and not offend again.