5 Sex Offenders Live Under Miami Bridge

They should fear for their lives; look at what they've done to the lives of innocent children. Actually they should be executed as psychology has confirmed there is no way to rehabilitate child rapists. Executing them is the most merciful thing you can do for them since jails can't afford to keep adding prisoners.

Executing them is the most merciful thing you can do for them since jails can't afford to keep adding prisoners.

Maybe we should ship them to Australia.

No bloody way ! - the poms ceased transportation of convicts in the 19th century - we're certainly not going to allow the Yanks to take up where the Brits left off.

You'll have Korea, Vietnam and Irak all rolled into one on your hands if you try that one.

I believe that psychology has been used to confirm that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and that non-caucasians were intellectually inferior. In case you were not being sarcastic.

First, I'm glad that hey laws in place that make it difficult for these people to "get on" with their lives.

They always seem to forget that the children can never erase the past and fully get on with their lives.

You live under a bridge because you molested a child? Sucks to be you.

"Some type of state housing could be setup where the residents have to pay rent but are able to live AND be monitored."

I agree but why stop there.
How about setting up a place where everyone that harms another is sent. If you can't live by the rules of civilized society then you have to live with others like you. Say a 1000 sq miles of not good land in the mid-west. 5 mile perimeter kill zone guarded by the army. Drop them all off and forget about it. No parole, no return. They made a choice to do bad they live there.

For a better idea of how this would work see Coventry by Robert Heinlein. Review here

Some people seem to forget that being registered as a sex offender does not alway mean someone molested a child.

Steve, your link to the review did not seem to work. I hope I found the one you meant.

These people cannot destroy your children's lives by touching them the wrong way

Very few people in the Western world can accept a statement like this. It might help if you explained more fully what you mean.

Ericfive...

Not many people in the western world can accept it? Not many people could accept the idea that witches didn't exist in the 1690s in massachusetts, either. Our ethnically european society has a very central aspect which influences our behavior. We are taught as kids to sit and listen to the teacher or to parents... This trains us to be adults, who will sit and listen to anyone who talks to us... and subscribe to his theories without thinking things through for ourselves thoroughly.

I'm not here to discuss things with people who have nothing to bring to the discussion, but the ideas of other people they have heard somewhere. If you, or others want to discuss this thing with me, we will have to each look at the issue squarely without preconceptions.

The NAEYC has done a lot of good for kids in the past twenty years. They have made an accreditation system for daycare centers... they have formed the curriculum for early childhood education programs in colleges, across the usa. One of the agendas which that organization, and the teachers who comprise it have - is that they wanted stop physical abuse of children (otherwise known as spanking). As I mentioned above, it's very evident to a teacher who sees a steady stream of different kids all the time, what happens to kids who are assaulted regularly, and what happens when they stop being assaulted by their parents. Now, when the NAEYC took this issue to state and federal governments... they got laws passed, but because of the moralistic christian-right congress we've had on capitol hill since 1994 - the laws against "lewd and lascivious" acts with children were also strengthened.

What happened eventually, is that there are "mandatory reporting" laws, in most ever usa state. This means that any parents who are having a rough time with an addiction, or who are immature about their parenting techniques are put in danger of losing their kids and going to jail, if they bring their kids to daycare. Anything regarding the child that is illegal which a childcare provider suspects is going on, must be reported to the police. This is a very bad turn of events. Kids put in foster care, do far worse than kids who are raised by parents who occassionally abuse them. When I was growing up in the 1970s, and earlier... and teachers saw kids and parents who were not getting along - they could intervene, and offer some counseling. The parents could grow up a little bit, and the kid's future could be set upon an even footing. Today... that same kid goes through the court system, the foster care system... - and grows up under a stigma which mars him, his entire life.

Another serious problem we have in our society, is that people do not keep those in the helping professions to any standards. Anybody who tries hard is said to be doing a great job, and they're applauded. People who are effective should be applauded, and their techniques should be studied. People who are ineffective should not be praised. People who seek to help the unfortunate in a sloppy way can end up doing more harm than good to that community.

Now, as to your question about people touching eachother's middles. I'm not going to marred for life by you shaking my hand, ericfive. Nor would I be marred for life, no matter what age I am, if you touched my penis, or I touched yours. That's an irrational kind of idea that has no basis in logical thought. These are just parts of the human body, covered with skin, and filled with cells. Any mental problems with such events, are all in the mind - and rooted in our society's taboos.

So, let's all look at the problem as it exists, and not tolerate straw-man portrayals of other human beings. Let's be constructive about doing what's best for our children, and elect people to congress who have good judgement in regards to the welfare of our children... and the peace of our communities.

...touching eachother's middles....[n]or would I be marred for life...if you touched my penis.... That's an irrational kind of idea.... These are just parts of the human body....

Well, I think the problem has less to do with the touch and more to do with the meaning behind the touch. A doctor, acting professionally, does not raise anyone's ire by toching penis's. But when another adult does the same touch, especially without any pretense of permission, something different has occurred.

Why then is it irrational to think that such an action could mar someone for life?

Well, ericfive, the "meaning behind the touch" is all in the human mind. That's my point there. We can go back to the witch trial analogy, if you'd like. There were people in the 1690s, who were convinced beyond any doubt that these "witches" were affecting their own minds, and destroying their lives. Now, I'm sure, in the Massachusetts of that day and age, there's more context that we don't always hear of. There would have been lots of jesting, and joking - and certain people who wanted to pretend that they had divine visions, or that they were prophets. There would have been debate about different religions. But the bottom line, is that it was successfully argued in court, that there was some meaning behind a glance someone gave you... or some meaning behind what they did in their private quarters, that affected someone else in the community. The uproar about these poor pedophiles we read about here, is based on the same kind of irrational hysteria. It doesn't matter what the "meaning" is, behind someone touching you. That person can have any daydream, or thought in mind, or intention, that he would have that day. His thoughts do not affect your thoughts...

I'm not denying that children can be marred. And I've explained very clearly above, exactly how that occurs. It's the reaction to the event that causes the child problems. It's what the parents do, and what the courts do... it's the new assumptions that the parents have about their child, which change the way they parent.

Thank you for explaining it wasn't clear to me until now.

I agree with your basic statement, but I come to it a different way.

I disagree, though, that the sole reason that abuse (of any kind) has such dire individual consequences is because of reaction to the event. It seems that there is a real, fundamental and inescapable and predictable consequence on the victim.

But it also seems clear that the degree and nature of the harm depends heavily on social response.

I work with the disease model. If I had the flu, and I gave it to you, you might get angry that I didn't take better precautions, but you probably won't morally indict me. Yet this is what we are doing to folks like these--they are at worst hapless in spreading a disease, and we morally condemn them.

The solution comes from this model too. Quarantine if necessary, and treat. There are effective rehabilitation techniques available, but they will not work if we will not remove moral judgment from the process.

and then these people should be given another chance.

When do they children they molest get another chance?

I am in no way making light of the pain these individuals cause. It is extremely tragic and my natural instinct is to want them tortured to death...or the point at which they wish they were dead. I feel deeply for these people who have been hurt, please do not get me wrong. As I stated in my original comment, I feel that many times they get off way too easily and I want that to change. Nothing we can do will truly make them "pay" for the hurt they cause. We can not possibly erase the pain they created. That said, after they have served their time, it is not up to me to deny them the opportunity to try again. Yet, even with that second chance, we have to watch them and keep an eye on them (as I said originally).

Mabe we need to rethink punishment. Maybe these people, instead of morally deficient, are sick.

Many sex offenders are are also victims of sex offenders. Do they not deserve any compassion for being victims?

In such situations, they deserve compassion, yes. And knowing about that kind of thing may help us in understanding why the do such a crime (which will ultimately help us in helping them), however, it is still a choice they make and they must be punished.

Many sex offenders are are also victims of sex offenders. Do they not deserve any compassion for being victims?

Compassion was given to the offenders already - they were given a fair trial. The children whom they victimized had a choice made for them and can never unmake that choice.

I think this article plays up the situation far more than needs to be. Yeah, these guys are living under a bridge... but they weren't forced to, as if there was zero alternative. I have this crazy idea - move out of Florida where the laws are a little less restrictive. An even better idea would be to.. I don't know... not be a sex offender. The latter has worked for me over the last 30 years and I live in a brick and mortar apartment, free of worry about angry parents killing me.

The penalty for sex offenses have been around for a long time now, and the fact that it is wrong has been around 100 times longer. No sex offender does these things and thinks that it's perfectly okay to do them. This is why they feel ashamed for what they've done and why they try and hide what they're doing. Therefore, my compassiometer is dangerously in the red.

The idea about building a place where these guys can go live in a community isn't a good idea. Where does the money come from to proved a place for these people? If forced to pay taxes towards sex related crimes, I'd much rather pay taxes that go to state appointed psychologists to help the children cope with the events and determine if the sex offenders were actually mentally unbalanced than I would providing a community of homes for like minded sex offenders to conglomerate.

As a parent, I wouldn't want a child molester living close to me. Here in GA I can look up the names and faces of sex offenders in my area. I can see where they live, what they've done and most of the details of who they've done it to. I haven't seen any of these people personally, and if I did I don't think I'd go after them, but Id be sure to keep my son within arms reach. Allowing these people to live close to our children only facilitates a repeat action (temptation), and causes parents more stress than we really need. I'd like to allow my son to roam our neighborhood freely (within reason) to visit his friends and hang out without also worrying about a child molester or rapist snatching him up every time he's 15 minutes late coming home. My mother used to worry about me getting into trouble with cops or getting in a car wreck when I was a teen... keeping these people out of our neighborhoods will help ensure that we don't ahve to worry about adding "rape", "kidnapped", or "molested" to the list of things.

A fair trial is a basic constitutional right, not compassion.

Many of these people are victims themselves. As such, they are not acting from choice, they are coping in the only way they know how.

Just like you.

What kind of treatment do U.S. Soldiers who make the "choice" to rape Iraqi women and little girls deserve?

And why do we treat these people worse than murderers?

A fair trial is a basic constitutional right, not compassion

Tell this to an angry mother.

Many of these people are victims themselves. As such, they are not acting from choice, they are coping in the only way they know how.

I have never bought this reasoning. It's like claiming alcoholism is a "disease". It becomes a cruth to use as a defensive line. "oh, well... I was sexually abused as a kid too so the only thing I knew how to do was molest other kids". I'm sorry, but irrespective of whether or not someone was also abused prior to abusing, abusers know it is wrong and have a clear and conscious choise before molesting someone. I'm not calling for their death... I'm saying that my compassion ends with the right to a fair trial. I'm not taking it a step further and taking the law into my own hands nor am I compelling someone to do that... I'd want to do that, but being compassionate I won't.

It IS a Constitutional right to a fair trial, but it's also the victims Constitutional right to live peacefully and not have their rights violated. Should we favor the rights of the criminal to live in a community or the victims rights to live in an area where they don't have to fear. I understand that there are some victims who just assume close the chapter and let it all go and get on with their lives, but there are more victims who do not.

Just like you.

Like me? No sir. I've had parts of my life that were really rough, but nothing compelled me to sexually assault anyone for any reason. We aren't all the same, but there remains a standard of behaviors that must be demonstrated if we wish to continue to be a part of society and treated equally.

What kind of treatment do U.S. Soldiers who make the "choice" to rape Iraqi women and little girls deserve?

Are you trying to make me backpedal by turning it around on a group of individuals who are supposed to carry a high degree of honor and respect? What? Do you think that suddenly I'll stop and play a double standard? Nope. ALL rapists and child molesters, irrespective of origin deserve equal treatment.

Just FYI, there are soldiers of every nation that have raped women... Japanese to the Koreans, US to the Vietnamese, Germans to the Jews, Romans to the...everyone... They're all the same breed of animal.

And why do we treat these people worse than murderers?

Which people? rapists and molesters or soldiers who do these things?

We treat people who abuse children worse than murders because children carry with them a brand of innocence that is age specific. Violating that innocence to many people is FAR worse than killing a grown man. Aside from that, it is very easy for an adult to hurt a child regardless of the gender of the victim or abuser. I'm guessing soldiers get harsher treatment because of the stigma they carry around with them. Soldiers are supposed to be dutiful and honorable, neither of which describe rape or molestation. Soldiers are supposed to be more controlled and focused than to go off and rape someone. I'd treat a soldier rapist worse than a civillian rapist mainly because they bring dishonor to their branch, name, country and uniform. People are supposed to trust a soldier to protect them, not rape them...

I'm saying that my compassion ends with the right to a fair trial

Are you saying that compassion is nothing more than making sure people get what they deserve?

It's like claiming alcoholism is a "disease"

People also use to think that sneezing was caused by Satan. Fortunately all that survives from that attitude is the courtesy of "Bless you!"

Like me? No sir.

I am suggesting your responses are as programmatic as theirs.

Are you trying to make me backpedal by turning it around on a group of individuals who are supposed to carry a high degree of honor and respect

Just checking to what degree you are consistent in principle.

Which was also why I asked about punishment for murder.

Notwithstanding that I was speaking to sex offenders (and murderers) generally, as well as murderers generally, I'll ask the question this way:

Why do we punish child murderers less than we punish child sex offenders?

however, it is still a choice they make and they must be punished

I'm about to take a philosophical tangent here but...

Why must we punish?

Are you saying that compassion is nothing more than making sure people get what they deserve?

No, I'm saying that if I act on impulse, like the molester or rapist and hunt them down for their crime, then I'm no better than they are. Therefore, affording them the opportunity to prove their innocence prior to outright taking it (as they did), in comparison is VERY compassionate.

Yes, I understand that hunting them down is against the law, but having a law agaisnt something doesn't stop people from breaking it.

People also use to think that sneezing was caused by Satan. Fortunately all that survives from that attitude is the courtesy of "Bless you!"

Also, fortunately, sneezing didn't cause someone to have a lifetime of pain and get you killed. I still don't buy into the disease claim. Not because it isn't something that is contagious, or not because it's not something that can be passed on, but because it - unlike a disease can be user controlled. People just assume say "can't control" instead of "won't control" and viola, a convenient disease to scapegoat lack of impulse control upon.

Just checking to what degree you are consistent in principle.

Okay... yeah - No social rank, political affiliation, religious belief, nor profession will ever make a person exempt from the level of wrong that these kinds of crimes are. I could care less if you saved the entire planet from impending doom ten times over - you'll be punished or should be punished for that crime to the same degree that everyone else would be.

Why do we punish child murderers less than we punish child sex offenders?

If you're hinting at "because we understand it less", then that may be true, but lack of understanding makes the crime no less insidious. Otherwise I've already answered that:

We treat people who abuse children worse than murders because children carry with them a brand of innocence that is age specific. Violating that innocence to many people is FAR worse than killing a grown adult. Aside from that, it is very easy for an adult to hurt a child regardless of the gender of the victim or abuser.

With murder, the victim usually has some kind of level field that they can stand on defensively. Unfortunately the victim isn't victorious, but there are times when they are - i.e. attempted murder charge vs murder charge.

I guess when it comes down to it, our society finds sex offenses far worse than murder. It wasn't always this way - the Romans and Greeks commonly used children in orgies and even today in the Far Middle East / Asia children still succumb to atrocities. india still marries off 10 year old girls sometimes. However, this isn't about either of those cultures, it's about ours - and WE find this kind of thing worse than murder.

[I]f I act on impulse...and hunt them down for their crime, [but do not it is], in comparison is VERY compassionate

So you're saying that doing what you are supposed to do is compassionate?

With murder, the victim usually has some kind of level field that they can stand on defensively.

Again, just talking about child victims, you really think this is true? And do you think it is more so ("level field") for murder than sexual abuse?

You're original answer doesn't apply, because you said that we should punish child sex offenders worse than adult murderers. That's plausible.

But, again comparing only children, why would we consider a sex offense worse than taking of a life?

So you're saying that doing what you are supposed to do is compassionate?

In this particular case - yes. Mainly because the aggressor didn't and being a counter aggressor makes you no better than them. Given the two: administer justice yourself or let the court administer it - it seems that calling the law to take over is very compassionate in comparison. yes. I'm not going to change my stance on that. I appreciate you attempting to get me to see that it might be better to actually extend extra service, but I'm not that kind of thinker or feeler.

Again, just talking about child victims, you really think this is true? And do you think it is more so ("level field") for murder than sexual abuse?

OOOOokkkay... just limiting the question to children.

No, if limited to just children they have no level field for which to physically defend themselves at any point during an assault. I know I can easily overpower any 10 year old (male or female) if I really wanted to. Again, this technically makes sexual abuse of a child just as bad as murder based on the fact that a law has been broken.

Both are equally broken laws. Technically one is not more of a crime than another. Where the difference comes into play is in the social perception of the crime as well as it's nature. Personally an adult killing a child is something that is equally abhorrent, however at least with a dead child the child suffers no more whereas an abused child carries it with them for the remainder of their lives in some way. A murdered child won't grow up to be a murder, but as you've pointed out a molested child will likely grow up to be a molester. Can you see now, how and why society sees sexual abuse of a child worse than the murder of a child?

Maybe you should ask a few inmates why they feel child abuse crimes are far worse than murder. they may not separate child murder and child molestation as far apart as free society, but they'll give you interesting insight as to how and why it's a different penalty and carried a far heavier weight.

I know I can easily overpower any 10 year old (male or female) if I really wanted to.

You have obviously not seen enough kung fu movies.

Can you see now, how and why society sees sexual abuse of a child worse than the murder of a child?

No. The family of murder victims suffers for the rest of their life, without any hope that the situation might get better. Victims of abuse can recover, and many even gain something from the experience. Murder, however, is forever. I agree that society views sexual abuse (but not other forms of abuse) of children as somehow worse. But I don't understand why, nor do I think it should. This is of course not to say that offenders should not be severely sanctioned. Our current system seems ineffective and unfounded in logic, though.

I am aware of the popular notion that prisoners treat sex offenders especially poorly in prison. I don't know why that is. I'll ask the next chance I get.

Our current system seems ineffective and unfounded in logic, though.

This may be, however, impulsive actions are generally irrational, therefore it's hard to make a punitive standard on the basis of logic in this area. I think that this is because irrational and illogical impulses have sporadic reasons, so you can't really pinpoint a single or at least narrow spectrum of ways to "fix it". Laws are about keeping people safe, and the laws in Fl pertaining to housing of abusers is there to keep people safe on more than one level.

What makes you think that if a child molester moved into a neighborhood, that a parent discovering this might find their own brand of retribution. Keeping the abusers from living with in X yards or feet from those they abuse protects BOTH parties. However, you're talking about why we treat them different and i think I've answered that.

No. The family of murder victims suffers for the rest of their life, without any hope that the situation might get better.

You keep flip-flopping between using only children to children and adults. Pick one and stick with it.

I agree that the families of a murder victim suffer for the rest of their lives, but seldom to the families of a murder victim become murderers. While some abuse victims gain something from the experience, I can't think of any abuse victim I know that "would go back and do it again because the gain was that valuable".

Again, by your own assertions do abuse victims go on to be abusers. This means that we can look at abuse as a virus. It will spread from victim to victim. Should we treat a highly contagious virus better than a deadly virus that isn't contagious? No. At the very BEST, it should be treated as the same, but if that happens, then we treat abuse like murder and not vice-versa. What does this mean? The legal repercussion for abuse is now heavier.

what you're asking is to change the social perception of how abuse if looked upon. You don't understand and feel that abuse should be looked at as if it is worse than murder, and that's fine for you. I however, will most likely feel differently my entire life. I'm not going to go all vigilante on someone, but I'm not going to go out of my way for them either.

I do look at abuse and murder as disease, with abuse being considerably more contagious than murder (which is somewhat "contagious," there are revenge murders. Ever hear of the Hatfields and McCoy's?).

We do, rightly so, treat deadly viruses far more seriously than highly contagious ones, e.g. Polio v. Common Cold. Because death is forever.

So if we were to follow the utilitarian logic there in law (i.e., laws are there to maximize safety), we should treat murder more seriously than we treat abuse, because dead is less safe than wounded.

In reality, law is often as retributive as it is utilitarian (often more so). What I can find no answer for in your responses or elsewhere, is given that, what it is about abuse that makes it worse than murder.

What I can find no answer for in your responses or elsewhere, is given that, what it is about abuse that makes it worse than murder.

I've answered that... for the third time now.

our society finds sex offenses far worse than murder. It wasn't always this way - the Romans and Greeks commonly used children in orgies and even today in the Far Middle East / Asia children still succumb to atrocities. india still marries off 10 year old girls sometimes. However, this isn't about either of those cultures, it's about ours - and WE find this kind of thing worse than murder.

WHAT makes it worse than murder is social perception.

WHY is what I think you want to ask... and I don't know.

Bridgie... if you want to address me, please join the thread that I'm talking in, I might not have seen this comment on other days; but today I'm keeping close tabs on the newsvine threads I've joined.

I think you need to grow up. After glancing over your article on Schadenfreude and Ann Coulter, I'm surprised that you have come down on the side of the haters, and not the hated here.

We're not talking about forced sexual interaction... we're not talking about physical harm. Pedophiles do not do those things. They are a very gentle-spirited people.

Oops - I see that was tpka "killfile"'s article, not yours. You've arranged things a bit differently on your newsvine column. I think that my sentiment, however, was clear in my response to you.

We're not talking about forced sexual interaction... we're not talking about physical harm. Pedophiles do not do those things. They are a very gentle-spirited people

.

I'm sorry, but are you nuts? Pedophiles don't force children to have sex with them???? Are you saying kids have sex with them willingly??? You say they're very gentle-spirited people. Not quite the description I'd use for some sick freak who molests a child or the sick freak who defends them.

Jason Ford, you have heard too much folklore. What you're talking about is not real people as they really exist, and think and act. You're talking about the strawman portrayal of these people, used by those who wish to debate the subject into the ground... Do a google search for "boylove" or "girllove" - and start reading what these people have to say for themselves.

If you want to understand your world, and those people who have certain ideologies, or pursue certain actions... you have to learn how they think. Just in recent years, you've seen how arabs were portrayed in the media. "They are all violent religious fanatics living in the middle ages. They need to subdued for the world to be safe." Of course, this year, we know that this is not true. A person can go watch Al-jazeera television now, on the internet, if he wishes to. This same kind of passionate aversion surrounds those who identify themselves with the term "pedophile." Educate yourself... Don't believe the media hype.

I have to chime in here.

I don't think it's correct to generalize sex offenders, of children or adults, as "gentle-spirited." Wounded, very often yes. But gentle spirited, no. Just like a a wounded grizzly is not "gentle-spirited."

In other cultures, all kinds of sexual touching is ok. In ours, it's only appropriate between consenting adults. In our (that is, so-called "western") culture, nonconsenual touching is about power, fear, anger and pain. There's nothing gentle about it. It's violence.

In our culture, a child can never consent. We simply don't provide them with enough language and meaning structure for them to comprehend, in advance, what is happening and what is at stake.

I appreciate the cogenial conversation, Ericfive. However, I must note that you seem, in many ways, to have bought into the fictional story of what these people are. I have an aquaintance who went to prison a couple years ago, and I was good friends with the family... and heard the whole story. The contrast between what I knew about the man and his life, and what the local newspaper said about him was quite astonishing. I wrote a long letter to the paper talking about how absurd their portrayal of him was.

The way the media portrays people who have committed crimes is ridiculous. It does our society a great disservice, to think of people in that manner. In order to understand your world, and in order to have discretion in various situations, you have to understand the nuts and bolts of how things happen.

"Gentle-spirited" is exactly the term that I think fits best, when I read their websites, and discussion forums. Pedophilia by them, is thought to be a word which is very much related to other philias - we say bibliophile - for someone who loves books, or audiophile for someone who is obssessed with music.