if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Under the Boardwalk
by Lee
I’m still trying to come to terms with how I feel about this one.
The sparkling blue waters off Miami’s Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway’s only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings.
Five men—all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children—live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami’s least welcome residents.
“I got nowhere I can go!” says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.
The Florida Department of Corrections says there are fewer and fewer places in Miami-Dade County where sex offenders can live because the county has some of the strongest restrictions against this kind of criminal in the country.
Florida’s solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway.
The Julia Tuttle Causeway, which links Miami to Miami Beach, offers no running water, no electricity and little protection from nasty weather. It’s not an ideal solution, Department of Corrections Officials told CNN, but at least the state knows where the sex offenders are.
And it gets worse.
With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. With the roar of cars passing overhead, convicted sex offender Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.
“The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you,” he said.
Morales has been homeless and living under the causeway for about three weeks. He works, has a car and had a rented apartment but was forced to move after the Department of Corrections said a swimming pool in his building put him too close to children.
The convicted felons may not be locked up anymore, but they say it’s not much of an improvement.
“Jail is anytime much better than this, than the life than I’m living here now,” Morales said. “[In jail] I can sleep better. I get fed three times a day. I can shower anytime that I want to.”
The intellectual part of me says that this is ridiculous, that the Florida laws are an example of vast overreach by government, the nanny state gone mad. I understand the need to protect children from predators, and I’m all for that, but is a law this draconian the right approach? And I think there’s an assumption on our part that these guys are all convicted child molesters, when a “sex offense” can be something relatively benign like a 20 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl, or being a Peeping Tom, or something of that nature. Is it justifiable to empower the state to literally force someone to be homeless, despite the fact that they have ostensibly paid their debt to society?
Then there’s the vengeful part of me which says “They’re child molesters. Fuck ‘em, let the rats eat them.”
It’s kind of like prison rape. On an intellectual level it’s something to be opposed, because rape is a crime. But on an emotional level, the refrain is “Tough shit. You shouldn’t have committed the crime.”
It’s tough to get too worked up over the rights of criminals, but I think it’s a good thing to take a step back occasionally and say to ourselves, is this something we really should be doing?
Comments
In my opinion, you violate a child’s rights, then you should not have any rights. Excuse me for not giving a shit if some perve has to deal with a couple of rats under a bridge. I guess they should have thought about that before they screwed with some helpless child.
I say fuck em!
So five male convicted sex offenders are living under a bridge because they say they cannot find anywhere else to live. Where do all of the other convicted sex offenders in the city of Miami live? Or are there only five in the whole city and they are all living there? Something tells me that at least a few of these bums would live under a bridge whether they were convicted sex offenders or not.
So Miami is the only place in the US these guys can find to hang their hats? And they’re so dead-set on living in Miami that they are willing to live under a bridge to do it?
You know what? I don’t give a flying fuck if they rot under that bridge.
So Miami is the only place in the US these guys can find to hang their hats? And they’re so dead-set on living in Miami that they are willing to live under a bridge to do it?
Actually, if they are out on Parol or Probation, often the terms of Probation will dictate the county they must live in (so that their Parol Officers or Probation Officers can keep track of them), so I do not begrudge them the fact that they need to live in Miami.
But I am pretty sure that there are more than five convicted sex offenders in the city of Miami (population of well over a million, I am sure). If the other convicted sex offenders can find places to live (besides under a bridge), then I am sure these five cold as well.
cold = could
PIMF [pounds head with hand]
I relate to the feelings about this but…
I just gotta ask how this situation benefits society. Instead of sex offenders in proper stable housing we have them out on the street where we are more likely to lose track of them. I know if it was me in that situation, I’d bail.
It’s true their crimes are not all equal. If they can be released from prison, are they not expected to rejoin society? How will they ever do that? You have to either kill them, lock them up and throw away the key or find a reasonable solution to working them back to normal. This “scarlet letter” situation isn’t going to work.
Living under a bridge is no solution. If you’ve managed to effectively ban someone from living in a zip code, you’ve most likely violated their constitutional rights on some level.
On the other hand, the sentence for proven child molestation should be quick hanging....
The problem is more common and less extreme than these pervs under a bridge. Here in Portland there are a number of “small time” sex offenders (you know, 19 year old perved a 15 year old type deal) and many are forced to endure living and employment situations that prevent them from ever getting back into mainstream society.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see the sense in that. If the crime was that bad, don’t let them out at all. Otherwise, find a way to ease them back in.
but is a law this draconian the right approach?
In a word, “yes”.
Is it justifiable to empower the state to literally force someone to be homeless, despite the fact that they have ostensibly paid their debt to society?
As usual, you dichotomize a conundrum with two extremes leaving no middle (rational) solution. Society has every right to be protected from child molesters (probably the highest recidivists of all criminals).
And that 20 year old doing a 15 year old is a red herring usually paraded out be the libs to justify any deviant behavior. In these incidents they are routinely plead out to misdemeanors (lewd conduct) so these poor souls do not have to register and are not tracked.
Nobody expects these guys to be homeless (Zinger had it right, probably their choice to begin with) or to live under a bridge. There are outreach programs and halfway houses to accomodate those serious enough to get back on the straight and narrow.
Funny, I did a quick search of Florida’s sexual offenders database. I picked a random downtown Miami address and did a search with a 2 mile radius, and it came up with 191 offenders. Apparently, not all sexual offenders in Miami are “forced” to live under a bridge. In fact, it seems the vast majority of them find suitable housing.
Apparently, not all sexual offenders in Miami are “forced” to live under a bridge. In fact, it seems the vast majority of them find suitable housing.
Imagine that. I hadn’t bothered to click on Lee’s link, but decided to do so just to see where the story came from. Imagine my surprise to find that it was CNN....
OT, but....is the page taking forever to load for anyone besides me?
This is the problem with zero tolerance politics. When you lump in the pikers with the worst of the worst, it is difficult to organize your thoughts.
There is a world of difference between “Romeo and Juliet” and a 48 year old man with a preference for the little boys, yet there is no distinction on the “sex offender” lists. The 19 year old that slipped his date a drug to get some is the same as the kiddy diddler. I don’t know when we decided that was a good idea, but we did. Now Romeo is living under a bridge in Miami while his “traumatized victim” is comfortably married with 2.5 kids.
There is a world of difference between “Romeo and Juliet” and a 48 year old man with a preference for the little boys, yet there is no distinction on the “sex offender” lists.
Apparently you did not click the link I provided. On the list itself, there is a distinction made. Everyone on the list is a sexual offender, but the ones that have preferences for children have an extra little red frame around their pictures and an extra little red label of “PREDATOR” under their pictures.
And if, by Romeo, you mean this guy. Convicted of at least two counts of sexual battery upon a victim aged twelve or younger (he is one of the ones living under the bridge), pardon me if I just can’t get a whole lot of sympathy worked up for him.
Dang it, my links are not working. Well if you go to the first link I posted, and do a search of neighborhoods and use 108 NW 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33128 as a base reference and conduct the search with a 2 mile radius, that is what I was trying to link to.
The “Romeo” I referred to is towards the bottom and his name is Angel M. Sanchez. Click on his picture to link to his record.
Does this sound islamic to anyone?
Gays get a stone wall pushed over on them, rape victims get 50 lashes, retarded teenages get burried up to their necks and stoned to death.
Depositing sexual offenders under a bridge sounds really bizarre.
On the list itself, there is a distinction made. Everyone on the list is a sexual offender, but the ones that have preferences for children have an extra little red frame around their pictures and an extra little red label of “PREDATOR” under their pictures.
That would be because I don’t give a shit. I have always been opposed to offender lists. Why have Romeo on the list, then? In GA, our sages in the Legislature debated payday loans while a “Romeo and Juliet” clause to amend the statutory rape law languished like the “offenders” in State prison. These type of laws are just political bullshit.
Why should a man that had an apartment be kicked out of it because there has a pool? Not drug dealers, a pool. Keep an eye on your kid if you are worried about sex offenders. Either the guy paid his debt to society or he didn’t. If he is still a danger to society keep him locked up.
That would be because I don’t give a shit.
Sorry, but when you said:
This is the problem with zero tolerance politics. When you lump in the pikers with the worst of the worst, it is difficult to organize your thoughts.
There is a world of difference between “Romeo and Juliet” and a 48 year old man with a preference for the little boys, yet there is no distinction on the “sex offender” lists.
I interpreted your (erroneous) complaint about the lists as meaning you gave a shit. My mistake. Go ahead and wallow away in your ignorant rantings.
Why have Romeo on the list, then?
Because statistics show that sexual offenders have a particularly high rate of recidivism. As was noted earlier:
And that 20 year old doing a 15 year old is a red herring usually paraded out be the libs to justify any deviant behavior. In these incidents they are routinely plead out to misdemeanors (lewd conduct) so these poor souls do not have to register and are not tracked.[emphasis added}
Romeo, even though he is guilty of an actual felony, still gets off with a light sentence. Feel better now?
Keep an eye on your kid if you are worried about sex offenders.
And the rape victim was asking for it by dressing the way she did. Seriously, you can’t really be blaming the victims for being molested, are you?
I blame Grolsch :).
I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t give a shit about the broader issue. Lee’s original point was that it was a bit difficult to know how to feel about this issue. In Florida, they may make the distinction, but it is most likely a distinction without a difference. If you are on that list, your life will likely suffer for it whether you are under the causeway or forced into some other rat-infested shithole. Florida is a temperate place; this would be quite different in Boston.
How was the rape victim dressed, exactly? Sorry, I actually DO believe that you shouldn’t cry rape when half your ass cheeks are hanging out. I don’t buy alchoholism as a disease, either.
flogg, no offense, but you might want to join the 21st century, “no” really does mean “no”.
Rich, I agree, but ...
I was “date raped” in college, before date rape was a crime. Back then it was flogg getting to drunk to say no. Does that guy deserve to live under the Florida causeway? I will never believe that. He probably has a wife and two kids in college now.
We have lost the ability to think critically, guys. There IS such a thing as a girl being a fucking moron around drunk college boys. There IS such a thing as high school puppy love. These guys are not freaks, they are horny. To lump them in with the guy that rapes his two year old daughter is just fucked up.
Back then it was flogg getting to drunk to say no
I am assuming you do not condone his behavior, don’t think this guy should be charged with something so it isn’t a reocurring incident?
There IS such a thing as a girl being a fucking moron around drunk college boys
I will grudgingly say “maybe”, but I hope you aren’t saying that a girl can’t doll herself up and have a few drinks and still be safe from assualt.
I had an epiphany in college when I was dating my wife, we were getting dressed to go someplace fancy and she had her underwear drawer open and there was a display fit for Victoria’s Secret piled high. I was wondering what kind of girl I was dating and she told me that she likes to go out dancing with her girlfriends and she wears this stuff for her, it makes her feel good about herself.
From that point on I realized women can dressy sexy without expecting sex.
I am assuming you do not condone his behavior, don’t think this guy should be charged with something so it isn’t a reocurring incident?
There is wrong, and there is “Florida Causeway” wrong. We have managed to criminalize horniness.
I won’t go into detail (you can thank me later :) ), but this was a bit more than a few drinks.
From that point on I realized women can dressy sexy without expecting sex.
Ah, absolutely. I didn’t turn into an ice cube. I just learned to respect testosterone and what it does to the “weaker sex” :) ...
I had an epiphany in college when I was dating my wife, we were getting dressed to go someplace fancy and she had her underwear drawer open and there was a display fit for Victoria’s Secret piled high. I was wondering what kind of girl I was dating and she told me that she likes to go out dancing with her girlfriends and she wears this stuff for her, it makes her feel good about herself.
From that point on I realized women can dressy sexy without expecting sex.
The radio host Tom Leykis out here in LA has an interesting response to this claim from women that they dress sexy for themselves. He says something like, “Oh, really? You ever take a shower, shave your legs, spend two hours doing your hair and makeup to perfection, slip into a little black cocktail dress and some fuck-me pumps, then sit around the house by yourself and watch TV?”
There is wrong, and there is “Florida Causeway” wrong. We have managed to criminalize horniness.
One of my earlier posts addressed this worry.
Given all of its problems, people need to have more faith in the criminal justice system. Take killing somebody, there is first and second degree muder, criminal homicide, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, and criminal negligence leading to death. My point is that D.A.s have wide lattitude in deciding exactly what charge is appropriate for each crime. So all the “sexual” criminals are not going to be lumped together, they will be charged with different crimes, some felonies that need to register, and some with misdemeanors that do not.
Horniness is not a crime unless it goes against the will of the victim, then society decides what charges to file and what puishiment is meted out.
The radio host Tom Leykis out here in LA has an interesting response to this claim from women that they dress sexy for themselves. He says something like, “Oh, really? You ever take a shower, shave your legs, spend two hours doing your hair and makeup to perfection, slip into a little black cocktail dress and some fuck-me pumps, then sit around the house by yourself and watch TV?”
Thats why Leykis is on his umpteenth marriage, he has no clue when it comes to the opposite sex.
“The intellectual part of me says that this is ridiculous, that the Florida laws are an example of vast overreach by government, the nanny state gone mad. I understand the need to protect children from predators, and I’m all for that, but is a law this draconian the right approach? And I think there’s an assumption on our part that these guys are all convicted child molesters, when a “sex offense” can be something relatively benign like a 20 year old man sleeping with a 15 year old girl, or being a Peeping Tom, or something of that nature. Is it justifiable to empower the state to literally force someone to be homeless, despite the fact that they have ostensibly paid their debt to society?”
My first observation will be that a FL state sexual offender registry search turns up 2047 sexual offenders for Miami-Dade County. Five sexual offenders living under a bridge reflects more on the individuals than city ordinances.
Having said that. I still think there are many egregious problems with municipal laws stating that sex offenders can’t live here or there. I believe this is mostly a problem regarding state laws. I note five main problems. I will expand upon each.
1. The term “sex offender” is not rigorously defined.
2. The municipal laws assume all sex offenses are created equal.
3. Media flamed hysteria.
4. False sense of security.
5. Child molester should be in jail for life anyway.
1. The term “sex offender” is not rigorously defined.
Depending on which state you live in, a sex offense can mean as little as urinating in public. It could also mean a very drunken college student who was dared to streak across campus. Public nudity is a sex offense in most places. Ask yourself. Does urinating in public or a silly college stunt warrant a lifelong scarlet letter?
2. The municipal laws assume all sex offenses are created equal.
Keep in mind that these laws are made to protect the children. An 18 year old sleeps with his 16 year old girlfriend. Consent happens to be 17 in that state. Is it “protecting the children” when the boy gets a sex offender conviction and a virtual scarlet letter? Even if girl’s hateful father presses charges without the girl’s consent? Is this man a danger to random children on the street?
3. Media flamed hysteria.
The local news channel knows very well that nothing attracts viewers like “stranger danger.” Local news advertisements often read like this.
“Is there a sex offender in your neighborhood? Tune in to find out how to find them.”
“Find out how to protect your child from sexual predators tonight at 11.”
“Are your children being stalked on the internet?” See the surprising results of our investigation tonight on channel 14 news.
4. False sense of security.
All of this leads to a false sense of security. Unfortunately, the dirty old man at the end of the trailer park isn’t likely to molest your children. The most likely culprit would be your husband/wife, uncle, cousin, lifelong friend, etc.
5. Child molester should be in jail for life anyway.
This would negate the need for ill formed laws against sex offenders. Grandpa fondles his 11 year old grandson then goes to jail forever and there is no need for laws that put college streakers on a sex offender list.
Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.
“The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you,” he said.
Sounds like any number of stories my father relates about his tours in Vietnam. He was a cop for 35 years after that. And he never diddled a kid.
Thats why Leykis is on his umpteenth marriage, he has no clue when it comes to the opposite sex.
I’d say he has numerous clues.
Dakrat makes the most sense.
He says something like, “Oh, really? You ever take a shower, shave your legs, spend two hours doing your hair and makeup to perfection, slip into a little black cocktail dress and some fuck-me pumps, then sit around the house by yourself and watch TV?”
Only when I am watching TV at your house LEE!
The radio host Tom Leykis out here in LA has an interesting response to this claim from women that they dress sexy for themselves. He says something like, “Oh, really? You ever take a shower, shave your legs, spend two hours doing your hair and makeup to perfection, slip into a little black cocktail dress and some fuck-me pumps, then sit around the house by yourself and watch TV?”
Chris Rock did a good bit on this when he said women who dress like sluts aren’t sluts, but they are wearing the uniform. It’s kinda like dressing like a cop and when a crime happens saying “I’m not a cop, I only wear the uniform”.
Seriously, dressing like a slut is not so a woman can feel better about herself. It’s only so she can a) get laid or b) tease guys because she’s a shallow bitch with no sense of self worth beyond her tits. This follows along the lines of first impressions. If a woman wants her first impression of herself to be her tits or some other skin that’s fine. It’s just my experience that there isn’t much more to her after that.
Dakrat makes the most sense.
Stranger things have happened.
;)
Seriously, dressing like a slut is not so a woman can feel better about herself
How in the world do you guys make the connection between wearing sexy underwear and dressing like a slut?
I assumed that the recipients have had some meaningful relationships with actual females, otherwise, the context would be lost........and it appears this is what happened.
Jabba, if this is you
now I understand your difficulty.....(just kidding).
Jabba, if this is you
now I understand your difficulty.....(just kidding).
I wish I was still that thin!!!!!
It’s not that I don’t like a woman to be sexy, it’s just been my experience that women that need to dress like sluts are only attention getters. They lack any real substance. They are usually dipshits. The same can be said for guys. There are guys who always try to be the sexiest guy in the room, drive a sports car, and always the loudest. Often, there is nothing to back up their loud antics.
It’s not that I don’t like a woman to be sexy, it’s just been my experience that women that need to dress like sluts are only attention getters.
Not to belabor the point but you do understand the difference between wearing sexy lingerie (under you regular clothes with maybe a hint of lace showing at the clevage, or a seam in the stocking)and somebody dressing like a slut? I feel like I am pointng out the obvious, but in my mind, they are very different.
Next entry: Ban the Ban on the Ban!
Previous entry: Enema of the State
I thought sex offenders liked hanging out under bridges.