I honestly doubt that this is unintended. I'm assuming that the hope was that they would just leave the city altogether, since the law essentially made it impossible to live there. What may have been unintended was the geographic loophole that the water in the middle of Miami created, resulting in a donut hole of legal sex offender residences.

"Dangerous sex offenders convicted of abusing children"? Not always. Turns out that non-violent offenses like consensual statutory rape between teens, and even non-sexual offenses such as public indecency due to urinating behind a bush or in an alley can get a person on the sex offender list.

For more on this topic, see:

http://jackbootedliberal.com/2009/05/oppose-the-georgia-sex-offender-registry/

I concur with jfruh - this is absolutely the intended consequence for sex offenders.

People are so repulsed by the crime, we/they have no problem with offenders being given a life sentence (in effect), and you'll be hard pressed to drum up support for them - even in a human rights context.

There's probably some really interesting questions to be asked about why we have such strong reactions to sex crimes (hell, for sex in general!), and why our human calculus is quickly discarded when the target is a sex offender.

Because in the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad called the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.

DUN-DUN!

....sorry, reflex. It was Richard Belzer's (a.k.a. Det. Munch) birthday the other day. In an effort to make this pointedly nonsensical comment sociologically relevant, I'll just suggest that there is a heck of a dissertation waiting to be written about the Law & Order franchise, if it hasn't been already.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding the central thesis here: what makes Miami different from any other major metropolitan area?

How can the layout be that different? Isn't this more likely the result of some Miami police initiative?

(Never been to Miami, so sorry if that's a dumb question or inappropriate attitude--this is just literally unbelievable to me.)

Be a helluva place to break down if you were driving over that bridge in the middle of the night. The reflexive and horrifying imagery and bad thoughts that such a scenario tends to induce may be related to why those people got stuffed under the bridge in the first place.

When I first got to the part about the parole officers telling them to live under a bridge I thought it was a joke I wasn't getting. It looks like the parole officers want these people to either commit a crime of some sort so they can toss 'em back in the jug or to just roll over and die (any crime will do, and living under a bridge will help hurry it up either way) .

I think the reason why our crumbling justice system is so FUBARed and only getting worse is that there's a strong profit motive to imprison people. That is one of the most antisocial vested interests a corporation could have (or government could allow), and due to the nature of corporations it's also a Ponzi scheme that could tear this country apart when it finally fails. Corporations are about constant growth (like cancer), and in the context of the prison industry that's a scary thought indeed. They will constantly need an influx of new 'customers,' and that means you and me. I guess we'd better behave!

Government 'services' that ought to be privatized include routine administrative nuisances like renewing car tags or something like that; for-profit prisons are creating a nightmare that will take several generations to recover from, partly thanks to the fact that overcrowded and understaffed prisons are very effective at turning non-violent offenders into violent ones (gotta reach our profit projections to keep the shareholders happy so we laid off some guards...). When, and I mean when this system collapses it's going to be spectacular. Sex offenders living too close to a church are going to be the least of anyone's worries.

And there's something really superstitious about the minimum distance requirement dictating where convicted sex offenders can live; how many violent offenders lived that close to a school, church, or park in the first place? Even if they worked in one of those places, I'm guessing in many cases they drove from their home to where the crime was committed, took a bus, or possibly even walked (though it does seem like few people walk more than 2500 feet in a day anymore, so that's less likely). I've even heard rumors that a few sexual predators have figured out how to use the interweb!

I am not sure what the uproar is. The solution to this problem is to not become a child sex offender. I suppose Joshua has a point, that some sex offenses are non-violent offenses, but without any data it is hard to determine the proportion -- which I would imagine is relatively low.

I am all for human rights for some convicted criminals, but when an individual does something that is not consensual to another person, especially one in a weaker position, shouldn't that be a crime against the society as much as against the individual?

Isn't having a television program telling people exactly where these sex offenders live (and they can't leave, as I understand it, because of parole conditions), literally saying that ALL of the homeless people under that bridge are dangerous sex offenders, inviting people to come and assault them?

Granted, I'm not sure of how the story can be told without a degree of specificty, and the information is available publically. Still, broadcasting the information and highlighting their vulnerable state would surely have a degree of predictable negative consequences that would normally be considered unacceptable. (Unless there are security measures taken up afterwards that were not mentioned.)

Newsweek just recently had an excellent article about this. It specifically talks about the lobbyist who pushed for these regulations because of the abuse that his daughter suffered, but how now that they see the unintended consequences, they are fighting to do something about it. Very excellent piece.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/208518

All the attention given to registered sex offenders gives a distorted perception of the more likely perpetrators of sex crimes against children. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 93% of children who are victims of sexual abuse are victimized by family members or acquaintances. 94% of those arrested for the sexual molestation of children in New York State are first time offenders who are not listed on any registry. To put it another way, if a child has been the victim of sexual abuse, the odds are 4 in 1,000 that the child was victimized by a stranger who is a registered sex offender. The odds are far greater, 874 in 1,000, that the child was victimized by a family member or acquaintance who is not listed on the sex offender registry.
- David Hess, Rochester, NY

About 95 % of all child sex abuse occurs IN THE HOME! A fact that we still don't want to admit.
Now if you separate the following from those the approximately 700,000 registered sex offenders.
1. Who did not know their victim.
2. The VIOLENT rapist.
3. the REPEAT offender
we would have a recidivist rate of about 1%. OR LESS!

The TRUTH of the matter is that children are safer walking down the street than living in their own homes!

The REAL danger is incest and friends of the family. Those known to the family, doctors, dentist, teachers, etc.

Study the FACTS and you will be a better parent for it. There are enough laws on the books to deal with an offender, should they commit a second offense. We do NOT have to punish the entire community for individual repeat acts of a few.

STUDY'S

http://tinyurl.com/ns36qu

see News Clip
Do residency restrictions for sex offenders work?
http://media.49abcnews.com/video/2008/05/19/sxoffenders.mov

The situation under the JTC is not "unintended consequences," but rather UNCONSIDERED consequences. There was research out from Minnesota and Colorado YEARS before Miami decided to pass the ordinance. The situation with Iowa served to illustrate the consequences of ill-conceived, feel good legislation that backfired. many cities and state across America chose to ignore the warning signs and pass these laws because they are popular. But these laws are like sugar pills for the terminally ill, they serve no purpose but to make people feel good. Powerful Florida lobbyist certainly felt good by aggressively campaigning for these laws. But as the head of the Homeless Trust, he's had to (grudgingly) solve the very problem his campaign created.

The very replies here by the posters, as well as the comments made by the CNN news crew, only further need to reconsider these laws. It has become painfully obvious that these laws are not considered a "preventive measure," but a tool to extract revenge. Many of those would feel different, however, if one of their loved ones got caught up in this intricate web of laws and loathing. There was only one comment in the 10 minute segment considering that many of those on the registry will never re-offend, or that Florida has put many people on the registry for acts like teens having consensual relations with other teens. The "Big Registry" is the newest American industry, and more registrants equal big bucks. Florida has no incentive for sex crime legal reforms. Scaring the hell out of the American public rakes in cash, and CNN is no different. This begs the question -- how do you address the 95% of sex crimes committed by someone NOT on the public registry?

This was not an equal round table discussion. The JTC residents have a spokeswoman, Mary Duval from www.sosen.us. Maybe next time CNN should be a little more objective in their reporting. Below is also a link for more information into the Julia Tuttle Causeway crisis:

http://www.oncefallen.com/juliatuttlecauseway.html

I think it is time for a different approach. The fear and revenge motivated system of justice is a commercial cash cow but a colossal societal failure. Treatment and reintegration programs are key, as these are the ONLY proven tactic to reduce recidivism among convicted offenders. Furthermore, we need to be educated on the facts regarding sex crimes and offenders; far too much of our perceptions have been made on the basis of fear driven propaganda, myths, lies and inconsistencies.

In this CNN report, I must personally interject this thought. A few times a little truth was mentioned. i.e. recidivist rate 5% but for the most part, they don't know what the hell they are talking about

The ratings hungry pundits of CNN do not know what the hell they are talking about.

What they need to do is talk to Mary duval, 1-918-575-0193, (posted with permission), the "spokesperson" for the former offenders under the bridge. They are NOT dangerous, like the CNN broadcast portrays them to be.

Mary is totally blind but I guarantee you that she knows more facts than all these pundits put together, and then some. GRRRRRRR

Miami-Dade Lobbyist, Ron Book created this mass hysteria in Florida, after discovering that the nanny HE HIRED was sexually abusing his daughter. He went on a vicious campaign, labeling everyone on the registry as "Monsters." As a result of his stranger danger, fear mongering, Miami-Dade and other counties, extended their ordinances from the State Law of 1000 ft to local ordinances of 2,500 feet.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES. DUH!

MSLGWCEO: Your efforts and knowledge are commendable, but like I was trying to say as delicately as possible earlier none of the facts and figures matter at this point because there is no discussion whatsoever going on in the relevant quarters. It's not about anything except money, and while profits are rolling none of it is bad news. The people behind turning social problems into social disasters know all the things you're saying but they do not give a flying fuck about any of this, or about the innocent or the non-violent who get caught up in the brutality of this system.

If one of the many, many Scarlet Letters available nowadays can be hung around your neck (by hook or by crook), then one will be put there just as soon as a good pretext comes along and if you're not connected enough to get out of it. It's just good business (and nothing personal, mind you). It doesn't matter if it's 'sex offender,' 'drug dealer,' 'DUI,' or whatever, once properly labeled and stigmatized anything from a significant depletion of your finances to the systematic dismantling of your life is then legally justified and so will certainly happen (unless you "know someone"). You may even be "officially" stuffed under a bridge.

If you do end up in a for-profit prison you will then be used as a slave laborer, making even more money for other people and further eviscerating your dignity. So what happens next after people get out of such facilities filled with rage, totally broke, mindfucked, and having had minimal to no therapy or treatment for any addictive behaviors? It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and isn't: More crimes are committed. The net public safety benefit of prisons is demonstrably negative, BUT that improves the bottom line of a few investors and allows accurate forecasting of future crime trends (easy to do when you're a root cause of the trend), which is in fact done and used in profit projection presentations to shareholders of prison corporations. Look into that, and meditate on it for a few minutes then decide if gathering more statistics is in order or if perhaps it's time to gather pitchforks and torches (I think I'm speaking metaphorically, but I'm not sure). If we don't go in and dismantle the for-profit prison industrial complex one way or another, it will implode and dismantle us.

Then again, we're not too many years away from a global crisis of unimaginable scale involving potable water supplies, so all these relatively minor social ills are likely going to be moot soon enough.

MSLGWCEO, I agree with what you are saying, that this makes no one safer. But read that Newsweek article I linked. Ron Book is now trying to undo this mess, so give him some credit. I think Author-Advocate is right in pointing out that these are unconsidered, not just unintended consequences. But if someone makes a mistake and admits it and tries to fix it, we should note that, not continue to bash them. Of course, I'd rather the mistake not be made in the first place, but you know what they say about those without sin and the first stone...

Most of you are assuming that Miami-Dade Counties registered sex offenders are legal US citizens. They are not. You people can whine and debate all day long on this issue. But your arguments would become moot if Immigration would go into Dade and in one fell swoop detain and deport those offenders who technically dont belong on US soil.

Certainly you read or watched our resident bridgerat "Marquez" demand we feed house and clothe him "in Spanish". This guy even quoted he wanted to go back to Cuba and no one is accomadating him!

This isnt some midwestern state, 3/4 of Florida's criminals are illegal or whats the term? "freedom seeking refugees" Offenders and their advocates should be outraged that for every foot of available housing the state must allot to these guys, takes one more foot or housing unit away from our own citizens even if those citizens are convicted sex offenders...dont take my word for it, go to the FDLE website and look-up Miami-Dade and you tell me these guys are US citizens..

These consequences are not unintended, they are UNCONSIDERED. None of these laws have any basis in "evidence based research." If it has "sex offender" on the bill, it automatically gets passed with out debate. In fact, the entire Adam Walsh Amendment (AWA), was passed under "Suspension of Rules," meaning "without debate."

"America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders. Does it work?"
http://tinyurl.com/kox9y7

Quotes, "At least 13 states required registration for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

Illegal alians, sex offender or not is off topic. The issue here is the absolutely draconian residence restrictions which protect absolutely no one and actually, "endanger everyone"

And Paula Zahn is just another bubble headed reporter that keeps duping the public with "emotional" issues, without real investigative journalistic integrity. Ratings are worth more to CNN than truth. Fear sells, emotion sells, and to hell with the truth.

There is only one clear solution to this. DO AWAY WITH RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ALTOGETHER! They don't work! They protect no one, yet endanger our entire society.

These men need a stable home and jobs. What is so hard to understand about that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand such as simple solution. But it does take Ron Book and the state legislator's to muck this up.

Oh, well why didn't anyone mention they were "illegal?" If that's the case, then who gives a damn what happens to them, eh? Never mind the fact that the vast majority of people who are in this country illegally would much rather be back in their home country, but due to things like NAFTA, the WTO, and the IMF their home economies are trashed (Clinton militarized the US/Mexican border in 1996 in anticipation of the consequences of NAFTA). Ultimately, people coming here to work and sending money back home before returning themselves is probably a lot cheaper than aid and peacekeeping missions to feed them if they stayed home, starved, and eventually destabilized their country (that's not ideal if it happens to the country next-door, for example).

The very idea of an "illegal" human being is repugnant. And irrelevant. It's a good thing a plaque that can be found inside a big statue off the coast of New York wasn't written in Spanish or lots of people would realize it was apparently a bogus PR stunt:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That's some funny stuff to read these days. A possible update might be "Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, and I will hide them under a bridge until something horrible happens and the press gets a hold of it."

The so-called illegals will no doubt stay under the bridge until their parole is up. After all this is about $$$$. Keep them on the roasters for the love of $$$$!

Just remember for every accomadation I have to give to an illegal is one less I can give to a United States Citizen...for you people up in rural USA that dont have the monthly influx of illegals that I do...2000 a month...dont try and tell me what to do with homeless offenders....the majority of sex crimes committed in this state is by these guys...thats what you have to love about sex offenders and their advocates...they are too stupid to realize people like me while having little tolerance, would still rather house my own offenders than be shoved up against a wall to house illegals..

The Economist magazine has just released an important feature article entitled, “ Sex Laws: Unjust and Ineffective .” In an indirect way, the article makes a point that I have been trying to get across in my work on this issue : If you want to keep your kids safe from real sex offenders, we need to scrap our current sex offender registries and completely rethink the way we define and punish sex offenses in this country. That’s because, currently, a significant percentage of those people lis

http://tinyurl.com/mvag2c

I would point out that making sex offenders homeless also makes them a lot harder to keep track of. So if one of these sex offenders decides to move to another city or state, the parole officers notices they are missing and issues a warrant but what else can they do?

I showed this post to my fiance because he did, in fact, once spend a few months homeless in Miami, and his response was, "Oh, yeah, I know that bridge... Wait, isn't it just water under there? How do they even get down there? God, they might as well just kill them!"

Illinois Law, the slippery slope revealed! Please review carefully page two (2) of this article. It stipulates that in Greenwood IL there is a law pending or on the books banning convicted sex offenders AND DRUG OFFENDERS from the parks. What next, DUI offenders from ever driving on the public roads, litterers from using the sidewalks, former drug addicts from using public rest rooms, former shop lifters from going in stores?

The link: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090818/NEWS02/908180354/Indiana+Supreme+Court+asked+for+clarity+on+local+sex+offender+restrictions

Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.
Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.

She found that while the offenders were located in 36 states, most were in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California had the most offenders, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Florida.