Last Thursday the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to strike down laws in Miami-Dade County, Florida, that restrict convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of where children gather. The problem with the law? Well, in the eyes of the American Civil Liberties Union, convicted sex offenders are living with too much restriction when it comes to where they can habitat and because these sex offenders are not able to find housing far enough away from where children gather, more and more have been living under a bridge.
The Julia Tuttle Causeway, which connects Miami to Miami Beach, has become home to at least 70 convicted sex offenders over the last three years. Law enforcement officials have said that ‘Tuttle’ is a public-safety hazard and while the 2,500-foot-law is intended to keep the public safe, some are contesting that the public includes these convicted sex offenders and that the law should be more relaxed, giving these people more leeway to be able to find a suitable home.
State and county officials have been pushing for changing one or more laws in order for these people to move into more permanent homes, but have seen politicians in the state shirking responsibility. Gov. Charlie Crist has placed responsibility for this case on local governments, saying that they have “the right to do what they feel is appropriate for the citizens that they serve.” The county commissioner, Jose Diaz, defended the county law by saying, “If I can save some kids from going through this agony, I’ve done my job.”
The fact that there is a lawsuit aiming to change “one or more laws” in order for convicted sex offenders to move into areas that they were otherwise not be permitted under any circumstances is horrifying. This entire case shows a level of laziness among state officials that is incomprehensible. On a humanist level it is not okay for people to be forced to live under a bridge, regardless of the record they hold. I firmly believe that every single human should have a roof over their head, a bed to sleep in, and food to sustain them; however, the safety of the people in which certain laws were created to protect should never, not for a second, be jeopardized and relaxing laws to allow convicted sex offenders to move closer to areas where children gather would most definitely be jeopardizing that security and safety.
This is a tragic case of laziness within the public service sector of Florida. Homelessness is a huge problem in the United States and given the fact that we are in the midst of a global recession, the number of people left homeless in this country will only logically rise. We need states to step up and either sustain the homeless shelters, spaces, and services already readily available or create these spaces in their communities so the people of their areas are not being forced to live under a bridge or in recently widely-known tent cities that are continuing to sprout up around the country. This mindset is also very much needed for convicted felons. As a survivor of childhood trauma and abuse, including sexual assault, I will be one of the first people to speak up for harsher prison sentences for those found guilty of these types of crimes and I will also be one of the first people to tell you that I don’t believe rehabilitation for convicted sex offenders is possible, which is precisely why states must ensure that they are equipped with the necessary resources and facilities in which these people can reside without infringing upon the safety of the people in the areas in which they live.
You can 
hi holly–i read occasionally and finally stopped to comment. this is a really complicated issue and i applaud you for bringing it up at all. and i respect your views as an assault survivor on the matter.
personally i have a lot of mixed feelings about these residency laws. the fact of the matter is that while they are designed to keep kids safe, it seems they have the opposite effect for exactly the reason that prompted this article–convicted offenders are forced out of homes and often congregate together on the streets or in the rare buildings that will accept them, which isn't really a safe environment from anyone. more importantly, this rootless existence makes it difficult for the offenders to be tracked by police and parole officers–a number of them drop of the radar entirely, again not safe.
on a humanitarian level, yes it's a matter of homelessness, but it goes deeper–in some cities that have these laws, the geographical make-up is such that the restrictions block offenders from living in the vast majority of the city, keeping them away from family, therapy, employment and other resources that should help them mainstream back into the community. many offenders are not allowed to have cars as conditions of their parole, so if forced to live in rural areas, they may not be able to get to work. now, i can't convince you that it's possible for sex offenders to be rehabilitated–and you're right, the numbers aren't very convincing–but i think it's fair to say that someone IS more likely to reoffend if they don't have access to any of the supports (family, jobs, counselling) that may have some chance of keeping them on the straight and narrow, so to speak. So isolating these folks might, again, be unsafe for the people the laws are meant to protect.
hi holly–i read occasionally and finally stopped to comment. this is a really complicated issue and i applaud you for bringing it up at all. and i respect your views as an assault survivor on the matter.
personally i have a lot of mixed feelings about these residency laws. the fact of the matter is that while they are designed to keep kids safe, it seems they have the opposite effect for exactly the reason that prompted this article–convicted offenders are forced out of homes and often congregate together on the streets or in the rare buildings that will accept them, which isn't really a safe environment from anyone. more importantly, this rootless existence makes it difficult for the offenders to be tracked by police and parole officers–a number of them drop of the radar entirely, again not safe.
on a humanitarian level, yes it's a matter of homelessness, but it goes deeper–in some cities that have these laws, the geographical make-up is such that the restrictions block offenders from living in the vast majority of the city, keeping them away from family, therapy, employment and other resources that should help them mainstream back into the community. many offenders are not allowed to have cars as conditions of their parole, so if forced to live in rural areas, they may not be able to get to work. now, i can't convince you that it's possible for sex offenders to be rehabilitated–and you're right, the numbers aren't very convincing–but i think it's fair to say that someone IS more likely to reoffend if they don't have access to any of the supports (family, jobs, counselling) that may have some chance of keeping them on the straight and narrow, so to speak. So isolating these folks might, again, be unsafe for the people the laws are meant to protect.
you can become a really humanity superheroes
A sex offender must register at the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where he/she resides. If he/she lives within the corporate limits of a city or town, he/she must register at the police department. If he/she lives outside the limits of a city or town, he/she must register at the county sheriff's department. A sex offender must register in all jurisdictions in which he/she establishes a residence. If a sex offender is not under criminal justice supervision, he/she may live wherever they choose.
A sex offender must register at the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where he/she resides. If he/she lives within the corporate limits of a city or town, he/she must register at the police department. If he/she lives outside the limits of a city or town, he/she must register at the county sheriff's department. A sex offender must register in all jurisdictions in which he/she establishes a residence. If a sex offender is not under criminal justice supervision, he/she may live wherever they choose.thanks.
very impressive article
hi.
your artical is so impressive
What made the government think that making the sex offenders live outside will make the lives of the children safer? Children who are often outside playing, hanging out with friends, and going to school. That is such an ironic ruling.
This is such a scary topic. I don't have any children but can understand the concern parents have.
This is such a scary topic. I don't have any children but can understand the concern parents have.
The law does seem to be a bit too strict. I am not to sure that I like having all those sexual preditors located in one area. Then what happens if a person is wrongly accused and then has to resort to living in such conditions. The system seems like it needs a bit of work in my opinion.