So where did they move the Cuban boat people to?
- Thread starter leftyman
- Start date
In Scarface wasn't Tony also under a bridge when he arrived. Or is this what you are trying to say?
They could at least give them a van...
As I asked in the thread I posted since this was completely unfindable if searching for it, how exactly can the state tell them that they must live under a bridge? They aren't in prison anymore. The law only says where they can't live, not where they must live. Other than incarceration or other forms of detention, what gives the state any right to make them live in any particular place? Forget the fact of what crimes they committed. What's to stop the state just telling all homeless people they have to move down to the bridge? Or coming to your house (assuming you live in Florida) and telling you they want you to move 2 houses down?
As I asked in the thread I posted since this was completely unfindable if searching for it, how exactly can the state tell them that they must live under a bridge? They aren't in prison anymore. The law only says where they can't live, not where they must live. Other than incarceration or other forms of detention, what gives the state any right to make them live in any particular place? Forget the fact of what crimes they committed. What's to stop the state just telling all homeless people they have to move down to the bridge? Or coming to your house (assuming you live in Florida) and telling you they want you to move 2 houses down?
probation: supervised release, we let you go but you have limits on what you're allowed to do in order to reduce the temptation to commit another crime
Ordering freed inmates to live somewhere in particular is not part of probation (usually). Ordering them to live without proper shelter, in a rat-infested area, would be just plain illegal.They HAVE completed the incarceration part of their sentence, the part that says where they have to live.
On the one hand, unfairly punishing these people by basically forcing them to be homeless isn't the right way to handle this. Two wrongs don't make a right.
On the other hand, they're child molesters. They'd be pretty low on my priority list of things to fix, too.
On the other hand, they're child molesters. They'd be pretty low on my priority list of things to fix, too.
For the sake of argument, change it to just being 5 ex-drug dealers who have turned their lives around and are now doing great good for the community, but who aren't allowed to live near schools.
Apparently they're pretty high on the list for the prison system (which they should be of course), but it's not right that their solution is to shove them into a place that isn't even legally habitable. If they were just homeless guys, they'd probably be getting kicked OUT from under the bridge by the cops.
I don't think that was their intended solution, it's simply a byproduct of agressive protection of children. When the law favors one side, the other side naturally gets screwed. Rape Shield laws put the man at an unfair disadvantage, statutory rape laws put the adult at an unfair disadvantage, several procedural laws put Cops at a disadvantage, etc...
We have our stuff that we as a society protect at the expense of whatever threatens them. Children, women, accused criminal's rights, whatever. That stuff is important to us so we protect them at the cost of fairness all-around.
Well preventing them from being near children isn't the solution at issue here.
The law just says they can't live within 2500 feet of where children congregate, and that happens to result in limited housing when in an urban area. The solution the state seems to have come up with is to order the men to live under a bridge. A location that is NOT a legal residence, and the state can't just declare it to be one. Even a condemned building would be a better candidate for a residence, at least it might have walls. Just because the men couldn't find a place to live doesn't give the state the right to put them into conditions worse than any prison in the country. Even if they violated parole, they'd just go back to prison. They're being treated worse than people still in jail.
Now, it may be that the article is just very biased and words things to make it seem worse than it is. If the men have CHOSEN to live under the bridge because it was the best place they can find, that's a completely different story. That's not the impression the article gives though. If it was by choice, then whatever, the probation officer checking them daily is only responsible for verifying where they are each night, not making sure they're in a legal residence or loitering or anything like that. This is what I first thought the situation was, but the wording of the article makes it seem clear that the state said for them to live there.
The law just says they can't live within 2500 feet of where children congregate, and that happens to result in limited housing when in an urban area. The solution the state seems to have come up with is to order the men to live under a bridge. A location that is NOT a legal residence, and the state can't just declare it to be one. Even a condemned building would be a better candidate for a residence, at least it might have walls. Just because the men couldn't find a place to live doesn't give the state the right to put them into conditions worse than any prison in the country. Even if they violated parole, they'd just go back to prison. They're being treated worse than people still in jail.
Now, it may be that the article is just very biased and words things to make it seem worse than it is. If the men have CHOSEN to live under the bridge because it was the best place they can find, that's a completely different story. That's not the impression the article gives though. If it was by choice, then whatever, the probation officer checking them daily is only responsible for verifying where they are each night, not making sure they're in a legal residence or loitering or anything like that. This is what I first thought the situation was, but the wording of the article makes it seem clear that the state said for them to live there.
Sure sounds like the state is telling them where to live, from the wording of the article.
"Florida's solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway."
"It's not an ideal solution, Department of Corrections Officials told CNN, but at least the state knows where the sex offenders are."
"With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway."
"State officials say unless the law changes their hands are tied, and for now the sex offenders will stay where they are: under a bridge in the bay."
I might even have thought maybe they just suggested that location for the men, but the wording makes it sound definitively that the state said "you are going to live under this bridge so that we know where you are".
It's still possible it's just poorly worded, or not clarified well enough. The "moved them under the causeway" part may just indicate that the DoC helped them move their stuff there, since one guy had an apartment and has a car and a job. But in total, the article does not make it sound like it was a choice.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter