How not to deal with sex offenders
Dear Dr Pedro Greer,
Seeing as yesterday’s news here in the UK was dominated by the race to become the ‘Speaker’ of the House of Commons (which was eventually won by some prick called John Bercow), the shocking article on the BBC website about Miami’s treatment of their sex offenders will have escaped many people’s attention. A Miami law is now forcing many of the them to sleep rough under a bridge, to the point where the area under the Julia Tuttle Causeway in downtown Miami has become home for a growing community of about 70 convicted offenders. Let this be a lesson to those who think that former prisoners don’t have rights.
The offenders have ended up living in a makeshift tent city under one of the causeway’s bridges because of a local law which prohibits those who have sexually abused minors from living within 2,500 ft (760m) of anywhere where children congregate, such as schools, libraries and parks. After the local laws were enacted, Florida’s correctional authorities found there was virtually nowhere else for these people to live and began dropping them off at the bridge. Some of them have even been issued with driving licences with the bridge listed as their home address. “Welcome to American justice,” you said in your capacity as the Dean of Florida International University’s Department of Humanities, Health and Society. “We have people living together with mental and physical illnesses in an environment where people can’t possibly sleep because of the cars going by overhead – where you can smell the urine and see the trash mounting all around us.” For decades, you have been a leading advocate in Miami for homeless people and their right to receive adequate medical and social services and told the BBC that you have become increasingly angry at the existence of this camp and the failure to reintegrate these convicted sex offenders into society. “What we’re doing is we’re saying ‘let’s take the people that we most despise, that did some of the most egregious things in society and let them all get together and not supervise them and let them wander around the community’. This is the stupidest damn law I have ever seen and it’s purely mandated by revenge without any consideration for the well-being of these people – who deserve better despite the severity of their crimes.” The camp, made up of tents and makeshift huts, lacks running water, electricity or any form of sewage.
Ok, let’s be honest: sympathy for sex offenders is always likely to be in short supply. Not many members of the general public would even be that bothered about what you described to the BBC. Nevertheless, as a society I believe there are two things at stake here: 1. No-one should be forced to live in squalid conditions; 2. Once someone has been released from prison, they deserve to be treated like a member of society. To dump ex-offenders in a camp site under a bridge without even giving them drinking water, toilet facilities or showers is utterly disgusting and the city of Miami should be ashamed of themselves. Furthermore, by leaving these people completely unsupervised I would argue that some of them might pose an even greater risk to society than they would do if they lived somewhere where they could be monitored by the equivalent of probation officers and get back into full-time employment again to begin the task of rebuilding their lives. One of the most tragic problems in the British criminal justice system is that our drive to rehabilitate and reintegrate as many ex-offenders as possible is often woefully inadequate and probably underfunded as well, and it sounds like you have similar problems in Miami. I know that the law keeping these people away from children is well-intended, but when you end up with a situation like this, the law enforcement agencies have to realise that what they are doing is wrong and is bordering on inhumane.
You suggested to the BBC that the camp’s existence and the desperate conditions there serve as a troubling reflection of the values of modern-day Miami. “The question is – have we become a society that doesn’t let you die but lets you suffer? Do we just say we’re living in the Middle Ages – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? I think we’ve gone beyond that.” I hope you have, but it will take a brave politician to argue that sex offenders deserve better. No-one wants to be seen to be on the ‘wrong’ side of this debate, even though it is a debate that is becoming increasingly urgent.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
I know that the law keeping these people away from children is well-intended, but…
One step along the magnificently paved road to Hell?
Those crazy Americans. Now they genuinely have trolls living under their bridge. That’s pretty mental in addition to being inhumane and probably counterproductive as large numbers of sex offenders live together in a community of the depraved, largely unmonitored and completely incapable of getting a job due to their convictions. That has to be a recipe for more crime…
Before you condemn, ask yourself if you would be happy having one of these sex offenders living next door to you? The damage these people do to children is long lasting and often permanent – and quite often has severe psychological effects on the child that limits their life chances. These sex offenders rarely, if ever, reform – indeed most of them don’t even think they are doing anything wrong. They just see their actions as just being another sexual orientation like any other.
I don’t want them living in a tent city under some bridge either, though. Instead – if they have to be allowed to live – why not give them a nice place to go … like Alcatraz? If we have to let them out then castrate them and tattoo the word PAEDO across their forehead so that everyone knows what they are.
Sorry if this sounds “reactionary”, but why should I be required to watch my kids 24/7 just because some people think kiddy fiddlers have rights too? They prey on the most vulnerable people in society and perpetrate the most horrific acts upon them. By doing so they forfeit any rights they have – except one. The right to die quickly at the behest of the state.
Stan – did you see the Louis Theroux show on BBC2 about the paedos in that max security hospital from which they are generally never released even though they have served their sentence? Until I heard about this tent thing I was pretty undecided about it – post-sentence lockup is not really compatible with notions of justice – but if the alternative is living like a troll then maybe that is the right way to go!
I agree with all of the above but, there has to be some way of ensuring these people are safe to live amongst normal society acceptably. I know many people will scream “human rights” when I suggest a form of chemical castration but it seems to be the only answer. That and perhaps being electronically tagged for a probationary period as many of them just disappear and are not found again unless they re-offend.
The human rights of the innocent come first and in order to accommodate both sides of the fence, it’s the only solution other than physical castration.
Sue, the human rights of the innocent come first to an extent, but once someone is released from prison after their sentence, aren’t we now presuming that they are innocent too?
Stan, the issue of whether sexual offenders can ever be rehabilitated is a very, very difficult one to address. 100% accuracy in judging the likelihood of them re-offending is impossible, but then what do you do – accept this and release them anyway, or never release them? Justice and liberty both point towards the latter. Then again, what about the possible threat to the liberty of future victims if society gets it wrong?…..
Shaun and Patently, I agree on both counts.
“…the state of Miami should be ashamed of themselves. “
The state of Florida, though, is ok by you…?
Duly changed, thanks Julia.
“Sue, the human rights of the innocent come first to an extent, but once someone is released from prison after their sentence, aren’t we now presuming that they are innocent too?”
Tricky one. In principle, for ‘normal’ crimes, I agree.
But these people have a compulsion – they are, in effect, mentally ill (despite whether they meet the rather narrow criteria to be legally mentally ill), many do not see what they do as wrong, and we have to do something with them as a result, that we don’t necessarily need to do with fraudsters, bank robbers and muggers.
I think the max security hospital that Shaun mentioned from the Theroux documentary is probably the way to go, though tremendously resource-intensive…
@Stan – As it happens, as a boy I lived next door but one to a convicted sex offender. He owned a newsagents and went to prison in the ’40s for fiddling with paper boys.
My mother warned me not to have anything to do with him and that was that. He was a bachelor and lived with two spinster sisters in a quiet London suburban street. He kept himself very much to himself.
It seems to me that this was a more civilised arrangement than the hysteria that would be evident these days and a much more healthy approach for both him and society.
Agreed.
“A Miami law is now forcing many of the them to sleep rough under a bridge”
I wonder whether they’ll ever introduce that in Venice?
We will never be able to decide how to treat these people until we can decide what they are.
If they are criminals, then they have the ability to control what they do and have decided to abuse that ability. Hence we lock them up until their sentence is complete and then release them back into society as free citizens. If they still pose a risk, then that is a criticism of our sentencing and/or our penal policy – Labour’s indeterminate sentences seem to be a good idea in this regard.
If they are incurably ill, then we must accept that they have little or no control over their actions – and therefore normal concepts of blame do not attach to them. They, in turn, must accept that once diagnosed they say goodbye to normal society forever. This would suggest a two-part asylum; a pleasant section in which they could live comfortably and a penal section (resembling a prison) into which they move as a punishment for breaking the terms of the first section – but not for the lapses that led to their diagnosis.
At the moment, we seem to treat them as both criminal and ill, seeking to punish them for something we agree they cannot prevent, whilst arguing that this is merited because the punishment will not deter them.
The problem is, both approaches are expensive. And while everyone seems to want them locked up/monitored 24/7/365, I doubt whether the money is there to pay for it…
‘The problem is, both approaches are expensive. And while everyone seems to want them locked up/monitored 24/7/365, I doubt whether the money is there to pay for it… ‘
Julia, you’re right. The glorious government has given it all to the bankers so they can continue to enjoy their huge bonuses…
The real problem with all criminality is that no-one really understands why it happens. All criminals must first set aside the morals under which the law abiding majority live. How do they do it? Is there a deficiency with the criminal which could be referred to as a condition or disease? Is it curable?
With sex offenders, this question is even more difficult because it affects not only the treatment of offenders, but the safety of our own wives and children.
I am one who believes that there is little evidence to suggest that sex offenders are rehabilitated, but that some are able to control their worst urges with help and training. With this being the case, I don’t think that serious offenders, those who cause direct harm to a child or have committed rape of a stranger, (rather than those who have had internet related sentences or young men who have been convicted but not jailed under the ‘young man’s’ rule), should be held indefinitely, unless there is very good cause to believe they have achieved a safe state.
Of course, we can’t do that easily because of the EU courts.
As for the Miami policy, only in America could such stupidity and brutality occur. I used to love the idea of America, now I see them as just another powerful but self deluded revolutionary state at times, totally blind to their own failings.
It seems that the modern paedophile is the replacement for the middle-ages witch, the slightest whiff of suspicion and “BURN THEM!!!” Problematically, “paedophilia” is as often a purely administrative offence rather than a truly repellent act.
For instance, one of the “pedos” (sic) quoted in the BBC report had been jailed for having consensual sex with a 16 year-old girl – illegal under that state’s law but perfectly legal under many other states, and indeed our own UK laws (unless he was a teacher and she one of his pupils). Is he a “paedo”? If he is, then I suppose I must be, as when I was 17 my girlfriend was 16, but fortunately we lived in England.. OTOH I could have lived in Spain and had a 13-year-old g/f perfectly legally.
“Paedophila” needs better definition.
by some prick called John Bercow)
On the other hand, I believe he was one who questioned Blair, on the floor, about attending the Bilderberg Conference.
LFAT, very easy for you to say. My daughter was assaulted by a paedophile with a knife around her throat in broad daylight when she was 13. I can safely say, I wish him dead!
He was released after a series of rapes, just ready to come out and do it again to my daughter and 13 other girls.
Think about it, what if it were a female member of your family, how “humane” would you feel then?
Teacher raped by 15-year-old pupil blames school for ‘putting her in the way of a rapist’
@Sue – I agree entirely, but surely we’d be better off with such people behind bars for life than hanging around under bridges?
I’m all for that, psychiatric wards would be more appropriate, these people are sick and should not be allowed to be amongst general society.
The trouble is, they have human rights and as LFAT said, once they have served their sentences, the law sees them as having “paid their dues”.
What do you do then? Trust that they don’t go out and rape another woman or ruin another child’s life. The human rights of the innocent MUST come first.
As Spock said on The Wrath of Khan
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”
Of course, this is where hysteria leads us. Paedophiles have become a modern demon. The word is indiscriminately bandied about as a catch-all for a variety of different types of person. Most problematic is the question of what defines a child, and gets anyone criticising the perceived wisdom into dangerous territory- where I am about to wander.
A paedophile is clinically defined as somebody with a sexual compulsion towards children. Children are defined as pre-pubescent. But legally anyone under 16 (in the UK) or 18 (in some parts of the US) is legally a child. Thus anyone who has sex with a teenager is considered popularly to be a “paedo”. But they would not be, clinically.
In clinical terms, a person with a compulsion towards post-pubescent under-age teenagers is an ephebophile. Jonathan King appears to be an ephebophile. So, it would appear, was gay martyr Oscar Wilde. In fact, pederasty has generally been directed towards teenagers, not children. That does not make it right or proper, but it does make it different. Unfortunately, in the current hysteria, nobody is interested in the distinction.
We maintain a fiction that teenagers are not sexually attractive until a magic switch is thrown by the legal system on their 16th (or 18th) birthday. This is a nonsense. It is fair to say that they are not adults, or fully adult, but ignores the fact that they are not biologically or emotionally children either. Once puberty is passed, they start to become sexual beings, have sexual feelings, and be attracted to and- more importantly- attractive to other people- healthy normal people who are aroused by the normal secondary sexual characteristics. Well before I was of legal age, many of my peers, particularly the girls, were sexually active, and I was very keen to be but the greasy hair, spots and anorak rather frustrated my desires at the time. I remember being very strongly attracted when 15 to a 14 year old dancer at the local theatre where I worked (and almost got the courage to ask her out, haha) was I a teenage paedophile? Of course not. I was normal.
I’m not attracted to 14 year olds any more, but I would be lying to deny that a well developed 14 or 15 year old may not catch my eye in passing. I know that several of the girls in my class at school, well before legality, had older boyfriends. Were these older teenagers padeophiles, or even ephebophiles? No, they were simply normal young men reacting to the womanliness of these girls who happened to be under an arbitrary legal age.
We don’t know how many “padeophiles” are actually just men who got carried away with somebody sexually mature but under age. We don’t know how many are ephebophiles rather than paedophiles. We don’t know what proportion of the terrorising statistics regarding child pr0n are material involving teenagers rather than children. We don’t know how many people have simply been swept up in a merciless hysteria. We can all agree that a man (or woman) who violates a child has done soemthing so contemptible as to be beyond comprehension to us, and it is hard to think of a punishment drastic enough. But when we get into the realm of teenagers, we should be more subtle in our considerations.
Rape is an horrific crime, deserving the fullest punishment. But the question of whether a man who rapes an underage teenager is a paedophile is debatable. It may be more congruent with reality to treat him as a rapist, rather than as a paedophile. The presumption that he is a danger to children may mislead us from the actual case that he is a danger to women in general. And a serial rapist is, simply put, a mental case. Whether they should be treated as a criminal or as a permanently dangerous psychopath and locked up forever in a mental institution is one we should consider. What seems to be entirely irrational is to release a person into society, and then bar them from participating in society, which is where the current apparatus of registers and restraints has led us.
Well, a lot of waffle there. I think what I’m trying to say is that we need to try to restore some calm, and to recognise that an 8 year old is a far more different creature to a 14 year old than a 14 year old is to a 16 year old, and that perhaps slinging a man who has had consensual sex with the 14 year old in the same life-destroying sin bin as a man who raped an 8 year old is not sensible. Whether raping a 16 or 20 year old at knifepoint is a less unspeakable crime than raping a 13 year old at knifepoint I do not know. It is rather the same as discussing whether a dictator who killed two millions is more evil than one who killed but a single million. At some point, evil just bottoms out.
I think we are all aware of that Ian. I was a 14 year old girl too and in the liberated 60’s mini skirt days!
No, I am talking dangerous rapists and paedophiles that are mentally ill.
“…surely we’d be better off with such people behind bars for life than hanging around under bridges? “
It depends on what part of their anatomy they are suspended by, doesn’t it?
@JuliaM – funny
Well thought out post, Ian B. I long ago gave up getting excited about “Paedofiles” because the word has become completely devalued. If you are going to use the same word to describe someone who buggers toddlers and someone who pinches a 15yo on the bum while drunk then the word has no useful meaning.
Maybe I’ll write a letter in future about the role of the media in ‘Paedo-files’, seeing as they certainly have to take some responsibility for where we’ve got to.