But Did Anyone Check the Distance to the Nearest Playground?
A man in Martin County, FL has been sentenced to 25 years in prison in a case involving AI-generated child sexual abuse images, according to CBS12 News. That’s a serious sentence for serious conduct.
But here’s a question for the lawmakers who seem to believe that keeping registered citizens a certain distance from schools, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and anywhere else children might conceivably congregate is the key to public safety: Exactly how would a residency restriction have prevented this offense?
You see, the man happened to be incarcerated in a Martin County jail cell when this crime occurred. He was using a contraband cellphone.
Did a 1,000-foot buffer stop him? Did a 2,500-foot exclusion zone prevent the creation of these images? Would moving someone out of a neighborhood have prevented the conduct? Come on!
Florida lawmakers keep adding restrictions on where people can live, work, and go, as though drawing increasingly elaborate circles on a map will somehow eliminate these types of sexual offenses. Yet this case illustrates an obvious limitation of that approach.
Maybe if he’d been in a prison cell that was 2,501 feet of a playground, this would have never happened?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I SUPPORT THE RESTRICTIONS 100%, OUR KIDS COME FIRST OVER EVERYTHING.
Mr. D. Please explain how the residency restriction was effective in preventing this case.
This guy is a troll.
I doubt that he can. He’s been on this site before. He likes to antagonize.
Better yet, ask him to find one case, anywhere and at any time, that would have been prevented by residence restrictions. Or any of the other restrictions for that matter.
When he doesn’t answer that, ask him why the small handful of registrants who commit more sex crimes are always 100% registry compliant.
I can’t help but wonder what the “D” in Mr. D. stands for. A few 7 and 8 letter phrases come to mind.
Whomever you are Mr. D, please support your position. We would all like to know what facts you are using to support your shouting in your comment.
Too bad those restrictions, don’t protect children. Because we can still live right next to them. So, what is the point of them?
Mr. D
You just need a big ole hug.
Basically, NO restriction will stop someone who is Hell bent on doing a crime, that does not mean the rest of us should suffer who haven’t re-offended. Me as an example, I have not re-offended in almost 40 years. Even murderers eventually get relief, why can’t we if we have a proven record that we have made amends.
The bible teaches us to forgive and forget and learn a lesson from the experience. And we are not allowed to contact our victims so no way to even do the forget part and ask for forgiveness.
Have a blessed day.
If “our kids come first over everything,” then why do you support residency restrictions that make individuals homeless, thereby increasing the risk that they will reoffend? If it’s all about “kids coming first over everything,” wouldn’t you instead support laws that reduce the risk of children being sexually abused? All of the scientific research on this topic (all of it–and there is a lot) has proven that residency restrictions have the opposite of the intended effect by destabilizing the lives of individuals trying to reintegrate into society. Which is more important to you? Adding on additional punishment years after individuals have been released, or reducing the risk of children being abused? The research says we cannot have both. (Also, in case you are not aware, residency restrictions only prevent individuals from sleeping near schools and parks between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.: times when no children are present at those locations.)
What about kids living with a parent who’s on the registry?
Do those kids get to have a parent take them to school, park, etc.?
Or do we trust the state to decide that for them?
Because I often find that people like you don’t care about protecting “our kids” as much as you say you do.