The issue of the clustering of people on the sex offender registry in Tampa continues. Fortunately the council members are interested in the research and will be holding a workshop on November 30 to study the matter further. FAC has contacted some experts in this area and is reaching out to the council to hopefully include these people in the workshop discussion.
This part of the October 19 meeting begins at 1:09:15.
Cant wait to see what they come up with concerning
all the children that got molested— kid napped at play grounds and bus stops and or any other place that children congregate by a registered person. They will have io settle (IF ANY} for ones that the registry or a 500-1500 foot law would not have prevented. Just like Adam Walsh,, [moderated], Adam Walsh act would in no way prevented that.
@Riff
It is like a no trespassing sign, a no shoplifting sign, a stop sign etc.
All those signs are obeyed by law abiding citizens. If someone wants on your property, a sign will not stop them (Although an armed citizen might) people still shoplift regardless of cameras, sensors and plain clothes security and there is a 4 way stop sign where I live and I almost get hit there at least once a week from idiots flying through them at 50 mph.
Rules are meant for law abiding citizens because those who do not obey do not care and scoff at the signs and often tear them down. My point is, they can make the distance 50,000 feet from a school, park or playground and someone will still do it.
Give those of us who are reformed a chance and the ones who do not comply, they can go back to prison where they belong. That goes for the registry as a whole, give us a chance (Well we who have been off paperwork for 20 years pretty much proved we are of no harm).
My opinion, not about safety, it’s about jobs, funding and pats on the back. No one seems to care about the 10 times felon who lives next to you and you never got a notification.
Not one time was it ever brought up, how any ordinance is any actual real protection. It’s been made clear it’s a deterrent at best. It’s been made clear it causes issues with housing and law enforcement. A deterrent is just that, and not anything actually preventing a possibility from occurring. I made mention of how it can be argued, that it keeps us away from possible temptation. But any of those temptations are right next door, just down the road, etc. What’s having to live so far away from a school, preventing anything, when those temptations are everywhere else? This is not saying that I’m tempted by any means, but it’s to make a point. How does any ordinance, prevent anyone from commiting a crime of this nature? The simple answer is it doesn’t. It’s like they said, it’s a deterrent, or at least that’s what they believe, and encourage others to believe it also. Heck a speed limit sign is a deterrent, but it doesn’t prevent people from speeding. If I’m caught speeding, should I not be allowed to live within a certain distance of a road? A highway? Does this distance ordinance deter me from speeding, or from going near a road? Of course not, if I so choose. All these living ordinances really do, is make it hard to comply with, find a suitable place to live, push us out of the city and even county. It forces homelessness, it forces noncompliance, it forces being arrested. There’s many deterrents in life, but it doesn’t make people abide by them. Sure it might have some effect on some people, but it’s not a guarantee to effect everyone, and not a guarantee to stop anything. A wall has a better chance of stopping something, than any ordinance ever will.
@Tereto
Bravo, very well said. Now just getting the narrow minded city/county/state and Federal leaders to see that. I have seen lately that one or two board members actually agree and speak out and raise concerns.
Getting very tiring and expense to keep suing to make them listen.
CherokeeJack,
I for one believe the so-called leadership in city, county, state, and Federal legislatures are fully aware of the impact of their stupid laws and proposals.They don’t write and support them for safety or the children or any other rhetoric then tend to spew out (especially in election years).
It’s politics and image, plain and simple.
They’ve got it twisted…
The board must understand that “recidivism” mean “any” crime… So when a sex offender recidivates, it is very seldom with a new sex crime. It is most often a different type of crime altogether. The actual rate of “sexual reoffense” is only from 2 % – 5 %.