Sex Offender Ordinance
State Attorney Robert "Skip" Jarvis has sent a letter to Jack Brown questioning the stiff ordinance's ability to withstand a constitutional challenge in court and to ask that the TCBOCC to consider changing the ordinance's language to 1,000 feet. Passed in 2006, the ordinance prohibits offenders, whose victims were under 16, from establishing a residence within 2,500 feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, playground or other places where children regularly congregate, with some exceptions. According to a TCSO Inv. Donna Lee, after contacting the school board to get the number and location of the school bus stops, it was determined that there was pretty much no place for them to live but in the Bay. In October of 2007, the TCSO made a similar request but was denied by the board.
Now, for my personal opinion. I have absolutely zero sympathy for sex offenders or child molesters, besides it being the sickest and most inexcusable crimes against another there is(murder being very close), the offender had a choice. He/she chose to do what they did and if the laws are so strict that they can't find a place to live in Taylor County, well let them be someone else's problem. I understand that now the criminals have all the rights and the victims have none, but I think we as a community should have the legal right to say whether we want sickos in our neighborhoods or not.
So how do you feel about it........
Now, for my personal opinion. I have absolutely zero sympathy for sex offenders or child molesters, besides it being the sickest and most inexcusable crimes against another there is(murder being very close), the offender had a choice. He/she chose to do what they did and if the laws are so strict that they can't find a place to live in Taylor County, well let them be someone else's problem. I understand that now the criminals have all the rights and the victims have none, but I think we as a community should have the legal right to say whether we want sickos in our neighborhoods or not.
So how do you feel about it........
Didn't the paper say this was a law destined to be struck down for being unconstitutional? Its one of those revolving rights/ethics questions best left up to better minds than ours to solve. If left to the public we'd still be burning people at the cross. I'm not a sympathizer...but your comment of let them live somewhere else sounds so old-school-vigilante. How about tatoo a big X on their forehead so everyone knows who they are and to stay away from them?
...that was satire by the way
Reply to this
Yes--the state advised the county that the ordinance was almost surely unconstitutional and was not likely to withstand a challenge in court. The big question is, is the state right?
Reply to this
To me, being shunned from the community is the change from or step up from old-school-vigilante. Before taking a more liberal and passive approach to criminal punishment, they used to just take care of the problem as soon as judgment was passed. Just because the law allows those that commit such heinous crimes against another, especially under 16, to roam free with the rest of us, then we should have the right to not want them living next to us. It is those type of people that should forever remain behind bars, or give them a large island to live on. It seems to me the law that is constitutional actually gives the perpetrator rights and infringes on mine.
Reply to this
I agree with the local State Attorney in that why have a ordinance if it is obviouse that when challenged the Courts will strike it down. The commission must put aside their personal feelings and listen to those with expertise in law. If they are not pursuaded by the local State Attorney's advise and that of the TCSO they then should direct the county attorney to seek an opinion from Bill McCullum, the State Attorney for Florida. Personal feelings by the commissioners should take a back seat on matters relative to law. Put the matter to rest once and for all
Reply to this
Sex offenders and child molesters should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The victims of these individuals live with a life sentence, so why not the criminal? Unfortunately, too many laws favor the criminals these days. The henious crimes committed by these individuals do not warrant acceptance back into society. I'd recommend sentencing them to death but that would take 20+ years of appeals and the tax payers footing the bill for all of those appeals. I personally do not want child molesters or sex offenders living anywhere near me. If you think that is wrong, its okay with me. You would feel the same if you were a victim of child molestation/sexual battery. If you are so gung ho about having these individuals living in the community, let them live in your neighborhood!
Reply to this
No one here is making the argument that they want sex offenders living in their neighborhood.
The issue at hand isn't whether or not the county ordinance is *right*--it's about whether it's *legal*.
Reply to this
This is all just moral grandstanding. Whoever came up with the unobtainable law is probably just using it to try to further his/her political career. I wouldn't want a murderer, carjacker, burglar, etc, etc living in my community either but I'm a realist. I like the "liberal and passive" comment, the kind of confusing rhetoric that comes with these topics...might as well just blame it on Obama while your at it.
Next topic please.
Reply to this
Blame it on Obama? I don't make a habit of blaming something on someone of which they are not accountable. Moral grandstanding, I like that. I guess you could call it that, but that is the problem. A majority of this country don't live or make decisions based on its moral implications, or the results of their actions on others. More people need to do some moral grandstanding when it comes to their neighbor and fellow human being, and I applaud whoever made the motion to create this ordinance. I normally am the one thinking that a politician has a hidden agenda, but if this law was how the majority of the county felt, then I guess he or she was actually doing what a politician is supposed to do...listen to their constituents. I bet if a poll or vote was cast the majority of Taylor County woul support it. I am glad you liked the "liberal and passive" comment, but if you read the comment, it was not 'confusing rhetoric', it was purely stating history. Don't turn my words into a liberal bashing, I was not blaming the left or right, I was simply stating that we or they, the Americans and country at that time, became more liberal and passive to crimes and their punishments and began giving criminals more rights; I mean is that not what happened. I am not saying a criminal shouldn't have some basic rights, but what about the victim, or the future victims of the aggressive, sick molesters we allow to walk the streets. I am very much a realist myself and I have no doubt the law is not legal because the poor child molester has rights, but I don't have the right to not have him live near me. I for one support the commission on the ordinance, even if it is found they have to change it. At least someone stood up against such an immoral and heinous crime and criminal, regardless. It would do my heart good for it to be challenged and stand legal.
Reply to this
Well since everybody has a "buddy" in the courthouse it is unlikely that these folks would be put out to pasture.
Reply to this
I fully understand that the enactment of the ordinance may have pleased many at the time but unfortunately legal reality most likely will prevail in this instance. I reiterate that the commission must set aside their personal feelings whether for or against an issue and where necessary seek a legal opinion from their counsel. Many folks also fail to realize that on constitutional issues the county could be held liable for the sex offender's court costs and legal fees incurred should the courts rule against the county. Should the matter end up in the appellate system these costs will escalate dramatically, paid for by you and I. With five commissioners sitting in judgment on passage of the ordinance you would think at least one out of five would turn to counsel for advise. Why have counsel at the commission meetings if you choose not to seek his expertise.
Reply to this
Wouldn't spend the already limited taxpayer money fighting the State on this. It is a sure loser. Money could be better spent getting harsher sentences against others.
These types of laws recognize that sex offenders do need to work (you wouldn't want an unemployed sex offender wandreing around); buy groceries and gas, etc. and these types of laws are usually constructed to offer the minimum amount of restriction needed to still protect potential victims. In my experience of formerly prosecuting a number of sex crimes, these offenders are never cured. They can only be restricted from access. However, except for prison, they can't be totally barred from society; and restrictions need to be in place that balance their need for carrying out normal daily life activities and, at the same time, protecting others. It is a difficult balancing act.
Reply to this
I have a friend who got pinched for having sexual conversations over the internet with an undercover FDLE officer whom he thought was 15. He was 25 at the time. Now, this begs the question, do you think that my friend, who does live in Taylor County and is currently on house arrest and had to wear an ankle bracelet so he can't leave his house at all, should have to move so that he isn't within 2,500 feet of a school?
Reply to this
I'm afraid a 25-year-old who seeks out 15-year-olds online to solicit sex (even "virtual" sex) is a deviant and, in all likelihood, a predator. I'm aware of no solid evidence showing that sexual predators can be cured, so unless we're going to castrate them or keep them in jail forever we have to take other means to keep them away from the temptation children cause them.
Reply to this
He didn't get pinched, he got caught breaking the law...and yes he's a predator. He only knows if he's ever acting on his impulses...but he very well may one day. Like the previous person said...there is no magic cure for this.
Reply to this
F-these predators. They are a cancer on our community and should be ostracized as much as possible. I like the idea of these criminals sleeping under an over-pass next to the interstate like what is happening in south florida. These preditors know it is wrong, they do it anyway. I also think there is a double standard for the "pretty" teachers caught having sex with students as well. They are all wrong, sick and should be dealt with as harshly as possible!
Reply to this
Why isn't anyone asking the more obvious and possibly important questions about this ordinance?
If it was passed in 2006, how did it come to the attention of the state attorney now?
Didn't the Sheriff oppose this ordinance unsuccessfully a couple of years ago?
Didn't someone at the county question this ordinance?
Who is asking these people (County, Sheriff, State Attorney) to revise the ordinance? And Why? How many predators does Taylor County have? More than likely they can't vote (if convicted felon). Who is pulling strings?
If revised, couldn't a scapel do a better job than an axe? Meaning, couldn't you reduce the bus stop yardage without reducing the parks and school yardage?
Reply to this
Wouldn't it be better to simply have the ordinance struck down by a court of law than softening our standards? The ordinance has been in place for 3 years...
Reply to this
How many times has the State Attorney been called upon to enforce a county ordinance in Taylor County? If none in the last three years, then why are we doing this?
Reply to this
The politicans are being soft on crime?
Reply to this
Soft on crime, yes you are more right than you will ever know. A lot of folks have a "buddy" in the courthouse. There is no telling how many have gotten a get out of jail free card from such ilk! There is a place in hell for such folks who enable drunk drivers, a whole motley crew of molesters, drung dealers-users and other criminals infecting our community.
Reply to this
The ordinance is constitutional until a court decides that it isn't.
For 3 years, the ordinance has been constitutional.
For 3 years, no one charged with a sex crime has challenged the ordinance.
For 3 years, no one convicted of a sex crime has challenged the ordinance.
For 3 years, our children have been safe.
Now, elected officials want to change all of that.
Reply to this
First of all, the constitutionality of a law or ordinance is inherent in that law or ordinance; it's not dependent on a court's ruling. The court's ruling would simply codify that unconstitutionality. If the court rules that the ordinance is unconstitutional, it would've *always* been unconstitutional since that ruling neither changes the ordinance nor the constitution.
The fact that no one has challenged the ordinance so far has no bearing on the likelihood of someone challenging it in the future.
And finally, from a statistical standpoint children are MUCH more likely to be molested by someone they know well (like a family member or trusted family friend) than a stranger. Moving offenders 2500 feet away rather than 1000 feet away likely has little measurable impact on the safety of our children.
Reply to this
No one is going to challenge the ordinance.
You have to be a sex offender to challenge the ordinance.
Who is going to publicly admit to being a sex offender (and draw attention to themselves) by challenging this ordinance?
Why are we wasting taxpayer money re-writing ordinances out of fear of what a convicted criminal, a sex offender no less, might do?
Reply to this
I'm not sure that logic holds... The person most likely to challenge the ordinance would be someone affected by it--that is, someone already convicted. If they were already convicted, it's no secret that they were charged with being an offender.
I'm not sure that avoiding a lawsuit that would cost us a lot of money and that we would be likely to use is a waste of taxpayer money (assuming the State Attorney is right--I'm no lawyer and have no idea).
Reply to this
Blog Moderator,
What is status of this story?
Reply to this
As I understand it, the county attorney was to consult with the State Attorney and report back to the BOCC. I believe they will probably do what the count attorney recommends. Not sure if any or all have happened yet, but I will continue to try and find out. I have not checked the future agendas to see if it is back on for discussion.
Reply to this
I was just listening to WCTV 6 and they were talking about Suwannee County making more big Drug arrests on marijuana grow houses and crystal meth arrests. I sure glad Taylor County doesn’t have anyone growing marijuana in doors or out or cooking crystal meth or do we. If we do where are all the arrest. The Sheriff made us all these promises to do a better job and crack-down on drugs , but yes It was a election year. I hope it was true he was just asking people for 4 more years and he would retire well you acting like had all ready retired. But Sheriff you still getting paid by us the voters so do you job. I voted for you and now I'm ashamed I wasted a vote.
Reply to this