The New Segregation?

[wayfriend]

The other interesting news item of the day. The signs that this was coming have been present for a while. I am concerned about the implications of creating an "underclass" in the United States. No one wants to side with sex offenders, but once people accept this kind of thing, it's only a matter of time until we solve other problems the same way. This is a slippery slope sliding away from "all men are created equal", isn't it?

Trailer park becomes 'paradise' for sex offenders

... The Palace Mobile Home Park is a place that welcomes sex offenders. Ninety-five of these 200 residents are convicted sex offenders, including some pedophiles.

The adults-only, nondescript, low-income trailer park near St. Petersburg, Florida has gained a reputation among sex offenders on probation as a good place to live and stay out of trouble.

... In many ways, the Palace provides him a second chance at life. New laws across the country have limited where sex offenders and predators can live, banning them from places where children might congregate. This trailer park is far enough away from schools, churches, playgrounds and bus stops, allowing Michael to call it home without running afoul of the law. [link]

This has all the hallmarks of segregation becoming accepted in US society, except it's based on something new. And, due to the category involved, it's damn hard to fight.

Do we say that sex offenders are scum and deserve what they get? Or do we recognize when we are setting a precident that should be avoided?

[[Syl]]

Surprisingly to some, I'm sure, I'm all for it. Unlike with racial segregation, sex offenders made a choice. There are worse things than living in a trailer park. It's certainly better than life in prison. So long as they're not deprived of any of their rights under the law, including due process (to include making something out of their second chance) and privacy... *shrug*

[Cail]

Surprisingly to some, I'm sure, I'm all for it. Unlike with racial segregation, sex offenders made a choice. There are worse things than living in a trailer park. It's certainly better than life in prison. So long as they're not deprived of any of their rights under the law, including due process (to include making something out of their second chance) and privacy... *shrug*

I can't disagree with this.

[High Lord Tolkien]

So long as the locked fence that wraps around the park is high enough I'm all for it too.

[wayfriend]

Syl, Cail, HLT ... because you are against sex offenders, or because you are for creating a class of citizens in our country with less rights than others?

If the former, I was hoping you would suggest why the latter is acceptible to achieve these results.

[[Syl]]

A bit of a false choice, don't you think?

I don't think there's been anyone here more vocal about sex offenders' rights than myself. Even this concerns their right of voluntary association. If they could afford it, I'd be all for them deciding to live in one specific high end neighborhood. The Sex Offenders Home Owner Association. *shrug*

[Cail]

Explain how there are less rights for those living in that trailer park.

[balon!]

Sex offenders with a conviction find it very hard living in high populace ares, I remember multiple times when they had to go door to door in my neighborhood. How degragating is that?

If they chose to live in a place that is safe and comfortable for them, all power to 'em. I don't see anything being encroached on.

[wayfriend]

I stand corrected. I meant to say ... a class of citizens that are legally and routinely segregated - equal, but seperate.

As opposed to, say, if they are really dangerous, don't let them out in the first place!

If it wasn't sex offenders, but, say, people who don't vote, would it be okay to segregate them like this? This part of town is not for you, this is, etc.

Or is it because of the crime aspect? If so, doesn't it touch on "do your time then its done"?

And do we want the encourage the legal system to let people out of jail because we have a segregated society that they can fall into, and that replaces jail time?

[The Laughing Man]

I also realize it's difficult for these people to find a place to live after they've betrayed society by their actions, but whats the alternative? It's not like they were put there, or confined there by state order. They've found a place where they can live in peace and acceptance of who they are without fear of neighborly retaliation. Whats the alternative WF? I'm confused as to what you think should happen, or what your objection actually is here?

[Cail]

It would be one thing if they were told where to live. They aren't.

[balon!]

If it wasn't sex offenders, but, say, people who don't vote, would it be okay to segregate them like this? This part of town is not for you, this is, etc.

I support half-way houses, because it's (supposed to be) a safe place for ex-cons to restart their lives. Same concept, except this trailer park is a choice for the offenders. They're not being shoved in there.

[Holsety]

Of course, on the flip side, the question is do these people have a chance at reintegration into society at some point? I doubt they're going there because they specifically enjoy the company of other sexual offenders - my guess is that they're crowding into certain areas because they aren't comfortable living with other people. I just wonder whether this is just a lesser evil for them.

Of course, at least in the case of a pedophile, were I a parent I might be very happy with this conclusion, and I would probably be hesitant to "embrace" pedophiles into the community which I was living in. So it's a double standard to be concerned about them being able to 'come back in' while at the same time drawing the line somewhere about who I'd want back in; you know, I'd take the 19 year old statuatory rapists of a 17 year old into my community ok but not the 30 who molested a 10 year old.

I'm not as concerned as WF but I'm rather worried. At the same time I think there is already more pronounced segregation than this in plenty of places.

[wayfriend]

I also realize it's difficult for these people to find a place to live after they've betrayed society by their actions, but whats the alternative? It's not like they were put there, or confined there by state order. They've found a place where they can live in peace and acceptance of who they are without fear of neighborly retaliation. Whats the alternative WF? I'm confused as to what you think should happen, or what your objection actually is here?

I guess my unspoken assumption is that, if things like what happened in the article prove out over time to be accepted, then in short order we'll be routinely setting up such "zones" for sex offenders. When that step happens, the next logical step would be to order sex offenders to live in those places. Because it's so much neater and cleaner having a where-you-can list than a where-you-can't list for sex offenders - no more "A sex offender moved into your neighborhood" surprises.

And when that works out really well (in most people's minds), heck, lets have convicted-drug-seller zones. Convicted-drug-user zones. Convicted-murderer-zones. Convicted-etc-zones.

Heck, that's too much work, let's just have the "Convict Zones" - they all deserve each other.

When the system works so well, it's SOOOooo easy to use it to solve perceived problems. Pressure to crack down on porno? Need to seem like your hard on white collar crime? Look how easy it is to say, "you're restricted to living in declared convict zones". Because once the option is available, you have to argue why NOT to use it. That's human nature. And they're all convicts -- who's gonna ruin their political career standing up to it? And you're not "taking away any rights".

The slope can slip pretty far. Didn't vote? Illegal music download? Get in the Zone! Are you a F#%$& liberal?!?! Get in the Zone!

Now, it's the point of an intellectual excercize to think about how far it can go. I'm not saying that there's potential. What I am saying is, if we don't draw the line before it starts, when can we?

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

I think you're really exaggerating the "slippery slope" potential of this. Are you saying, too, that we should disband communes because a bunch of free-minded liberals decided they wanted to live away from society, by choice?

I have no sympathy for sex offenders, unless what they did was caused by a serious mental disorder of which they were unaware. But if they've found themselves a place to go, by their own choice, where they aren't doing any harm, I say leave them to it. I don't see this "zone" thing taking off, because who's going to enforce it? Who's going to monitor? Who's going to pay for it?

If we have that kind of money floating around, why not attack the core issue: stopping people from committing sex crimes in the first place? Education, social support and proper mental health care would make society safer than any zone system.

[The Laughing Man]

Education, social support and proper mental health care would make society safer than any zone system.

I see what you're saying WF, it has a sort of "leper colony" aspect or potential there. Not sure how to approach it tho, but it does bring up an important historical issue: what do we do with social outcasts? Where do they go to repent (hopefully)? I mean, where would Australia be? Would it be better to have entire "support communities" or "cities" for them to reside in? By choice, mind you, not by force. Addicted and convicted? Go to Smack Town! You can live among other recovering addicts for sympathy and support. Same with any "social ill". Make a place for them to go if they choose to that is sympathetic and supportive of their particular problem which allows them to subsist and hopefully recover in a non hostile environment. Something needs to be done to address the problem of what to do with people who have placed themselves (or have been placed) outside the boundaries of acceptable society.

[wayfriend]

I think you're really exaggerating the "slippery slope" potential of this. Are you saying, too, that we should disband communes because a bunch of free-minded liberals decided they wanted to live away from society, by choice?

Nope. That's not segregation, that's seclusion. Choice is the key - they could leave the commune any time they wanted.

If you think I'm exaggerating, tell me what stops it, and at what point.

Personally, I fully expect sanctioned sex-offender zones and mandatory residence requirements inside of three years -- if someone picks up on it now. Seems way more likely than not.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Based on what? Your typical busybody neighbors association zealot could care less where Mr Paroled Pedophile lives, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. The current laws already create these forbiddings.

The exaggeration comes in what I see as an over-estimation of scale on your part. I think economic segregation does far more to insulate the public than any sex-offender zoning. The problem is that this screws the poor in yet another way, because law-abiding poor may not be able to move away from the lawless poor. Most people just out of their orange jumpsuits aren't flush with cash. Our history is replete with examples of 100% sanctioned economic segregation - why can't I locate a double-wide in the middle of Posh Acres Subdivision? Covenants protect the value of existing homes by restricting what can go in next to them.

Logically, I see no problem with allowing past offenders to co-locate in an area that has been unofficially preapproved as not violating the terms of their freedom. It seems like a convenience at this point - as long as it remains voluntary. Now, if we somehow tip towards legal residence zoning and/or mandatory residence for past offenders (once parole is up - while an offender is still on parole, I see no problem with requiring them to live in a certain place) , If we tip towards mandatory residence for those who have aready done their time and fulfilled the terms of their parole, well, I woud expect groups like the ACLU to raise a ruckus, because requiring a free person to live in a certain place stifles their liberty, because it is no longer the least restrictive action to serve the common good.

dw

[sgt.null]

since there is always the danger that these perverts will go about raping defenseless children, why not segregate them? i'd rather just lock up all rapists for life, but until that happy day, keep them where we can find them.

[Avatar]

Based on what? Your typical busybody neighbors association zealot could care less where Mr Paroled Pedophile lives, as long as it isn't in their neighborhood. The current laws already create these forbiddings.

That is the problem.

I have no problem with them living in a community (although is congregating with other paedophiles a good idea?) if they're choosing to go and live there.

I have problems with laws saying, because you once committed a certain crime, you are not allowed to live here. As I've argued before, if you've served your sentence, in theory you've paid for your crime. If you're on parole, then sure, the conditions thereof may determine what area you can live in, but they should only apply while under parole.

External laws that "segregate" them are the top of a slippery slope as far as I see it. This community isn't part of that though. In fact, it's an inevitable result of those selfsame laws.

--A