Vice Squad

Daniel Koffler | July 19, 2005

Here is something that should never happen in a free country:

Officers searched the Miami home of Andrew Calderon on May 18 and found a sexy calendar, a racy poster and a few copies of Maxim magazine. Calderon, 23, was jailed for six days before a judge ordered his release.

Calderon is a convicted sex offender, and according to the Florida Department of Corrections, sex offenders who possess anything deemed "sexually stimulating" are in violation of the terms of their probation. Although Calderon was released, there is a hearing pending to determine the status of his probation. Joseph Conte, another sex offender, was arrested for possession of the Kama Sutra (a judge later threw out the complaint against him).

If corrections officers are determined to prevent any potentially stimulating material from getting to sex offenders on probation, they could at least have the grace not to sound so damn sexy when they defend their policy:

"Anything that is sexually stimulating, we are going to violate them on, and the judges are going to make those decisions," said Debbie Buchanan, a Department of Corrections spokeswoman. "If there's any question at all, we're going to violate them."

Whole story here; link via Sploid.

Comments

|7.19.05 @ 7:29PM|#

I have a problem throwing all 'sex offenders' into one bag. And if they really mean it about sex offenders, just throw them in jail for life on the first offence and be done with it.

I'll be honest, when it comes to child rapists, I have little sympathy. That's why someone convicted of statutory rape when they were 18 and their 'victim' was 17 should not be included in the same category as some sick fuck who sodomises an 8 year old.

|7.19.05 @ 7:30PM|#

Going to "violate them on?" What sort of bizarro language is that?

|7.19.05 @ 7:33PM|#

Oh shit, you mean the fundies in the Florida government get to decide what is sexy and what isn't?!? Maybe my shoe catalog from Eastbay Sports showing cheerleaders sporting there tennis shoes is too sexy? Does he have known shoe fetishes in his file? Maybe that JC Penny newpaper insert for women's bras and panties is too racy! Better violate him if he gets the Sunday newspaper.

I guess if I was a sex offender in FL with these examples, I would be violated too. Not that I am making lite of sex crimes, but one man's catalog is another man's jerk rag.

|7.19.05 @ 7:35PM|#

Lowdog,

Note that one of the things that anyone convicted of commiting sodomy (of the consensual sort) with another adult in Texas was that you automatically were tossed onto a sex offenders list.

What is problematic about cases concerning pedophilia, etc. is that way too many innocent individuals have been tried and convicted largely due to the stigma attached to being charged with such a crime. Its really easy to get a kid to concoct a sexual predation story.

Anyway, sex offenders better stay clear of anything by Henry Miller. :)

|7.19.05 @ 7:36PM|#

That's why someone convicted of statutory rape when they were 18 and their 'victim' was 17 should not be included in the same category as some sick fuck who sodomises an 8 year old.

Sorry Lowdog, just like the drug policy doesn't differentiate use and abuse, all drug use is abuse and rape is rape.

|7.19.05 @ 7:38PM|#

Hakluyt,

It's weird, but that's how probation officers talk. "To violate" someone is to bring them in on a parole/probation violation. It's one of the worst cop-talk phrases out there.

|7.19.05 @ 7:41PM|#

I have zero sympathy for a child molester, but someone caught mooning should not be put in the samer category.

|7.19.05 @ 7:50PM|#

The category is overbroad. It makes discussion of what is fair treatment of these people impossible without more details of their crimes.

|7.19.05 @ 8:04PM|#

Hakluyt - I agree about the innocents getting convicted.

sam - you're right, and I think that's the point. Motherfuckers really use language to confuse some issues.

|7.19.05 @ 8:06PM|#

"That's why someone convicted of statutory rape when they were 18 and their 'victim' was 17 should not be included in the same category as some sick fuck who sodomises an 8 year old."

Why should sex with a 17 year-old (Or with anyone past puberty) be a crime at any age? Our society has a bizarre and somewhat unique tendency to treat youth like children. Something with our Puritan heritage, perhaps?

|7.19.05 @ 8:07PM|#

Allow me to qualify,

Why should sex with a 17 year-old (Or with anyone past puberty) NECESSARILY be a crime at any age?

|7.19.05 @ 8:21PM|#

andy - you're totally right, and I wasn't implying that I agreed with someone getting busted for statuatory rape in that situation, just that if it was possible, there needs to be some distinction between that and the sicko molesting 8 year olds...

|7.19.05 @ 8:24PM|#

"Here is something that should never happen in a free country"

Ahhh yes, but it is what always happens in a conservative country.

|7.19.05 @ 8:25PM|#

I don't really see the point of this item. There's nothing wrong with subjecting genuine sex offenders (rapists, molesters of small children) to these kinds of rules. And wrongly convicted ones suffer much worse injustices than having their reading matter controlled.

|7.19.05 @ 8:31PM|#

"andy - you're totally right, and I wasn't implying that I agreed with someone getting busted for statuatory rape in that situation, just that if it was possible, there needs to be some distinction between that and the sicko molesting 8 year olds..."

I figured you weren't implying that. It just seems that nuance is too complex for our legislative bodies... and our law enforcement agencies... and John Q. Public...

Where's Warren? He's always got some good whiskey!

|7.19.05 @ 8:34PM|#

Rex Little is of course right...I hope they keep guys like this away from the bible too...Song of Solomon is extremely racy.

|7.19.05 @ 8:46PM|#

Is there any evidence that preventing sex offenders from having access to racy material does anything to prevent "remission"?

Also, it sounds like there is nothing found that one couldn't access with a basic cable subscription. Are they prevented from owning or watching television as well?

Shouldn't we be encouraging these people to look at of-age girls? Better than if the PO charged in the room and the dude was watching Sesame Street ...

|7.19.05 @ 8:51PM|#

As for age of consent, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It's on a state-by-state basis. And many state laws do factor in the age of the offender; eg it's ok for an 18-year-old to have sex with a 16-year-old, but it's not ok for a 45-year-old.

When I lived in Delaware, the age of consent was 16 for everybody. That, and no sales tax. Great place.

|7.19.05 @ 9:58PM|#

There's nothing wrong with subjecting genuine sex offenders (rapists, molesters of small children) to these kinds of rules.

You're helping to stretch the definition of "sex offender" to mean "child rapists." What's wrong with calling the offences by their proper names? I reckon there are multitudes more 18-year-old statutory offenders than there are real child molesters. The only people who are served by blurring the lines are those who want to retain the right to blood-libel any deviant behavior - namely government employees and contractors who profit from witch hunts.

And wrongly convicted ones suffer much worse injustices than having their reading matter controlled.

I agree, but for me the point of the post is that the guys were supposedly living in the free world, having served their time, permitted by society to have a friggin' sex life again. If they're such a danger, why not a life sentence? Law-and-order freaks can't have it both ways. My sympathy isn't for the sexual battery guy, but for the lesser offences, the collateral damage. One size doesn't fit all crimes.

|7.19.05 @ 10:34PM|#

As for age of consent, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It's on a state-by-state basis. And many state laws do factor in the age of the offender; eg it's ok for an 18-year-old to have sex with a 16-year-old, but it's not ok for a 45-year-old.

Divide by two then add seven.

Windypundit|7.19.05 @ 10:35PM|#

It sounds like the parole system is setting up a pretext for throwing troublemakers in jail. With such broad criteria for a parole violation---e.g. a sex manual in the home of a married couple---a cop can get a parolee thrown back in jail any time he wants without having to go through the trouble of proving a crime.

It's very convenient for the cops, and that's what's important.

|7.19.05 @ 10:39PM|#

The prohibition against having anything "sexually stimulating" in sex offenders' homes is just mind-blowing -- especially if the bar is set so low as to include Maxim magazine and "a sexy calendar." Are these guys supposed to be able to banish all sexual thoughts from their minds entirely?

If an offender gets in a horny mood, I would think it's far better for him to have a wank-mag at home and rub himself to exhaustion, than go out to scope the girly-girls at the local mall.

|7.20.05 @ 1:41AM|#

I think I need to see a photo of Ms. Debbie Buchanan before deciding on whether I want to be violated by her...;)

Josh Eidelson|7.20.05 @ 2:05AM|#

What comes next?

"Just for the duration of your probation, we'll be quartering a few soldiers in your home..."

|7.20.05 @ 4:18AM|#

Anything that is sexually stimulating, we are going to violate them on

I got a really bad image of a parole officer leading a tentacle monster around by a leash when I read that. I think I'm going to go burn my eyes out with peroxide now...

|7.20.05 @ 9:20AM|#

I think I need to see a photo of Ms. Debbie Buchanan before deciding on whether I want to be violated by her...;)

Apparently she already considers herself to not be sexually stimulating. Government employees generally ain't.

|7.20.05 @ 9:33AM|#

"Corrections officials said Calderon, who was on probation for the sexual battery of a mentally disabled relative, committed a violation by having "sexually stimulating" material."

Okay, where to begin?

|7.20.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Things to do today:

1.Get names and adresses of convicted sex offenders off the internet.
2. Put them all on the Victoria's secret and International Male mailing list (covers all bases)
3. Inform probation officers.

Amy Phillips|7.20.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Proposed national standard: "Divide by two then add seven."

Okay, but then you're either in a position where it's illegal for a 70 year old to have sex with a 30 year old, or you still have to draw a bright line somewhere saying, "at this age, people are old enough to make their own decisions about sex and should not be prohibited from having sex with any other person who has attained such an age." Whether you want to draw that line at 14 or 16 or 20, you need to draw it somewhere or else you end up impinging on the privacy rights of competent adults.

|7.20.05 @ 11:19AM|#

mk:

I was recently in a situation where I shared some responsibility looking after a teenaged girl. My paternalism compelled me to print out a sex offender list and show it to her. It busted my arteries to learn that 2 to 3 CONVICTED first/second degree rape offenders lived within a mile. I'm no legal expert, but being covicted of first degree rape sounds really fucking serious.

|7.20.05 @ 11:22AM|#

Okay, but then you're either in a position where it's illegal for a 70 year old to have sex with a 30 year old

After seeing Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones in Entrapment, I'm wondering if that idea has some merit to it...

|7.20.05 @ 11:25AM|#

Yep,
I have a nine year old daughter. I'm sorry, but if you want me to stand up for the rights of sex offenders you are asking the wrong person.
PLus, the guy reads Maxim. I mean, what kind of douche bag reads a magazine like that. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

|7.20.05 @ 11:29AM|#

I've been using Proposed National Standard's age limit aggregation for some time. AFAIK, it was what the old jewish Yenta matchamkers used as the ideal woman to man age for marriage. I have been using it as my age limit and it has worked for me pretty well. Of course, I'm not a sex offender.

|7.20.05 @ 11:43AM|#

There should be one standard, i.e. for anyone that is an adult it is OK, else not. 21 is an appropriate age because anyone under 21 is a child.

The Wine Commonsewer|7.20.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Here is something that should never happen in a free country

See I disagree. If you're on probation that means you didn't go to jail. Or you went to jail and only served part of your sentence

That is a HUGE point--he didn't serve his sentence and those are the terms of cutting you loose early or for you to avoid jail time altogether.

Now, I would agree that stuff like this is a huge waste of taxpayer funds, particularly if this guy was guilty of some misdemeanor peeing-in-public charge or got popped with a 16-year-old in his motel room.

But nonetheless, if you don't like the terms of probation, you have two choices. Don't do the crime or stay in jail.

The Wine Commonsewer|7.20.05 @ 12:10PM|#

21 is an appropriate age because anyone under 21 is a child

Jane, with all due respect that is absurd. My great grandmother had a family at 16 and my grandfather was in med school at 16. My father had a driver license at 14 and his first job.

What we've done as a society in the last 100 years is to nanny these poor kids to death.

There is a specific biological reason why puberty occurs when it does. Culturally we have removed the connection of biology to adulthood and then we whine because teenagers sometimes ignore adults and their good intentions.

The Wine Commonsewer|7.20.05 @ 12:15PM|#

Low & MK, agree with both of you.

I'm not going to be happy if some twenty-something dude comes around and seduces my 15 year old daughter. But if it's my six year old, well, I got 4 acres, there's lots of coyotes, and nobody's gonna miss that bastard anyway.

Shotgun Sings The Song Regards, TWC

|7.20.05 @ 12:39PM|#

TWC, have you tried that Columbia Crest Merlot yet?

"That's why someone convicted of statutory rape when they were 18 and their 'victim' was 17 should not be included in the same category as some sick fuck who sodomises an 8 year old."

When a group of psychologists published a paper that concluded the same thing in fancier language, it was denounced on the floor of the United States Congress, and a unanimous vote recorded in support of that denuciation.

The Wine Commonsewer|7.20.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Joe, you make LOL. I think of you and the Columbia Crest Merlot often. But, I just can't seem to remember to pick up a bottle. CRS & Sometimers I guess. I used to drink both the CC Merlot and Cab as my house wine. But then it got harder to find (mostly because we moved to the middle of nowhere) and more expensive. I always liked both. Prolly still have a bottle or two stashed somewhere. I swear, I am going to find some one of these days. Just have to remember the next time I go off to the big city.

|7.20.05 @ 1:49PM|#

yes, well...it's congress. they only fuck their interns and hookers, so natural sexuality is beyond their ken.

|7.20.05 @ 2:11PM|#

All of you so happy with Bush's pick of Roberts in the other thread can rest assured he would uphold this treatment.

|7.20.05 @ 2:12PM|#

Keep voting Republican folks. They say they want a theocracy, why don't you believe them.