Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Under the Bridge
Details writer Ian Daily visits the underside of the Miami bridge that's home to a community of exiled sex offenders:
Fourteen men, ranging in age from 30 to 83, call this place home. Some sleep in cars among the pilings, others in grimy Wal-Mart tents wedged beneath the bridge. Martin, who spent two years in jail after being convicted of exposing himself to a 16-year-old girl when he was 19 or 20 (a crime he says he didn't commit), no longer has to wear the black GPS monitoring device that many of his neighbors do. He finished his five-year probation in 2006, but he can't find a place to live that complies with the county's residency laws. So Martin is forced to live here—in a colony under an overpass where the amenities include a generator, a composting toilet, and a workout area with a bench and free weights—indefinitely, because he and the other men were ordered here by law-enforcement authorities.
"Take a picture if you want," says Martin, showing off his driver's license. The address next to his photo reads UNDER THE JULIA TUTTLE CAUSEWAY.
I first blogged about the sex offender bridge in April of last year.
Kerry Howley and Jacob Sullum have also looked at policies aimed at exiling sex offenders.
|7.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#
I confidently predict that none of the people responsible for the county residency laws will feel the least bit of shame at what they have wrought.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 11:19AM|#
R C Dean --
Of course not. Many of them have not had the joy of being the bete
noir flavor of the month, nor been prosecuted for doing something
they didn't do. The notion that either a person may be wrongly
convicted, or even that a guilty person can pay their time and then
go on with their lives, is not even part of their mental
universe.
meeko|7.16.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Is not in your Constitution/Bill of Rights something protecting
from unjust or too hard punishment?
Because, you know, i would say, that this man is being punished,
like several times at once for one, in his case even debatable,
"crime".
Or i don't totally understand why he receives after spening time on
probation or even in jail an additional punishment, that basically
forces him to live anything but a normal, law-abiding life.
I guess it's for the .......
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Or i don't totally understand why he receives after spending
time on probation or even in jail an additional punishment, that
basically forces him to live anything but a normal, law-abiding
life.
You're thinking logically. That's what's tripping you up. Social
punishment is driven by the emotion of vengeance, and does not
yield to thought. At least, not much.
|7.16.08 @ 11:38AM|#
The address next to his photo reads UNDER THE JULIA TUTTLE
CAUSEWAY.
This makes me want to cry
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Don't joke, P Brooks. Chemical castration is entirely possible and has been considered.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Yeah, I very very recently read about a state bill that would mandate surgical castration for second offenses and offer it "voluntarily" on first offenses. Don't remember which state though.
|7.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Why don't they leave the county? Are they not allowed
to?
I'm confident that wherever they go they will still be required to
register with the local authorities. This is a blatant attempt at
banishment as a punishment. They authorities in Miami County
probably joke about it in private. "They'll eventually get tired
and leave, TeeHee".
Would anyone like to guess what religion those who enacted these
draconian laws profess to follow?*
* Full disclosure - Being an atheist, I have no foundation for
morality.
meeko|7.16.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Well, there is another explanation though, simple market rule of
offer and demand.
Politics need to prove they are useful, so they make law, law, that
is total crap ( and aimed at those, who can't defend much ), but
some influential or loud shouting minority requires it.
Then there are LEOs, who make living by enforcing those stupid
laws, and for them, it's defenitely easier to bully a basically
harmless guy, than standing against gangs or armed people, and they
can increase their
"solved crimes" ratio, from the same reason.
And lastly, there are some people, who will happily trade their
freedom for some kind of safety, and they applause how brave LEOs
are "kickin' teh ghoulz" from our streets and protecting our
children "back up" from harm.
|7.16.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Reinmoose,
This makes me want to cry:
"I live in that house!" he says, pointing at the shack.
"Beautiful view! You can go fishing!" The guys smile at him.
There's not much else they can do. El Viejo is deaf. Last year he
was arrested for fondling three children after luring them with a
puppy. It wasn't his first offense.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 11:56AM|#
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351386,00.html
Here it is. It actually passed.
meeko|7.16.08 @ 12:01PM|#
P Brooks
In my country, we do have a chemical or physical castration, but,
it's on the decision ot the offender, if he will be castrated or
not. Beware though, that this option is usually only for those,
that commited serious crimes that somehow involve sexual
deviation.
The reason for the offer is simple economic.
The guy ( haven't heard about any women in this, seems like
equality has not yet been introduced to deviants ) will either go
trough castration or he spends looooong time in jail/bedlam.
We even have some murderes, that are free after castration (can
provide specific info if wanted ), and they behave correctly for
more than 10 yrs.
So, at the end, i don't know, if it's voluntarily, i think it's
acceptable.
|7.16.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Smacky -
Agreed. But if they're criminals who can't be trusted out in
society, then they shouldn't be out in society - they should be in
jail.
Just sayin\'|7.16.08 @ 12:08PM|#
My municipality north of Miami lists the addresses (and mug shots) of all registered sex offenders on its public cable station. Each of the 20 or so listed has an actual street address. They're not homeless. They're able to establish a residence in an affluent community. How many of the unfortunate bridge trolls in the story above would be homeless regardless of their sex-crimes convictions? The cause and effect is perhaps not so black and white.
|7.16.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Just to play a little Devil's Advocate here, even though I think these laws do go too far, I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about how time served is the sole punishment on offer. Perhaps common law says different, but I can't really think of a legal bar to many of these laws. Well, okay, maybe you could make a case for "cruel and unusual" on the outer edges (such as living under a bridge).
thoreau|7.16.08 @ 12:17PM|#
I think it's a really, really, REALLY bad idea to set it up so that people who have been released from jail can't hope for much more than living under a bridge. If you limit their options for lawful activity, what else do you think they'll do?
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 12:23PM|#
That's kind of the point Thoreau.
They WANT them back in jail, or dead.
The US is in one of it's many, many mostly baseless moral panics.
It is the intent of these laws to PREVENT a successful
reintegration into lawful society.
"Society" as expressed through it's elected representatives doesn't
want them to exist, but since they can't (yet) kill them it sure as
hell isn't going to tolerate them hanging around.
Personally I can see extremely long lifetime without parole
sentences for violent sexual predators but that doesn't include you
usual statutory "rape" which is completely consentual.
|7.16.08 @ 12:24PM|#
i am confused about your intentions here... i understand that
the laws have backfired, but, are we supposed to feel sorry for men
who had sex with their 13 year old daughters? who fondled children
after luring them in with puppies?
the article ends "if you left it up to the public, we'd be burned
at the stake"... i say burning at the stake is too good for
them
|7.16.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I don't think you could put prisoners under a bridge like that without violating the 8th Amendment. I don't see how the government can insist that someone go homeless as punishment for a crime.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 12:27PM|#
A lack of discrimination is one of the problems here.
A child rapist may deserve to be restricted from ever holding a job
in a school, for instance.
But someone who committed a non-violent crime (like indecent
exposure) should certainly not be classed as the same kind of
offender.
Of course, I am with Dr. T on the utilitarian issues here. Seems
like a great way to create criminals.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Well, lol, if "sex offenders" were limited to the examples you give, that would be one thing. But when a 17-year-old who gets a blowjob from a 15-year-old, or a guy who takes a piss on the side of the road, get assigned the "sex offender" label, that really fucks things up. Also, there are wrongful convictions. All the time.
|7.16.08 @ 12:28PM|#
"but, are we supposed to feel sorry for men who had sex with
their 13 year old daughters? who fondled children after luring them
in with puppies?"
Yes we are because sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
If we can never feel sorry for these people, then it would be okay
for the government to do anything to them. What the hell, why not
just draw and quarter them or crucify them? They did what they did
and they paid their debt to society for it. Now that they are out
of jail, they deserve a chance to make an honest life if they chose
to.
|7.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Why don't they leave the county? Are they not allowed to?
Having been convicted of a crime in this country, it is highly
unlikely that they would qualify for immigration to another.
Canada rejects anyone who has ever even been arrested, for
anything. Although there are appeal processes and dispensations
granted. It's highly unlikely that they would admit anyone
convicted of a sex crime.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 12:32PM|#
ktc2,
I think you are reading a bit much into the "intent" side of these
laws.
statutory "rape" which is completely consentual
Consent is a tricky concept in these cases and, by definition,
can't be given by the minor.
Some adjustment to the age of consent may be in order in some
states, but the idea that a child can't consent to sex with an
adult is a pretty reasonable perspective on the situation.
Robert|7.16.08 @ 12:32PM|#
As I've explained before here, these residence and other
restrictions are legally not considered
punishment. If they were, they'd be thrown out as ex post
facto and/or bills of attainder. Rather, they're considered public
health and safety measures directed at someone who is in the status
of "sex offender", to which status no guilt
attaches -- just like quarantine of someone who has a communicable
illness. There can be punishment for failure to follow the rules as
for any other, but the rules themselves are not considered
punishments.
I didn't make it this way, that's just how it works.
|7.16.08 @ 12:37PM|#
i understand that the laws have backfired, but, are we
supposed to feel sorry for men who had sex with their 13 year old
daughters? who fondled children after luring them in with
puppies?
lol,
That's what I was sayin'. I still don't think that living under a
bridge is quite the travesty of justice that luring children with a
puppy is. Not that I think anyone should be living under a bridge.
But residency laws aside, these people certainly don't deserve any
assistance from the public. I don't understand how people can sit
there with a straight face and say that they don't understand why
communities wouldn't want repeat sexual offenders living in their
neighborhood near their homes and families.
Maybe the solution would be that everyone who is angered knowing
that there are bums who deserve to be where they are in life --
sleeping under a bridge -- could help those guys find homes to
purchase in their own neighborhoods. There's also the added bonus
of feeling morally superior to other people who don't want to help
those sex offenders.
John Hamilton|7.16.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Isn't America great? Continue to be punished indefinitely even
after completing your sentence....
I produce a radio show in Orlando that has highlighted this issue a
number of times recently; what often gets under-reported is the
number of children of sex offenders who become targets of the
community (even law enforcement) and are bullied, ridiculed and
pushed to the brink of suicide by idiot parents and scumbags
running websites ans handing out fliers "outing" sex offenders in
their communities.
John Hamilton|7.16.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"i understand that the laws have backfired, but, are we supposed
to feel sorry for men who had sex with their 13 year old daughters?
who fondled children after luring them in with puppies?"
Let's not forget that you can and will be labeled a "sex offender"
in Florida for being busted urinating in public, for being a 17
year old who has sex with your 16 year old girl friend, etc. The
pols in the "Sunshine State" haven't sen fit to institute a tiered
system of any type....
Dagny T. |7.16.08 @ 12:54PM|#
meeko,
Yikes. What country do you live in?
As for the "just keep 'em in jail longer" argument, that gets
pretty damn expensive, pretty fast. Our correctional facilities
already don't have enough room and most are operating above
capacity.
(I guess, of course, if we stopped locking folks up for nonviolent
drug offences, we'd have more room for the truly creepy puppy
lurers.)
|7.16.08 @ 12:56PM|#
But residency laws aside, these people certainly don't
deserve any assistance from the public.
I don't think anyone here is asking for public assistance.
Certainly what would satisfy me is allowing people (even
legitimately bad people) who have done their time and paid their
debt to society to live their lives in peace.
Naga Sadow|7.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Not trying to bust your balls Radley but the AWOL article by Melba Newsome was way better for discussion than sex offenders.
Bingo|7.16.08 @ 1:16PM|#
If it wasn't for the porn and the gays these men would be living normal lives. We need to cleanse our society of social ills and live a decent life as G-D intended.
thoreau|7.16.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Maybe the solution would be that everyone who is angered knowing that there are bums who deserve to be where they are in life -- sleeping under a bridge -- could help those guys find homes to purchase in their own neighborhoods. There's also the added bonus of feeling morally superior to other people who don't want to help those sex offenders.
I don't want to give them anything. I want to see
a system where it is possible for them to lawfully improve their
living conditions if they refrain from harming others in the
future. I don't know if they will refrain from harming others, and
if they do harm others they should certainly be punished again.
However, if they refrain from harming others there should be a way
for them to lawfully improve their living conditions and enjoy
opportunities.
If there is no lawful way for them to improve their lives then
there is little incentive for them to refrain from harming others.
Rehabilitation might not be possible for everyone, but it's surely
possible for some, and the laws and associated incentives should
reflect that fact. Not just for their safety, but for ours as well:
A man with nothing to lose is a dangerous man.
Metal Messiah|7.16.08 @ 1:26PM|#
We all know how the government likes take a mile for every inch
they're given.
In the near future, expect the mandate for counts as a "sex
offense" to expand.
Tell a dirty joke? Register as a sex offender.
Wear a t-shirt with an offensive slogan or "dirty" word? Register a
sex offender.
Homosexual? Register as a sex offender.
I'm 100% serious. Never underestimate what the government will do
to "protect the children."
|7.16.08 @ 1:26PM|#
I would go underground rather than live under the overpass. And I'm sure that's what most Miami Co. sex offenders do.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Statutory rape implies consent, real life actual consent (not
legalese BS). If there were not real actual consent it would simply
be a charge of rape for which a long harsh sentence is just.
To say that someone can't consent, who clearly did, reminds me of
the Lincoln quote , "How many legs does a dog have if you call the
tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a
leg."
While I agree there needs to be a boundary (personally I'd adopt
the old system the netherlands had before they were bullied into
changing it) calling it rape belittles the actual act of rape.
Chloe|7.16.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Sorry, I'm just not too worried about the living conditions of
sex criminals. If someone truly was prosecuted wrongly for doing
something like urinating on the side of the wrong, then they are
probably capable of avoiding having to live under the bridge,
because their friends and family wouldn't have kicked them out like
a real sex criminal's social circle would have.
Either way...this one falls way off my radar in the big scheme of
things. Cry me a river. There are other much more important things
to resolve first. I'll get to that one later.
|7.16.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Everyone says things like Chloe, they 'aren't worried about the
living conditions of sex offenders' and basically implying that
these men deserve what they get because they are sex criminals.
This misses the point entirely.
We should be assigning a punishment to them that is appropriate
based on their crime, and does not include banishment. If you think
that 2 years in jail is not enough for crime X, increase the
sentance. Don't give him 2 years in jail and then sentence him to
live under a bridge for the rest of his life. If society thinks
it's appropriate for sex offenders to be burned at the stake, make
that the punishment. This jail time plus faux-banishment nonsense
is ridiculous.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 2:18PM|#
"side of the ROAD"
I like the original sentence better.
But on to your point, I imagine it's fairly easy to leave "this
stuff" for later if it doesn't affect you personally. But it is
peoples' lives we are talking about here. Not a good thing to be
flippant about.
Chloe|7.16.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Were they really sentenced to living under a bridge for the rest
of their life? Is that what a judge said?
I didn't know they could do that.
Cindy|7.16.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Statutory rape implies consent, real life actual consent
(not legalese BS). If there were not real actual consent it would
simply be a charge of rape for which a long harsh sentence is
just.
BS, people under 18 cannot give consent. It is the same thing as if
it were forcible, legally speaking.
Chloe|7.16.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I guess I pretty much think that adults should take care of themselves unless they're physically or mentally disabled. Sorry if that's flippant.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Chloe,
For many of the "sex offenders" who did no harm their familier CANT
help them. The laws make it impossible for them to stay with family
99% of the time.
In fact the areas in which they can legally live have been reduced
to a few small areas like under this particular bridge.
It's not a case of being sentenced "to live under x bridge". It's a
case of being prohibited from living within thousands of feet of
anywhere children "might congregate". How many places are thousands
of feet away from "ANYWHERE children might congregate"? Very, very
few.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Cindy,
Yes, LEGALLY speaking. But legal has no basis on reality or
morality.
They could say that anyone who received money from another person
is LEGALLY incapable of giving consent and thus LEGALLY make
rapists of everyone who's ever been to a prostitute or supported
their stay at home lover for that matter.
It doesn't reflect what is, just made up nonsense law.
Cindy|7.16.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Yes, LEGALLY speaking. But legal has no basis on reality or
morality.
If you had daughters and they had sex before 18, you would want the
boy in prison too.
Cindy|7.16.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Let's not forget that you can and will be labeled a "sex offender"
in Florida for being busted urinating in public, for being a 17
year old who has sex with your 16 year old girl friend,
etc.
What's the problem?
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 2:48PM|#
LOL.
I have three daughters all grown now. One did, two didn't. Not
relevant. And no I wouldn't want her ex-boyfriend in jail.
It's life. It's not rape.
In fact in most states in the US now the law is not even 18.
You seem to be under some delusion that having sex is necessarily a
horrible thing until you turn 18 years old.
|7.16.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Hey Cindy:
Since you're obviously a troll, why don't *you* go live under the
bridge?
|7.16.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Cindy - My now-husband and I began dating when I was 16 and he
was 17. We actually didn't have sex until just after my 17th
birthday, but under your logic, had we done it 2 weeks beforehand,
it would have been just fine for him to be tried, convicted,
jailed, and then told that for the rest of his life he a) must
register as a sex offender and b) not live anywhere that was within
1/2 mile of a school or park or church.
That's most of Suburban or Urban America.
Certainly it's our house in the oh-so-charming "Sunshine
State".
|7.16.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Don't feed the trolls, Kimberly. Cindy is what we on the internet like to call a troll. Go back under your bridge, Cindy.
|7.16.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Oops:) I am completely incapable of recognizing a troll. It's a sad deficiency on my part.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 3:24PM|#
ktc2,
Statutory rape implies consent, real life actual consent (not
legalese BS). If there were not real actual consent it would simply
be a charge of rape for which a long harsh sentence is
just.
Actually, I think it implies coerced consent, which is different
than real-life actual consent.
Like I said, I think consent is a tricky concept here.
Cindy|7.16.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Cindy - My now-husband and I began dating when I was 16 and
he was 17. We actually didn't have sex until just after my 17th
birthday, but under your logic, had we done it 2 weeks beforehand,
it would have been just fine for him to be tried, convicted,
jailed, and then told that for the rest of his life he a) must
register as a sex offender and b) not live anywhere that was within
1/2 mile of a school or park or church.
Well not really fine in such an extreme case, but we are a nation
of laws. The law's the law. Not enforcing a law creates disrespect
for the law.
5372894904|7.16.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"Because, you know, i would say, that this man is being
punished, like several times at once for one, in his case even
debatable, "crime"."
He said he did not expose himself and yet a court found him guilty
and sentenced him to prision. Everyone in prison claims they are
innocent. This guy's no differnt. In my perfect world all sex
crimes are capital crimes.
Sambo|7.16.08 @ 3:26PM|#
"How long will it be before they institute branding and
castration?"
You might want to direct that question to the Reverend Jesse
Jackson.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I'd have to differ with you there. I consented quite readily and
without regret on a few occasions before my 18th birthday.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"He said he did not expose himself and yet a court found him
guilty and sentenced him to prision. Everyone in prison claims they
are innocent. This guy's no differnt."
Wow! LOL.
Has it ever occurred to you that our legal system is rigged and
finds 95+% guilty regardless of the facts?
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 3:30PM|#
ktc2,
I have already said that the age of consent is the main sticky
issue.
A 12 year old and a 24 year old = coerced consent.
A 12 year old and a 13 year old = ?
A 16 year old and an 18 year old = consent, most likely.
A 16 year old and a 36 year old = coerced consent? If the adult is
their teacher or parent? If the adult is a cop?
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Neu Mejican,
When I was 13 I went to a party, it was just going to be another
one of those boring "dad's job" related parties that I was told to
come along smile nice and behave.
There was this 35 year old reasonably attractive woman there who
had a few drinks.
Long story short she and I had sex on the bed upstairs on
everyone's coats.
Trust me, I was NOT coerced. LOL.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 3:37PM|#
In fact I felt like the luckiest kid on the planet.
Word got around town eventually from the "adults" at the party who
eventually realized we had disappeared upstairs together. That just
made it better for me. I was like a hero to the guys. LOL.
|7.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#
ktc2, you sound both lucky and victimized. Not sure how it's possible, but at 13? Shit, she raped you, bro.
|7.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#
"Maybe the solution would be that everyone who is angered
knowing that there are bums who deserve to be where they are in
life -- sleeping under a bridge -- could help those guys find homes
to purchase in their own neighborhoods. There's also the added
bonus of feeling morally superior to other people who don't want to
help those sex offenders."
IF they have the money, the can come to my neighborhood. If any of
the them ever screw with me or my family I will blow their heads
off. I don't need the government to protect me. Further, even if
they are living under a bridge, there is nothing to stop them from
coming to my neighborhood now. As long as you know who they are and
know not to let your kids near them, who the hell cares where they
live?
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Art-P.O.G.
Thanks. I never saw her again after that party, but if ANYONE had
ever tried prosecute her I would absolutely have refused to
cooperate in any way. Still would and Im now 38.
5372894904|7.16.08 @ 3:49PM|#
"Has it ever occurred to you that our legal system is rigged and
finds 95+% guilty regardless of the facts?"
That's Bullshit.
The truth is, 95+% of criminal acts don't even result in an
arrest.
My neighbor was robbed at gun point. no one was arrested. It
happens every day in America from sea to shining sea.
|7.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#
ktc2,
Wow. That is all I can say. I wouldn't have been coerced or damaged
at that age either. I doubt any of my friends would have been
either.
Kathy|7.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#
ktc2
You were victimized, she raped you. How did you recover from this
traumatic event? She should have been prosecuted, like the woman
with her student. There is a worldwide movement to raise the age to
21.
Colonel_Angus|7.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Any one who posts with a first name that is an unfamiliar one on
H&R is probably just some troll looking for laughs.
ktc2: did she rape you because you were underage, or did you rape
her because she was drunk?
|7.16.08 @ 4:14PM|#
John,
Oh, come on! Kathy = Cindy.
Are we spotting a trend yet? The theme of the troll today is
"female", not coincidentally on a thread that seems to be veering
into age of consent for some mysterious reason.
lol|7.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#
episarch,
Well, lol, if "sex offenders" were limited to the examples you
give, that would be one thing. But when a 17-year-old who gets a
blowjob from a 15-year-old, or a guy who takes a piss on the side
of the road, get assigned the "sex offender" label, that really
fucks things up. Also, there are wrongful convictions. All the
time.
the "examples i gave" were the examples given in the article...
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#
My point is that the standard way we categorize "consent"
doesn't stand up to logic or my personal experiences.
I'm not the ONLY one in the world with a similar POSITIVE
experience. More and more people are speaking out about good
consentual sexual experiences before our current "age of
consent".
Not to minimize sexual abuse, it does happen and should be punished
severely, but that said, not everyone under the legal age who has
sex (regardless of the age of the other person) is in any way
abused or victimized.
|7.16.08 @ 5:16PM|#
"Not to minimize sexual abuse, it does happen and should be
punished severely, but that said, not everyone under the legal age
who has sex (regardless of the age of the other person) is in any
way abused or victimized."
That is the nasty secret that no one wants to deal with. There is a
reason why cultures for centuries considered reaching puberty to be
contemproanious with becoming and adult. It wasn't until the last
few hundred years or so that we invented the idea of the teenager
and extended childhood to such a degree that we have to deny the
obvious.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 6:04PM|#
ktc2,
Anecdotes aside, any age of consent law also needs to look at the
legal consequences of the action.
Let's add a twist to your real life story.
Said adult woman was looking to get pregnant, and did. She then
sues you for child support.
Did you consent to the responsibilities of raising the child? Or
were you coerced into fathering the child?
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Coercion, by the way, does not need to involve force or
trauma.
not everyone under the legal age who has sex (regardless of the
age of the other person) is in any way abused or
victimized
Not everyone, for sure, what is the general trend?
The wise policy (and I already mentioned that I think many of the
existing ones are poorly designed) would be based on preventing the
situations where the chances are greater that the consequences are
negative, and that abuse has happened.
Taking all of the potential ramifications of the sex into
account.
So, for instance, 35 year old woman gives 13 year boy a blow
job...hard to see the downside for the boy. Unprotected
intercourse, see my hypothetical above.
Reverse genders, and you complicate things further. Add in special
relationships (teacher, doctor, parent) and you complicate things
further.
|7.16.08 @ 6:25PM|#
Trust me, I was NOT coerced
If you were a girl that would clearly be rape, because girls are
more mature than boys.
|7.16.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Did you consent to the responsibilities of raising the child? Or were you coerced into fathering the child?
When it comes to child support, consent or lack thereof is
irrelevant.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Child support doesn't raise a quandry for me. I find ALL forms of coerced wealth redistribution immoral including child support (absent a contract).
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 6:50PM|#
ktc2
Child support doesn't raise a quandry for me. I find ALL forms
of coerced wealth redistribution immoral including child support
(absent a contract).
Including the coerced wealth redistribution from parent to
child?
You don't think a parent has responsibility to support their
offspring?
Hmmm...take the state out of the picture and try again.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Implied consent:
Having sex with you implies that I will share responsibility for
any offspring that result.
Was 13 year old ktc2 able to consent to this condition?
Would he be morally (and legally) responsible for the child?
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 7:04PM|#
I don't believe in any such condition.
Child support is basically a testicle tax.
As far as I'm concerned if a woman wants to give birth to and raise
a child that is HER sole CHOICE.
There is nothing preventing her from aborting or adopting.
So long as it is her sole choice I do not feel the male, who has no
such choice at that point, is under any obligation absent some form
of contract.
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 7:07PM|#
It seems the long-term consequences of ktc2's rape at 13 include
a stunted moral sense. He basically stopped developing at 13
despite continuing to age.
;^)
Neu Mejican|7.16.08 @ 7:10PM|#
There is nothing preventing her from aborting or
adopting.
Aborting, true.
Adopting, untrue...you would, as the father, have to relinquish
your parental rights.
ktc2|7.16.08 @ 8:42PM|#
As far as "You had sex with me now you're my slave for the next
18 years!" Nope, that doesn't cut it.
Now if they TOGETHER decide to have and raise the child that's
another matter entirely. There we talking contract, verbal or
written.
It may be cold and logical but I don't think a man should be
obligated financially for anything more than half the cost of an
abortion at the most or half the cost of a morning after kit.
As to my sense of "morality" it may differ from yours and certainly
is not based in any traditional religious nonsense however I think
it very logically developed. Personal insults are unbecoming to
you.
Sunny|7.17.08 @ 12:32AM|#
Thank you for this post, although at least two years ago I
emailed Reason information regarding just how far politicians were
pushing these laws--and that was previous to the passage of the
Adam Walsh Act. Many of us have been blogging about this issue for
some time and finally, we are being heard. Hopefully--now with
mainstream America becoming educated on just how political this
issue is--the laws will come under review. Be aware. Many people
have been convicted of sex offenses that have never touch anyone
physically. And under the current laws, offenses deemed as sexual
are quite broad. At this point, I'm fairly certain sneezing is not
yet a sex offense.(That's a joke, but don't give the feds any
ideas). For more information, visit my blog--Smashed Frog--and read
"America's Dirty Little Secret" (in my sidebar). It's unbelievable
how the trampling of privacy rights began with this powerless group
and since no one complained--with the passage of FISA--the feds are
beginning to trample on the privacy rights of everyday
Americans.
One word of advice. Think smart online. Tell those you care
about--think smart online. One sting by a cyber cop and your life
is over.
Sunny|7.17.08 @ 12:38AM|#
One more thing--The Miami-Dade's Public Defender's Office is
challenging the constitutionality of Miami-Dade's sex-offender
residency ordinance, arguing it essentially banishes poor sex
offenders from the county and, in some cases, leaves them
homeless.
The office has offered up an unprecedented argument: that the
county's ordinance, combined with numerous city ordinances, make it
nearly impossible for sex offenders to find housing.
A trial is scheduled on the issue for August.
Read more here:
http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/2008/06/crashing-down-julia-tuttle-causeway.html
http://www.sdp123a.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=275
zoltan|7.17.08 @ 3:43AM|#
ktc2: If you had been a 13-year-old girl and a 30-something-year-old man took your virginity why is their suddenly such an uproar? At 13, there are plenty of females (if not as high as the numbers of males) who would welcome such an opportunity.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Ktc2,
As far as "You had sex with me now you're my slave for the next
18 years!" Nope, that doesn't cut it.
The responsibility is to the child not the other parent. In your
language the sentence should read: I had sex with your mother, now
you are my responsibility for the next 18 years.
That is the adult response.
It may be cold and logical but I don't think a man should be
obligated financially for anything more than half the cost of an
abortion at the most or half the cost of a morning after
kit.
Cold, selfish, sure, logical...nah.
Half the responsibility for the unintended consequences of your
joint action.
As to my sense of "morality" it may differ from yours and
certainly is not based in any traditional religious nonsense
however I think it very logically developed. Personal insults are
unbecoming to you.
Morality is not a religious concept.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Sexual calculus.
Even if we use protection there is a chance that our joint action
will result in a child.
I do not have the right to force the mother to abort the child, so
it may be born as a direct result of my action.
Since I voluntarily took on the risks of said action knowing the
potential consequences (a child who needs adult support being
born), I am responsible for those consequences.
A 13 year old boy having sex with an adult may not be responsible
for this kind of calculus.
Age of consent should involve some consideration of when he
would/should be responsible.
Ktc2's logic: I can easily shirk my responsibility by shifting it
to someone else who cannot so easily avoid it, therefore, I have no
responsibility for the unintended, but clearly predictable
consequences of my actions.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 11:58AM|#
This is probably a dead thread, but if any of the female reader's around here wants to give their 2 cents on ktc2's "logical" solution to the sexual calculus, I would be interested in reading the female, libertarian take.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Regarding the adoption option:
Adoption is the voluntary action of someone other than ktc2 or the
mother.
The adopting parent(s) are saying, I recognize ktc2's and the
mother's responsibilities to this child and am willing to take them
on in exchange for their willingness to give up their parental
right in regards to this child.
Until someone voluntarily takes this step and assumes the
responsibilities that ktc2 and the mother have to the child, those
responsibilities remain.
I assume that ktc2 would not want to use force by having the state
take over these responsibilities for him, so until someone
volunteers, he has these responsibilities.
He may actively search for said volunteer as a mechanism to cover
his responsibilities by placing his child up for adoption,
advertising his willingness to exchange parental rights as the
price for avoiding the responsibility costs resulting from his
joint action with the mother of the child. If the mother does not
voluntarily agree to shoulder his portion of the responsibility, he
still has it.
|7.17.08 @ 12:55PM|#
This is probably a dead thread, but if any of the female
reader's around here wants to give their 2 cents on ktc2's
"logical" solution to the sexual calculus, I would be interested in
reading the female, libertarian take.
I agree with you here, Neu Mejican:
Cold, selfish, sure, logical...nah.
Half the responsibility for the unintended consequences of your joint action.
Additionally, I would only add that given the physical nature of
bearing a child, I still think the woman should have the final say
on whether she will carry the zygote/fetus to term, with or without
the sanction of the paternal father. Because the alternative --
creating laws that force someone physically to do something with
their own body, even if "only" for 9 months -- would be an
abomination. Even if abortion *in some circumstances* could be
considered an immature, cold, or selfish decision on the part of
the woman, I think that maintaining the physical self-ownership of
every living individual, without interference from the state,
trumps a zygote's right to develop.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Thanks Smacky,
I was assuming your point as axiomatic - the mother's right to
physical autonomy and control of her body trumps the father's right
to control the outcome of the situation.
It does not, however, remove his responsibility for the unintended
consequences of his voluntary participation in a joint
activity.
|7.17.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Well not really fine in such an extreme case, but we are a
nation of laws. The law's the law. Not enforcing a law creates
disrespect for the law.
As does enforcing stupid laws.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245