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
Homeless Georgia Sex Offenders Ordered Into, Then Out of the Woods
Several convicted sex offenders in Georgia, home to some of the toughest laws in the country, were told by their probation officers to take up camp in a woods because all but one of the state's homeless shelters don't meet state requirements to be 1,000 feet from any place where children may gather.
One of the offenders, 34-year-old William Hawkins, is on the sex offender for an offense committed against a 12-year-old when he was 15 (the crime was "sexual battery," though it isn't clear if the sex was coerced).
After the A.P. broke the story of the enclave in the woods over the weekend, the offenders were told yesterday to pack up and move again, though it isn't exactly clear where they'll go. They can also be re-arrested for failing to notify state authorities of their new residence after moving. Not having a residence to report apparently isn't an excuse.
If they're permitted to cross state lines, I wrote last year about a bridge in Florida they could live under.
|9.30.09 @ 1:38PM|#
I am in agreeance, I just didn't want to waste the opportunity to point out a typo.
|9.30.09 @ 1:41PM|#
They can also be re-arrested for failing to notify state
authorities of their new residence after moving. Not having a
residence to report apparently isn't an excuse.
Apparently, the well-meaning legislators did not bother to think
about that Catch-22 situation.
I would normally not feel pity for sexual predators, but in many
cases, these draconian laws hit those that committed victimless
crimes the hardest, invariably unjustly. I am reminded of several
cases of teenagers having sex and the oldest of the two being
arrested and convicted of statutory rape just because the other
consenting teenager is "underage", which is to say, too
stupid to make his or her own decisions.
|9.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
I had an argument with a particular annoying collegue who is thinks they are a history buff. At any rate, this person thinks that people have changed and that people really are different now than they were in say the middle ages or Rome or Egypt. Well bunk to that. This shit shows that we are no different now than we were when we lived in caves. In fact, the cave dwellers had more common sense. They just exiled people and were done with it. This stuff makes me ashamed to be a human being.
|9.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
And before anyone else says it; why doesn't this guy just direct a few movies? France will take him in.
|9.30.09 @ 1:53PM|#
This guy is 34 and apparently hasn't done anything else. Unless he raped and murdered the girl, I think it is time to let the guy live a normal life. Really, what the hell is the matter with people?
|9.30.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Suger Free,
Best comment on Polanski I have read was on Althouse. It was
"Finally Europe Defends a Jew".
|9.30.09 @ 1:54PM|#
At any rate, this person thinks that people have changed and
that people really are different now than they were in say the
middle ages or Rome or Egypt.
I honestly believe that most people think that. Anyone who does is,
of course, a fool.
|9.30.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Maybe they could all go live on Hubbard's giant yacht. That ship has already been perfectly outfitted to support sex criminals exiled to international water.
|9.30.09 @ 1:59PM|#
RC Dean,
They think that because our mores have changed and it is no longer
acceptable to say enslave our enemies, human nature has changed. We
just abide by different rules now. We are just the same.
jtuf|9.30.09 @ 2:01PM|#
P Brooks | September 30, 2009, 1:38pm | #
Seasteaders!
That's what I was going to say.
|9.30.09 @ 2:02PM|#
""I honestly believe that most people think that. Anyone who
does is, of course, a fool."""
I do too. I think they want to believe we are beyond the past and
better than yesteryear.
We have new toys, new technology, but we are still not far from
jumping in trees and throwing crap at each other. But I hear they
may bring that back for Congress.
Jeneane Garofalo|9.30.09 @ 2:03PM|#
"I would normally not feel pity for sexual predators, but in
many cases, these draconian laws hit those that committed
victimless crimes the hardest"
Victimless crimes? Please clarify / explain.
Kay|9.30.09 @ 2:03PM|#
At any rate, this person thinks that people have changed and
that people really are different now than they were in say the
middle ages or Rome or Egypt.
People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
|9.30.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Victimless crimes? Please clarify / explain.
Peeing on a building
Having sex w your 16 y/o partner when you are 18
Killing and dismembering a politician
cangrejos fantasmas|9.30.09 @ 2:08PM|#
"Best comment on Polanski I have read was on Althouse. It was
"Finally Europe Defends a Jew"."
They stole that from here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/136400.html#1402090
cangrejos fantasmas|9.30.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"but we are still not far from jumping in trees and throwing
crap at each other"
Hit & Runners have been throwing crap at each other for
years.
NTTAWWT
cangrejos fantasmas|9.30.09 @ 2:13PM|#
"Peeing on a building
Having sex w your 16 y/o partner when you are 18"
Of those convicted of sex crimes, what percentage falls into these
two categories?
Just curious.
|9.30.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"Of those convicted of sex crimes, what percentage falls into
these two categories?"
Since if it is a percentage greater than zero it is too high, it
doesn't really matter does it?
kinnath|9.30.09 @ 2:19PM|#
Of those convicted of sex crimes, what percentage falls into
these two categories?
Nearly half of all sex crimes against minors involve consensual sex
the minor's also underage or nearly underage parnter.
Nearly half of all sex crimes against minors involve adult friends
or family members.
Only a few percent involve total strangers against minors.
Sex offender lists are almost totaly useless in regards to
identifying and locating adults that represent a threat to the
general public.
To acheive this almost useless outcome, we have destroyed the
concept that a person can be tried, convicted, and punished JUST
ONCE for breaking the law.
cangrejos fantasmas|9.30.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Any links to support all of this?
BTW, I think sex offender registries are unconstitutional.
|9.30.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"To acheive this almost useless outcome, we have destroyed the
concept that a person can be tried, convicted, and punished JUST
ONCE for breaking the law."
Exactly. I really don't get our nurosis. Sex crimes are horrible.
But so are a lot of other crimes. And at the same time we launch
witch trails about child sex crimes, we let stage parents whore out
their children to TV and the movies and we have advertising and
entertainment industries that sexualize children. People sexualize
their own children by letting their 10 year olds wear shorts with
"JUICY" written on the back. Then, we drive some guy literally out
into the woods because he had sex with a 12 year old when he was
15. Society really is batshit insane about child sexuality.
|9.30.09 @ 2:39PM|#
I think it's clear that the state's policy towards the people in
question is to just harass them until they commit suicide.
-jcr
|10.15.09 @ 10:04AM|#
I am ok with that... They can always move to another state as well... Just stay away from my kids. These people can not be rehabilitated so we should either lock them up for life, kill them or ship them to Iran where they can fit in.
|9.30.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Re: Cangrejos fantasmas,
BTW, I think sex offender registries are
unconstitutional.
You're 100% correct - THEY ARE unconstitutional. They violate the
Double Jeopardy clause - a person is convicted by proxy of the very
same offense for which he or she already made time in jail, even if
authorities obfuscate it with calling it a "registry".
The problem is that no Supreme Court judge will touch this because
he or she would risk being called a protector of rapists.
|9.30.09 @ 2:52PM|#
It is
interesting that bin Laden (or whoever is spoofing him) is
apparently using the US's lack of support for Georgia as a talking
point for why Muslims shouldn't trust the US. So you piss off
people either way.
This time, rather than bin Laden "agreeing with the Democratic
position," he's "agreeing with the Republican position" of what the
USA should've done in Georgia.
Oh wait, wrong Georgia.
Hottie16|9.30.09 @ 2:53PM|#
When my brother was in HS, he and some friends mooned a pirate ship off of Cape Cod. It turns out that the "pirate ship" was actually a family harbour cruise tour, charges never got pressed, but I know they faced the threat from the cops and cruise owners of charging them with exposure to minors, which if convicted would make them eligible for these magical registries everyone is talking about.... anyway, now my brother is a med student at an Ivy League school, clearly a massive drain on society who should have to live under a bridge.
|9.30.09 @ 2:55PM|#
They violate the Double Jeopardy clause - a person is convicted by proxy of the very same offense for which he or she already made time in jail, even if authorities obfuscate it with calling it a "registry".
I agree that setting up the registry after the initial conviction
would be Ex Post Facto. However, if the registry exists at the time
of sentencing (and it's mentioned in the relevant state laws as a
possible punishment), I don't think people would find that it
violated Double Jeopardy.
The reasoning would be essentially that "parole conditions after
you leave jail don't violate Double Jeopardy, so this doesn't
either."
cangrejos fantasmas|9.30.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"Any links to support all of this?
www.google.com"
Just slightly better than Tony.
kinnath|9.30.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Listen cj. This topic has been in the news for several years.
There have been many, many, many articles that cite the same basic
data 1/2 of offenders are peer-age-group lovers, 1/2 of offenders
are adults known to the victim, and a very small number offenders
are strangers. I assumed this was well enough understood that a
cite wasn't necessary.
Not my fault you're so out of touch.
|9.30.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Meanwhile
this asshole (top story) won't be on a sex-offeder list so he
can move into any neighborhood he wants after he gets out.
Go ahead. Tell me American's aren't hysterical when it comes to
children and sex. I dare you.
Anonymous|9.30.09 @ 3:48PM|#
How does whether the sex was with an adult friend or family member rather than a stranger bear on whether the crime was "victimless"? Consent would seem to be the real question with "victimless" crimes.
kinnath|9.30.09 @ 3:51PM|#
I don't believe I said either "victim" or "victimless".
I was only discussing the composition of sex offender lists and
their efficacy.
|9.30.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Sex offender laws really stopped Phillip Garrido from kidnapping
himself a teenage sex slave and breeding himself a sex harem didn't
they? But they can seemingly make life hell for a perfectly normal
guy that had sex when he was a teenager. That pretty much sums up
about useful the entire system is. Deranged sociopaths always
ignore the laws, and the law usually winds up being a total
clusterfuck for everyone else.
I mean seriously set up camp in the woods is the end result of a
law? Hey, look, I'm actually all for exile and banishment laws.
Fine, send them out to the wilderness, just don't ask them to check
in every time they move to a new forrest.
It's completely ridiculous that there are laws against consensual
sex between kids that wind up placing those people in the same
category as psychos who actually do, in the words of Whoopi
Goldberg, "rape rape" little kids.
On the other hand it makes perfect sense that yet another law has a
logically impossible consequence.
jtuf|9.30.09 @ 4:35PM|#
The current sex crime laws, like the current drug laws, end up putting teenagers in jail in the name of protecting youth. This is what happens when politicians care less about actual kids than about looking pro-kid.
|9.30.09 @ 4:36PM|#
I am sorry this is Wrong!
I am a victim of this " Homeless Sex Offender Camp"
My husband was charged with a sex crime at the age of 19 , his
girlfriend being the younger of the two he was charged. He dose not
hunt little kids with a cast net and candy! He is punished , we are
everyday of our lives. We own our home, but do you know where my
husband lives from 6pm- until 7am ? In a marsh, or what his
probation officer would call the woods! He comes to our house
during the day, he just can't sleep there! It makes no sense at
ALL! If people are so worried about sex offenders...they really
should be now they keep these camps sercret and creating
monsters....If these guy were not bad, let me tell you they will
be...they have no running water, no food, no jobs, and they live in
the woods! I have pictures, it's sad people don't even treat their
animals like that... and if the goverment can do that to one class
of poeple..then who is next! Our Goverment is so quick to charge
someone with a sex crime, when in fact it really was not. Raping
okay , but teenage sex not someone we need to fear?
Mary|9.30.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Our Goverment is so quick to charge someone with a sex
crime, when in fact it really was not. Raping okay , but teenage
sex not someone we need to fear?
Technically, statutory rape is the same as forcible rape because
someone under 18 is not capable of consent, so yes, he broke the
law and is dangerous and should be banished.
|9.30.09 @ 5:19PM|#
The reasoning would be essentially that "parole conditions
after you leave jail don't violate Double Jeopardy, so this doesn't
either."
Parole conditions are completely different. They only last for the
duration of your original prison sentence. The sex offender
registries are lifetime restrictions levied mostly against crimes
that don't carry lifetime prison sentences.
|9.30.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Just get it over with and shoot the muthafuckers already.
Better than waiting till this treatment causes somebody to snap and
harm some bystanders.
Sorry, i forgot, that's the goal. The cops need a clear reason to
shoot them after all. Well, i mean, they dont, but it saves all
that paid-vacation-time hassle. Desk-duty is for noobs.
|9.30.09 @ 6:42PM|#
Re: John Thacker,
However, if the registry exists at the time of sentencing (and
it's mentioned in the relevant state laws as a possible
punishment), I don't think people would find that it violated
Double Jeopardy.
That's not the reason it violates it, John. The problem with sexual
offender registry laws is that it incriminates a person by virtue
of factors that are beyond his control, for instance: The rule that
one cannot live within 1,000 feet of any place where children
gather would ipso facto make the registered person a violator of
the rule if someone decides to open a day care center within his
block. However, he would not be placed in this position if the
registry was not there before, and he would not be registered if he
had not served time for a sex crime - so basically he gets punished
again for the very crime for which he already served!
The reasoning would be essentially that "parole conditions
after you leave jail don't violate Double Jeopardy, so this doesn't
either."
The Parole system is nowhere near the same as a sex offender
registry. A parolee has an objective expectation of becoming free
once the parole time expires. Instead, the registry is supposedly
for life.
Robert|9.30.09 @ 7:57PM|#
If the parolees don't like camping, do they have the option to stay in jail? Or to return there if they prefer? Or do they have to be sentenced to something else if they want to go back?
|10.1.09 @ 3:14AM|#
If the parolees don't like camping, do they have the option to stay in jail? Or to return there if they prefer?
I'm pretty sure they can't. That's the "beauty" of it, more pain than a life sentence but we don't have to pay for it.
hananova|9.30.09 @ 8:34PM|#
Mary, if 17-year-olds are not capable of consent, then why do feminists that they *can* make more important decisions about abortion?
Hananova|9.30.09 @ 8:37PM|#
Kinnath, you are right, I make elaborate case here:
(This was censored on Sean Hannity forums)
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/09/30/two-cold-war-authors-implode-defending-polanski/
Hananova|9.30.09 @ 8:46PM|#
Sorry, I wanted to say: "If a 17 and 11 month-old girl is not smart enough to decide if, when and where she wants sex (with the full complicity of the high school social scientwits), then why do feminists insist that a 12-year-old is intelligent enough to make a decision regarding abortion?"
MWG|9.30.09 @ 8:47PM|#
"Meanwhile this asshole (top story) won't be on a sex-offeder
list so he can move into any neighborhood he wants after he gets
out."
-J sub D
Oh, I didn't see "(top story)". I though you were talking about Tom
Borrow...
|10.1.09 @ 9:36AM|#
You are not permitted out of the county, much less state lines. Hate on fear mongering politician suck up so called Christians. Your day will come when they round up DUI, gun owners, etc. Then you will bleat like sheep.
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