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.

Comments

[R C Dean]

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]

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]

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 …….

[Nigel Watt]

Why don’t they leave the county? Are they not allowed to?

[Elemenope]

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.

[Reinmoose]

The address next to his photo reads UNDER THE JULIA TUTTLE CAUSEWAY.

This makes me want to cry

[J sub D]

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

[P Brooks]

How long will it be before they institute branding and castration?

[Episiarch]

Don’t joke, P Brooks. Chemical castration is entirely possible and has been considered.

[ktc2]

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.

[J sub D]

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.

[Reinmoose]

Remember guys – the United States does not torture!

[meeko]

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.

[P Brooks]

Who says I was joking?

[smacky]

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]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351386,00.html

Here it is. It actually passed.

[meeko]

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.

[Reinmoose]

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\']

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.

[smacky]

Reinmoose,

Agreed. I think longer jail sentences are a workable solution.

[Jammer]

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]

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]

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.

[lol]

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

[John]

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]

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]

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.

[John]

“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.

[Isaac Bartram]

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]

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]

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.

[smacky]

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]

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]

“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.]

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.)

[Hugh Akston]

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]

Not trying to bust your balls Radley but the AWOL article by Melba Newsome was way better for discussion than sex offenders.

[legislator]

Time to ban puppies, no?

[Bingo]

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]

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]

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.”

[ChrisO]

I would go underground rather than live under the overpass. And I’m sure that’s what most Miami Co. sex offenders do.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Has anyone here seen the movie Little Children? Good stuff.

[ktc2]

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]

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.

[Chloe]

“side of the ROAD”

[Wilson]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Chloe]

I’m still not convinced. But don’t worry about it. I don’t mind.

[Cindy]

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]

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]

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.

[Seamus]

Hey Cindy:

Since you’re obviously a troll, why don’t *you* go live under the bridge?

[Kimberly]

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”.

[smacky]

Don’t feed the trolls, Kimberly. Cindy is what we on the internet like to call a troll. Go back under your bridge, Cindy.

[Kimberly]

Oops:) I am completely incapable of recognizing a troll. It’s a sad deficiency on my part.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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]

“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]

“How long will it be before they institute branding and castration?”

You might want to direct that question to the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

[ktc2]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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.

[Art-P.O.G.]

ktc2, you sound both lucky and victimized. Not sure how it’s possible, but at 13? Shit, she raped you, bro.

[Art-P.O.G.]

I’m somehow, proud, envious and weirdly disturbed by your story.

[John]

“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]

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]

“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.

[John]

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]

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.

[John]

Kathy,

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

[Colonel_Angus]

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?

[smacky]

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]

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…

[Tacos mmm...]

ktc2,

I was horribly traumatized by lack of sex at 13.

[ktc2]

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.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Might as well post this. Age of Consent by New Order.

[John]

“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]

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]

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.

[Bob Smith]

Trust me, I was NOT coerced

If you were a girl that would clearly be rape, because girls are more mature than boys.

[Bob Smith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ktc2,

Ah, I see, so you are still 13.
Got it.

[Neu Mejican]

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]

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]

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.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Neu Mejican raises a lot of good points, though.

[Sunny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[smacky]

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]

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.

[Seamus]

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.

[Adidas Originals ZX adidasneth]

I’ve heard about this news that someone sleep in the bridge on TV.just can’t understand why.