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.

Comments

[thew83]

those it isn't clear?

[Old Mexican]

I think he meant to say "THOUGH it isn't clear[...]"

[thew83]

I am in agreeance, I just didn't want to waste the opportunity to point out a typo.

[P Brooks]

Seasteaders!

[Old Mexican]

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.

[Old Mexican]

By the way, the comments above are clearly racist. Just sayin'.

[John]

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.

[John]

And before anyone else says it; why doesn't this guy just direct a few movies? France will take him in.

[SugarFree]

Where do these people expect Roman Polanksi to live?

[SugarFree]

You will pay dearly for that, John. If that even is your real name.

[John]

Shakes fist in triumpth!!

[John]

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?

[John]

Suger Free,

Best comment on Polanski I have read was on Althouse. It was "Finally Europe Defends a Jew".

[R C Dean]

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.

[SugarFree]

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.

[John]

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]

P Brooks | September 30, 2009, 1:38pm | #
Seasteaders!

That's what I was going to say.

[TrickyVic]

""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]

"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]

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.

[FrBunny]

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]

"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]

"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]

"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.

[John]

"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]

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]

Any links to support all of this?

BTW, I think sex offender registries are unconstitutional.

[kinnath]

Any links to support all of this?

http://www.google.com

[John]

"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.

[John C. Randolph]

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

[Buff]

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.

[Old Mexican]

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.

[John Thacker]

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]

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.

[John Thacker]

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]

"Any links to support all of this?

http://www.google.com"

Just slightly better than Tony.

[kinnath]

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.

[J sub D]

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]

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]

I don't believe I said either "victim" or "victimless".

I was only discussing the composition of sex offender lists and their efficacy.

[TQ]

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]

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.

[Kari]

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]

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.

[Tulpa]

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.

[juanita]

Mary=harsh

[wylie]

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.

[Old Mexican]

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]

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?

[Bob Smith]

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]

Mary, if 17-year-olds are not capable of consent, then why do feminists that they *can* make more important decisions about abortion?

[Hananova]

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]

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]

"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...

[Real Deal]

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.