It appears that the "Powers That Be" do not take kindly to contacting their employess -after hours-, I wonder why? Could it be that any responses to questions cannot be censored to protect the Powers?5-16-2010 Florida:
The odd dustup last week between homeless advocate Rick Dye and Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen again should raise awareness of the pitfalls of Florida’s sexual offender registry.
McKeithen sent a letter to Dye criticizing him for contacting a BCSO employee outside the workplace to discuss the registry. Dye says he called analyst Stephen O’Brian, who is involved in registering sex offenders, requesting they meet after work to discuss developing a brochure or handout that could be distributed to transient sexual offenders informing them of where in the area they could legally reside.
According to Maj. Tommy Ford, who investigated the meeting, Dye asked O’Brian to keep their conversation from the sheriff. Dye also allegedly insinuated that McKeithen privately shared his views on the registry and only locks up violators because of public opinion.
Not surprisingly, McKeithen didn’t take too kindly to such a rendezvous. In his letter, he informed Dye that covertly contacting a public servant “can be construed as an attempt to commit a criminal act,” i.e., by bribing or otherwise unduly influencing him. The sheriff said he didn’t believe that was the case in this incident, but nevertheless said Dye’s actions were “inappropriate.”
McKeithen is right. Dye’s idea about educating transient offenders on the law sounds worthy. So why not go through proper channels at the BCSO to discuss the possibility of a public-private cooperation? The cloak-and-dagger stuff justifiably invites suspicion.
Still, there appears to be some common ground between the sheriff and the former bank executive-turned-homeless activist. McKeithen in his letter wrote that he believes that Dye’s intent in helping the homeless “is being done with the right spirit,” though he emphasized that he is committed to following the strict regulations on sex offenders. Dye told The News Herald’s Tosha Sketo that he agrees that offenders need to monitored and tracked.
The problem, as Dye correctly points out, is that state and local laws make it difficult for them to reintegrate into society.
As some states and communities have discovered, laws prohibiting sex offenders from living or working within a half-mile of a school, playground or day-care center greatly limits their options. Some go live in smaller, rural communities where there are fewer police resources to track them. Others simply don’t update their registration and go underground. In 2005, as a result of its strict sex offender law Iowa lost track of nearly half of its parolees.
In 2007, Miami received national attention for “housing” five registered sex offenders under a causeway bridge because of a shortage of legal, affordable places to live. The site had no running water, no electricity and little protection from the elements, but the state said it at least knew where they were — a probation officer visited the men nearly every day.
Last year, nine homeless sex offenders in Marietta, Ga., were directed by their probation officers to camp in the woods behind an office park as a “location of last resort.” The state eventually told them they had to leave that spot, too.
Those anecdotes aren’t to elicit sympathy for folks who committed vile crimes. They are to point out how supposedly get-tough-on-criminals laws can have the perverse effect of making it harder to enforce them. Plus, limiting offenders’ options for lawful activity only increases chances they will turn to illegal acts.
Clearly, if sex offenders cannot be trusted to live and work in their communities, the solution is not to release them from prison. Better to impose that punishment up front, with due process, than to limit where offenders can live after they’ve already served their time.
That’s expensive, but the costs could be offset in part by not incarcerating as many non-violent, non-sexual offenders. Keeping offenders monitored in one secure place will free up local law enforcement from having to track the parolees.
Short of that, Dye is right that paroled offenders need assistance in remaining above ground, on law-enforcement’s radar and working toward establishing productive, lawful lives. Those efforts need to be addressed through official contacts, not back-channel chats. ..Source.. NewsHearld.com
No comments:
Post a Comment