Framing And Complaining: Sex Offenders Under A Bridge
posted by Dan Filler
Today’s inspiring news story, out of Miami, is that five sex offenders are living under a bridge with the approval of state authorities. Apparently, they are required to stay under the bridge every night from 10 to 6, and a parole officer routinely checks in on them. The story links the problem to legislation that forbids sex offenders from living withing 2500 feet of just about anything – schools, parks or places kids gather. I have a couple of reactions to this story – which has gotten a nice toehold in the national media (347 news articles in Google News as of 1:53 pm EDT.)
First, I have to put on my critics hat. There is plenty of reason to believe that the residence ordinances are only a piece of the story here. There are surely other places for these folks to live than under a bridge. The problem, I imagine, is that these offenders are poor. Their poverty is presumably related to both their prior convictions (which I suspect make it hard to find a job) and to a broader failure of the social safety net. It may also be related to their mental health, personal preferences, or other social behaviors. The point is, the media frames a nice story (residence restrictions = bridge living) but I have to believe the real narrative is somewhat more complex. (Perhaps the traction of these stories is further evidence that the media is now in mea culpa mode, repenting for its role in promoting the rare but scary stories that produce ineffective and irresponsible sex offender laws.)
But even with that critical eye, it’s still worth noting that some people misunderstand the implications of this story. That is, some view this situation as an example of sex offenders people getting their just deserts. (In the news story, County Commissioner Diaz says “nobody really told them to do this crime.” And a blogger noted that “when sex offenders whine…the media listens.”) To the degree that these offenders are living under a bridge as a result of their sex offenses, that is surely not the punishment legislators in Tallahassee envisioned. More importantly, though, pushing sex offenders onto the streets – where they are difficult to supervise, cut off from a community that provides binding social connections and incentives for good behavior, and left to live in a subcommunity of offenders and outcasts – may generate the precise risks legislators are most concerned about. It seems likely to increase the odds of their reoffending. Ineffective laws are one thing. Laws that make matters worse are something different altogether.
April 7, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (2)
erica - March 10, 2009 at 11:00 am
In Long Beach, CA the sex offenders get to pick an apt of their choice. As long as the rent is below 1500.00 per month. They dont have to share this apt, or do any kind of community work for it. they also get to receive general relief funds, as well as food stamps. So tell me, where is the deterrent not to be a sex offender?
erica - March 10, 2009 at 11:00 am
In Long Beach, CA the sex offenders get to pick an apt of their choice. As long as the rent is below 1500.00 per month. They dont have to share this apt, or do any kind of community work for it. they also get to receive general relief funds, as well as food stamps. So tell me, where is the deterrent not to be a sex offender?
Leave a Reply