View Full Version : They published my letter in the paper today
03-27-2005, 09:01 AM
Posted March 27 2005
Subscribe today to the Sun-Sentinel
and find out how to get one week extra!
Click here or call 1-877-READ-SUN.
There is no limit to the number of sexual offenders/predators who can establish residence in any given ZIP code. In lower income or high rental areas, this places a disproportionate number of offenders in ratio to the surrounding communities. This lowers property values, puts a burden on police and corrections resources, but most of all exposes our families and children to an unfair risk of convicted sexual offenders in any given area.
I propose the cities have a right to limit the number of convicted sexual offenders and predators who can establish residence to make these neighborhoods safer, thus having more supervision over them. If city officials had the guts to enforce this, the state would have to take a long, hard look at sentencing, interstate compact laws, incarceration, probation and deportation guidelines.
Lots of advertising is done on behalf of the welfare of children. But when judges and attorneys throw these offenders back in our neighborhoods, you have to wonder how safe they want our children to be.
When our children are bait for someone like the killer of Jessica Lundsford, it is way past the time to re-evaluate how we are going to deal with these people.
03-27-2005, 10:26 AM
Just to clear one thing up, the attorneys are not throwing these guys back on the street. They have a job to do and it is up to the judge regarding what to do with these guys.
Let's also remember that there are weak, mediocre, and strong cases, and plea bargains are based upon the amount of evidence available against a guy.
03-27-2005, 12:38 PM
Fabs you know I love ya...but yes in some cases the attorneys are real culprits in this problem......the laws are already weak....and the wheelings and dealings behind closed doors are appalling....even in the court room...I personally have seen an offender in front of the judge for failing to Register...thats usually a 33 month sentence....his attorney argued that the guy had no car and was busted on his way to register....the judge what do you call it? deferred adjudication or some such crap and let the guy back on the street. We have something called Florida's Civil Committment Center...its to house the worst of the worst sex offenders...where they are suppose to get treatment. The attorneys are recommending the patients do not accept treatment based on it may jeopardize their release status...I have been with a victim whose husband molested her two daughters for well over three years...not to mention the daughters friends..his attorney argued it down to an indecent exposure charge and does not have to register...Now he trolls for kids on the internet...the one I told you about. I could go on...I stand by my letter.....it is not intended to offend any particular group...but the blame needs to fall where it should...on the entire judicial system...
03-27-2005, 06:39 PM
Fabs, I don't mean to sound condescending, but you can't really believe that all lawyers are out there for the betterment of the public. If they were they would refuse to take some of the cases presented to them. Lawyers are just like everyone else they have a job to do and right or wrong they do it to the best of their ability. It's just that sometimes the bad guys get a better lawyer than the good guys. That's the nature of the beast, you have to take the good with the bad. But you can't always dump it on the doorstep of the judge. If the bad guy gets a better lawyer and wins, it's because the lawyer did his job better than the other guy. Now whose fault is that? I think that is where everyone is coming from "the judicial system". It's to bad that some of these people that do these atrocities can't just disappear off the face of the earth. Someday they will be judged by someone a whole lot more unforgiving than what we are. We are not a perfect society and never will be, and that's why we have a judicial system that works like it does. You will always have some bleeding heart standing in the background boo-hooing about the bad guy being a victim and therefore doesn't get the punishment he deserves. It's not the greatest system on earth, but like someone else said, I'm not going to move to find a better one. But also that doesn't mean we have to like it.
03-27-2005, 09:08 PM
I have a slight variation on Val's idea:
1. Any convicted child molester will be forcibly relocated across the country.
2. The state receiving the molester will also receive its choice of a breeding pair of wolves, a cougar, a pair of wolverines, or a large alligator.
3. Items 1 and 2 will be shipped in the same cage.
03-27-2005, 09:27 PM
I'LL DRINK TO THAT IDEA. IT WOULD BE A PERFECT PLAN TO KEEP THE ANIMALS FED. ALTHOUGH THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT ANIMALS, I WOULD'T FEEL QUITE RIGHT ABOUT FEEDING THEM THE HUMAN? EXCRETEMENT THAT MOLESTERS ARE.
03-27-2005, 09:59 PM
An attorney's job is to inform the client of the law, the penalties that the client could face if convicted, and to strive for the best deal for the client. It is up to the other attorney to do his/her job. Is the judicial system perfect, nope. If it were, innocent people wouldn't get locked up and guilty people wouldn't go free, but determining guilt isn't quite as easy as it turns out to be. In most cases, things aren't cut and dry. If they were, 40 innocent men wouldn't have been on death row and a man wouldn't have served 10 years in prison because his daughters lied about him molesting them. Then again, maybe the prosecutor was just a better attorney than the public defender or whatever other attorney these poor guys could afford, and this comment is aimed at GSP. Sure, some guilty guys get off because they have a better attorney, but it looks like some innocent people have also been convicted.
Can any of you imagine having to spend 10 years in jail for something you didn't do? How about being sentenced to death for something that you didn't do? Sure, everybody on trial says they didn't do it, my clients included, but what if 1 in 100 are telling the truth. Should we just sentence that person to jail because they are accused of something? This is why people are scared to spank their child nowadays. In my opinion, the greater problem of the judicial system is that innocent people are being convicted, not that guilty people are going free. Now, that is not to say that guilty people going free isn't a problem, just not as big of one.
To answer your other question, I seriously doubt that all attorneys are out there for the betterment of the public. Attorneys are just like other people, and some of them fall into the greedy category, some of them fall into the liar category, and some of them fall into the criminal category. However, blaiming the problems with the judicial system on attorneys in general is pretty bad.
How about blaming the problems with the judicial system on the voters. If I am not mistaken, District Court Judges in Florida are elected officials as are the guys in the Legislature that make up the laws. Why not blame the voters for not voting in tougher Judges and Legislators? How about the States Attorney? Here in Maryland he is also elected. If that is the case in Florida, how about blaming the voters for not electing a tougher States Attorney.
I can keep on going on and on about placing blame on people. The judicial system isn't perfect, just as the practice of medicine isn't perfect. Should there be tort reform, probably, but try explaining that to the children of somebody that was killed by malpractice. Try explaining that they have no cause of action against the doctor.
We live in a complicated society where there aren't any simple answers. Eventually, gov't will be able to track everything we do. Eventually, there will be things like the movie "Minority Report." Problem is, does this infringe on our right to privacy.
The whole thing with Terri Schiavo is a constitutional nightmare regarding the separation of federal and state powers, not to mention the right to die issue. Of course, a lot of politicians in Congress acted the way they acted because the voters were on them about it. Was what they did right, only time will tell, if we ever get to that issue.
03-27-2005, 11:38 PM
HOPE YOU HAD A GOOD EASTER.
READ THE LETTER. CLEAR, CONCISE, YOU SAID WHAT NEEDED TO BE SAID.
I'M SURE IF ENOUGH PEOPLE READ THE LETTER IT WILL RAISE THEIR HACKLES ENOUGH THAT THEY TOO WILL TAKE SOME ACTION AND GIVE YOUR LETTER SOME BASIS FOR SUPPORT.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE POWERS THAT BE THAT ARE ABOVE THEE AND I TO GET UP AND DO SOMETHING. AND I'M SURE THEY WILL IF THEY GET MORE LETTERS AND ANGUISH FROM THE PUBLIC.
YOU DID A GOOD JOB LADY. GIVE YOURSELF A HUG. PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND ON YOUR LEFT SHOULDER, NOW PLACE YOUR LEFT HAND ON YOUR RIGHT SHOULDER, SQUEEZE GENTLY.
ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED AS A SUPERVISOR IN THE MILITARY WAS TO COMPLIMENT IN PUBLIC AND CRITSIZE IN PRIVATE. THATS WHY I MOVED THIS HERE.
YOU ARE A OK IN MY BOOK. GOD BLESS.
03-28-2005, 12:24 AM
I re-read the letter too, and while I think your heart is definitely in the right place, I have questions about it.
Are sex offenders generally poor? Is that why they can only afford lower income areas and/or rental properties? What is the ratio of lower income sex offenders compared to middle income and wealthy sex offenders? What is the ratio of lower income, middle class, and wealthly compared to the population as a whole?
Just wondering if the increased risk of sex offenders in poor neighborhoods is true when compared to the population at large?
Now, the proposal to allow cities to limit the number of sex offenders that live within that city is probably a little tough to enforce and will probably be even tougher to pass. Would this be a federal law? Probably would have to be? Would it be consitutional (i.e., would it be cruel and unusual punishment?) I am all for castration, but that would definitely be cruel and unusual punishment. Would the cities be allowed to establish their quota of sex offenders allowed, or would it be set by the federal government? If you allow the cities to set their own quota, why wouldn't they set it at zero?
With that said, I don't disagree with harsher sentences, but you have to remember the purpose for jail sentences. They are to rehabilitate and to pay back the burden to society. I would like to see the jail time reflect the crime and would hope that it does where a person is found guilty of a heinous crime. Also, lumping all sexual offenders in a single group is kind of tough. How can a guy that grabs a woman's rear in a bar be the same as a child molester that goes all the way (for lack of a better term that is family friendly)? How can you give each of them the same amount of time? How about death? Would they both deserve it? Probably the child molestor more so than the rear grabber.
Here in Maryland there are several degrees of sexual offenses, and each one has to be proven.
03-28-2005, 05:48 AM
Yes poorer neighborhoods have a higher percentage of RSO's than wealthly neighborhoods....especially areas with large rental communities.....these guys are transient and the neighborhood I fight for is comprised of usually first time home buyers who are young and just starting their families or young families renting. Its all in the numbers and you dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure why RSO's gravitate to affordable housing. But in the same vain its like throwing the prey in a cage with the predator..
Yes, limiting the amount of RSO's in any given area probably would be a federal mandate, but I dont see it happening from the top down...so I try and push buttons from the local level up. If a mayor of any given town just stepped up to the plate and said "No more" our town wont take on any more risk" then maybe the state would have to take a long look at the bigger picture..Interstate Compact Laws are a mess and need fine tuning. Over 250,000 parolees and probationers freely move from state to state..thats crap, why should I have more RSO's than Maryland? Because the beaches are better?I already have a "dry foot " policy ..here...do you know what that means? I have persecuted freedom seeking refugees that come in commit crimes and I cant deport them!
Lumping sex offenders? Yes it is dangerous and costly, but dont think the guys on our registries are a bunch of Romeo's, thats the term for being convicted for having concensual sex with an underage girl. The majority of RSO's have at the very least a conviction for Lewd and Lacivious with a child under 12..these are bad guys..and they are predatory. Their crimes not only put a burden on the victims and the families they impact another generation of children who will deal with the emotional issues of abuse...if they live to tell about it..
Death penalty..need not go there with me...The people of my state voted for it...and now there is a moritorium (spelling) on it..the people spoke..my legislators are not listening..and Jeb Bush will never get another vote from me..
No offense Fabs, but you can peddle that "better 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent die" crap on a previous generation. With forensics being what they are, the chances of frying an innocent guy are dwindling..just do me a favor...fry the ones we have convicted and found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt"and most of us would be happy, but the system cant even seem to get that done..
Lawyers can stand on that "get the best deal for my client" at all cost syndrome all day long...at the end of the day..what may be best for your client can be detrimental to our children...and in my book there is no justification for that...or for the lawyer who did it..
03-28-2005, 08:37 AM
It is our job and it is what is required of us. We cannot discriminate against alleged sexual offenders, murders, rapists, speeders, frauds, or what have you. Taking your issue out on lawyers in general is pretty bad. It would be like me blaming Southerners for issues I have in general. If we didn't try to get the best deal possible for our client, no matter who they are or what they did, then we would be frauds and we wouldn't be doing our job. How would you like it if your attorney sold you down the road because he/she didn't agree with what you did, regardless of what it was. How would you know that your attorney had an aversion to southern women or wealthy women or opinionated women when you hired them. You would like for us to discriminate against sexual offenders, deny them their right to counsel which I believe is a constitutional right, just because it does not suit your agenda. Hell, how about we get rid of womens rights and a bunch of other rights too while we are at it.
You are probably right regarding forensics limiting the number of people that are mistakenly found guilty nowadays, but how many cases does the state use all that scientific stuff on? Is it every case? Have you been in the court room watching every trial?
What really gets me is how everybody seems to have an opinion about every case, but they weren't present for the trial where all of the evidence was presented.
As I have said before, it is easy for you to blame this sex offender problem on judges, attorneys, and the legislator. However, you should be blaming the people in the places that elect these officials. What you should do is write an article encouraging the people of the locale to send letters to their legislative representatives and the executive branch (e.g., Mayor, Governor) and to vote for somebody else if nothing gets done. The legislature could create mandatory minimum sentences that a judge would not be able to deviate from.
Enough people complained about Schiavo that Congress worked overtime on a weekend and late on a Sunday night, to enact crappy legislation that might not be Constitutionally sound. You should work on getting something like that done regardind sexual predators instead of blaming the judicial system and attorneys in general. Maybe I should start blaming the south for the increased amount of crime in my area because the majority of it is committed by black men and we know that the southerners are responsible for most of the slaves. Kind of like some black men that blame whites in general for their situation. What kills me is when they try to blame me. My parents just came to this country 50 years ago wihtout anything and well after slavery had been abolished.
I could keep going on with generalities, but I have to go meet a client. Take care.
03-28-2005, 08:59 AM
Fabs your the best....
I dont generalize when it comes to the abuse, rape and killing of our children...yea there are lots of battles in our society...this one pushes my buttons....I cant fight all of them....but I will give this one my best shot....I am not a screamer...I am not a hysterical neighbor, I am probably more educated on Sex offender Laws than most attorneys.....I am also well versed on sex offender issues...the presentation I am making...will have input from Probation officers, sex offenders, law enforcement, victims and people like you and me.....no matter how you slice it Fabs...we as society are not doing everything we can do to protect our children, and when a person who preys on children gets more protection under the law than the victim does.....well .....I would say we have a big problem......PS Florida has minimum sentencing laws....must serve 85% of sentence...well 85% of not much is still not much....and not enough
03-28-2005, 10:42 AM
val did i hear corectly another little girl come up missing 2 guys in a white jeep cheroke grabed her.
I was fliping threw the chanels just now and seen it on the court chanel.
03-28-2005, 01:56 PM
I feel like you do about sexual predators. I just don't feel there is a good answere to the problem of punishment and deterence. I know that sexual predators have a very high recedivism rate and some will even tell you that if freed, they'll return to their old habits. They will even tell you that they have learned that it is better to kill the victims. I may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but haven't most sexual predators been sexual victims themselves? Isn't there a high rate of non- violent ex-cons that become sexual predators after leaving prison? I've read enough research to have learned that incest is far more common than was previously thought in our society. No I am NOT portraying predators as victims, just saying incarceration isn't working and I doubt that hanging would either. We have to stop the cycle somewhere, but how and where? Yes public housing or low rent housing collects more than its share of social and sexual predators. I currently am facing the prospect of low income apartments being built close to my home. No I do not like the idea of low rent housing and yes I am going to fight it. Hope I win.
Everybody likes to complain about lawyers being unscrupulous, vicious, sly, shady, and sharks, until they need an attorney and want him to be all the terrible things they complained about before. I believe that it is a sign of a spoiled nation that is becoming corrupted all through our society. We our slowly devouring ourselves through greed, avarice and ego. One of the symptoms is that good people have watched our "justice" system loose most of its integrity with high profile public cases like Robert Blake and now Micheal Jackson. Blake was aquited and Jackson will probably be aquited also. It's bitter humor that Jackson is saying he is being persecuted because he is black and wealthy. He has made millions of dollars and wasted a whole lot of it trying to make himself into a wealthy white woman. Blake has told the most improbable of lies and appears to have gotten away with it.
If either one of these guys was a construction worker they would have an over worked, under payed, possibly imcompetent public defender pressuring them to make a plea bargain agreement.
I believe the saying is that, " Everyone is equal under the law, some just more that others.
03-28-2005, 02:30 PM
Well, hanging does cure the recidivism part, but you're right: We need to be looking to prevention, rather than punishment after the fact. I just don't have a clue about how to do that, other than the obvious statement that it helps kids to grow up in a stable, two parent home, with responsible parents, who really care about their kids. My sister is a professional counselor, and one day when we were comparing notes, we concluded that we were extremely lucky to have had that. Some of the kids a grew up with didn't, and I couldn't understand why they acted the way they did. It just never occurred to me what kind of troubles they had at home.
We are also far, far too litigous a society. We hire legislators to get together every year, and work to make some more things illegal. And if there is some especially picked-on group behind the law, they'll try to make it double, triple, or octuple illegal, as though that will do any good.
And being a judge is a no-win proposition. Whatever you decide, someone is going to be disappointed.
03-28-2005, 05:27 PM
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is because or due to only Lawyers. As I said in my prior post, this is a problem created by us as a society. From you and me ordinary joe-blow all the way up to and including government. We have put up with and tolerated it for so long, that until something changes it's going to happen. The fact that someone can buy an expensive lawyer and the other guy can't will never change. You will always have the O.J. (dream team) going up against otherwise inept lawyers.
That case was a good example. Look at the judge, the L.E., the media and everyone else involved. If O.J. didn't have a stacked deck in his favor, I'll put up with you. That's not to say that the state didn't put up a good trial, because I think they did. They just wasn't as good as the defense.
My only argument with what you had said earlier was, you said it's the judges, and I don't agree with that. I think it's the "judicial system" as a whole.
03-28-2005, 07:23 PM
It is up to the judges to give out the sentence. That is what I meant by it. It is the prosecutor's job to prosecute the case and it is the defense attorney's job to defend his/her client. In a perfect world, everybody would do their jobs and the guilty would go to jail for the correct amount of time and the innocent would go free. Then again, in my utopia we wouldn't have crime to begin with.
When I said minimum sentences, I meant in years. If the legislature were to pass a law that said a sex offender MUST serve 10 years for the first conviction and 20 years for the second conviction without parole or time off for good behavior, then the judge would have no option.
I couldn't agree with you more. Just in case you guys don't yet know this, I am also a CPA and I prepare tax returns and know a little about tax law. Tonight, I went to a client's house to review her tax information. I have been helping her with the legal aspect for starting her own day spa and she wanted me to set up the accounting system too when she opened the doors. As a result, she wanted me to do her tax return for this year. Well, I looked at 2002 and 2003, and those returns were a mess. In the first place, her employer was improperly treating her as a 1099 independent contractor so that it could avoid its 7.65% of SE taxes for FICA and Medicare (GREED). In 2002 she grossed $50,000 and in 2003 she grossed $65,000. Her old CPA that prepared her 2002 and 2003 returns had business gifts given out of $2,000 and $3,600 for the respective tax returns. Lat I checked, the gift limit was somewhere around $50 per person. In 2002 he had a deduction for machinery for $10,000. When I asked her what machinery she owned, she said none. He had another $2,800 deduction for machinery in 2003. The charitable contributions were around $1,000 for each year, but I could swallow those. He also had her deducting business mileage for commuting to and from her employer/single job site which isn't allowed and I think there was a meals and entertainment expense on her 2003 tax return in the amount of $3,700. I asked her is she took out her clients for lunch or dinner and her response was no. For 2004, she wanted to claim a $20,000 charitable deduction for 20 bags of closes that she donated and I told her no way. That was early in the interview. At the end of it all, I decided not to prepare her return and I recommended that she take it back to the old CPA so that he could prepare it. Talk about GREED. That CPA was signing off on a fraudulent return and possibly getting his client into some serious trouble, all for a $250 preparation fee. I stood to bill about $400 on that return, but turned it away just because it couldn't pass the smell test with me, which all CPA's are subject to. I think it is more properly worded as healthy discretion or something to that effect. GREED.
What really pisses me off is that her fiance is a police officer and he was complaining about his salary. I felt like telling him that the county couldn't afford to pay him anything more because way too many people were cheating on their tax returns. GREED.
Another client last week that I do legal, tax, and bookkeeping for, brought me his grocery bill from Costco and tried to tell me that he was buying all the stuff for his employees. However, they don't even have toilet paper in the bathroom and the kitchen is bone dry. GREED.
Quite honestly, I think the IRS should audit every damn Schedule C/business return out there. Hell, I would even be happy with 50% and what would make me even happier is if the penalties are doubled for returns prepared by CPA's and the CPA is responsible for half. What I love is the clients that say they had no clue what their CPA was doing or that he was being creative, and then the CPA says that he was relying on the information from the client. GREED. On top of that, I think CPA's should lose their license after they have been cited for 10 fraudulent returns. These dishonest guys make it tough for me to earn an honest living and I will not stoop to their level.
I was going to post this as my own pet peeve, and just might do so anyway.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.