« Lamenting (yet again) extreme death penalty criticism and insufficient LWOP concerns | Main | "California To Allow Prisoners To Serve Sentences Online" »

September 26, 2011

Plans for modern leper sex offender colony in Florida

A helpful reader alerted me to this local story from Florida, which is headlined "Sex offender village planned for Lake County" and starts this way:

A Central Florida woman wants to house hundreds of sex offenders in rural Lake County. The planned sex offender village would start with 288 predators and offenders in a leased facility, but could expand to 1,100 on 500 acres.

Barbara Farris, head of a new organization called S.O Solutions, Inc., sees the remote spot as a solution to housing sex offenders she's been fighting to keep out of neighborhoods. "It's not right in city limits.  We're miles away between Sorrento and Sanford," she said.

The goal of the facility would be to take offenders away from the temptation to offend again by living near children. "They have an atmosphere where they're not looking out their window at kids in a park, not a mile away from your school," said Farris. She also says they would offer not only housing, but monitoring, counseling, help finding a job, and transportation.

"Honestly, I wanted to cry. I was absolutely furious," said mother of a year old girl Victoria Morris, who lives just outside Sorrento. "This can't happen to our neighborhood." The mother started a Facebook page and a petition she's just started to circulate online to fight the plans of a sex offender village.

September 26, 2011 at 09:25 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e8bd81880970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plans for modern leper sex offender colony in Florida:

Comments

This post is as intelligent as many on SO Laws (thank you Doe vs. Miller), Obamanamics, Universal Government Health Care, and paying College Professors with no ROI!

Because, they live in fear because they are Ch-cken-S--ts).

Posted by: albeed | Sep 26, 2011 10:11:49 PM

ahh but the devil is in the DETAILS!

this is the same women who has stalked ex sex offenders and made thier lives miserable!

from the actual article!

"Barbara Farris, head of a new organization called S.O Solutions, Inc., sees the remote spot as a solution to housing sex offenders she's been fighting to keep out of neighborhoods. "

So NOW that she'd harassed and agravted them till they can't live ANYWEHRE else! suddenly SHE wants to build them homes probalby PAID FOR BY THE STATE! so she can get rich!

like any other sex offender crap passed by the states...it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!


plus last time i looked BANISHMENT was UNCONSTUTIONAL under our govt!

Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 27, 2011 2:29:21 AM

The Supremacy proposed building halfway houses in industrial sections, as a real estate opportunity. But this is brilliant and beyond the imagination of the Supremacy.

A Florida lifestyle community for sex offenders, reminiscent of the Villages. Networking. Learning from each other. Breakfasts at the Clubhouse, pancakes, coffee, and ribald jokes about victims. A videotape lending library. Perhaps a Viagra dispensing machine. Going out in charter buses on Friday night excursions to the local junior high school football game.

Do you want marina living, golf living, or sex offender living, Florida real estate agents will ask.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 27, 2011 8:19:23 AM

What goes around can come around. Barbara Farris could one day find herself falsely accused and falsely convicted of a similar offence that could land HER into one of these forced-exile communities, then the other residents there might set up a special welcoming committee for her.

I work as a test administrator, note-taker, etc.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Sep 27, 2011 9:58:52 AM

Oh, I just forgot. Maybe the residents in this forced-exile community might get a notion to use their new home as a place to organize and radicalize themselves politically as black militants did in their ghettoes during the 1960's and early 1970's. I could just see it now, these residents luring law-enforcement officials into traps the way ghetto militants did in Watts, Newark, and other locales during the race riots. Another scnenario would be Stonewell in 1969 where gay residents decided they had enough of illegal raids by police on the take by booby-trapping the officers in a night club and chasing the frightened police out with broken bottles, pans, and any other home-made weapon they could find. Or, maybe we will get a scenario similar to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1940 where Jewish inmates waged a heroic struggle against Nazis with smuggled in weapons. Granted, nobody here is advocating violence (besides, in the end, at least in the short run, the police would win out) but this is a warning that such punishment-after-punishment could eventually breed the same resentment and grievances that motivated these other groups to put their lives on the line by physically fighting back against abusive authority. See above comment for my occupation.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Sep 27, 2011 10:08:12 AM

Because of the SEX OFFENDER laws, we have already seen Registered people lash out with violence and innocent children have been murdered. It's terrible that people are harmed but personally, if people are going to react with violence, I would much prefer that they do it directly upon some of the people who are directly responsible for these illegal laws. I just believe it's a shame that someone would harm an innocent child instead of a criminal, terrorist legislator.

I personally do not break laws or condone it (at least the terrorists have not pushed me into that yet), but I fully believe that everyone who is listed on a Registry should be retaliating because of it, by any means that is legal. For me, that means ensuring that the laws are counterproductive, useless, and expensive. I have been Registered for well over a decade and I guarantee you that if anyone thinks it has deterred me from committing any crime or that I was/am being monitored in any way that means anything, they are complete fools. The scumbag terrorists can pass any "laws" that they like and I promise that they will not have the effects that the scumbags would supposedly like for them to have. I'm not putting up with it.

You know, if they had some sense and just decided that they would be maintaining their own private Registry (with information gathered completely by them) and there would not be idiotic, useless restrictions/punishments, that would be one thing. But they crossed the line a LONG time ago and they clearly demonstrated what they and their laws are really about. When they did things like told me I was going to have to move out of a home I owned because they suddenly decided that some swimming pool was "too close" to it, or that they were going to start monitoring my communications, and when my "neighbors" started yelling at my children, etc., etc., etc., they created a problem. So today, day in and day out, I don't let the laws just sit there and exist, I retaliate because of them every day. And that is what every single Registered person should be doing.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 27, 2011 11:57:53 AM

I agree with the concept of a "sex offender village" where they must live the remainder of their lives away from women and children.

I think that I will call it "prison."

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 27, 2011 2:21:31 PM

I'm a note-taker by profession. My question to TarisQtr is, "Are you implying that only MALES commit sex offenses and that only children and women are ever victimized?" This is typical of the stereotyping that the authors of many of these ex-sex offender laws believe in. You have nuns as well as priests who have molested children; just as you have had female as well as male care-givers who have committed same.

Let's understand something. Most sex offenders are trusted members of the family (i.e.--an uncle; an aunt; etc.) Many family members are more reluctant to report such offenders than they are to report a stranger who commits a crime against a child. While this is not suggest that stranger danger never occurs. It does and the perpetrators need to be punished like any other perpetrator (but do it with a regular long prison sentence instead of post-imprisonment registration or civil commitment). Remember, the U.S. is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a Stalinist dictatorship.

The idea of having somebody who has paid his/her debt society to live in permanent exile is what dictators like Stalin and the Czars did.

If Taris Qtr loves such legislation, I would suggest that he or she move to North Korea, South Korea, or Singapore where such repression exists.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Sep 27, 2011 6:21:53 PM

FRT and wrd:

Don't respond to TQ, he is a legend in his own mind.

Posted by: albeed | Sep 28, 2011 12:53:41 AM

i would laugh my head off if the close to 1,000,000 ex sex offenders and thier 10 to 20 million familie members go together and took this country away from the hatefilled crooked IDIOTS who now run it!

HELL they couldnt' run it any worse!

Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 28, 2011 2:19:57 AM

albeed: I didn't have any intention of responding to TarlsQtr. What he/she/it said was not very clear. Further, if by "they", TarlsQtr meant "sex offenders" and also thinks that means "people who are listed on a sex offender registry", then TarlsQtr is just another moron who literally has nothing to contribute to a legitimate strategy to reduce sex crimes. Those morons are just a waste of time.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 28, 2011 8:25:40 AM

Good morning, William.

First, a couple of points.

1) Of course there are women sex offenders and adult male victims. No one is denying that, although the problem in that area is much smaller in scope. Think of the pink ribbons for breast cancer. The marketing is all about women's breast cancer even though men get it too. It is human nature to focus on the bigger problem first.

2) I believed the last sentence of my post was specific enough to make my point but perhaps not. I am not asking for or supporting "exile villages" for dangerous sex offenders who have "paid their debts to society." I am stating that some crimes cannot be "paid for" ( a molested child can never become "unmolested")by the perpetrator and they should remain in prison for the remainder of their natural lives. Dangerous people should remain in prison, not be shuttled to some "S.O. Village."

And as an aside, your analogy to the likes of Stalin, NK, etc. seems a little odd and misinformed. Soviet gulags and NK concentration camps are/were not about continuing to punish people who "paid their debt to society." They are/were about punishing and removing people from society who did not conform to the governments' policies. I know how much people on this blog like to portray SO's as victims, but Lewis Lent is no Andrei Sakharov.

You stated: "Let's understand something. Most sex offenders are trusted members of the family (i.e.--an uncle; an aunt; etc.) Many family members are more reluctant to report such offenders than they are to report a stranger who commits a crime against a child. While this is not suggest that stranger danger never occurs. It does and the perpetrators need to be punished like any other perpetrator (but do it with a regular long prison sentence instead of post-imprisonment registration or civil commitment)."

Actually, the larger problem is usually "steps", live-in boy/girlfriends, babysitters, and other (non-blood related)people we know and allow to watch our children because we as a society are too selfish and lazy to do it ourselves. That said, your point is the same and we actually agree (if I am reading your statement correctly). The issue is that we seem to sentence strangers who molest differently than the "live-in boyfriend" or "Uncle Jack." That is wrong. Lock them both up regardless of whether or not there is a relation.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 28, 2011 10:38:30 AM

albeed stated: "FRT and wrd:

Don't respond to TQ, he is a legend in his own mind."

Albeed,

When this is the best that you can come up with, you leave little doubt that your quiver is bereft of arrows.

I take great honor in your insults.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 28, 2011 10:43:37 AM

FRegistryTerrorists stated: "albeed: I didn't have any intention of responding to TarlsQtr. What he/she/it said was not very clear. Further, if by "they", TarlsQtr meant "sex offenders" and also thinks that means "people who are listed on a sex offender registry", then TarlsQtr is just another moron who literally has nothing to contribute to a legitimate strategy to reduce sex crimes. Those morons are just a waste of time."

Ah, yes. The great insult preceded by the biggest two letter word in the English language, "if." Here are examples of "morons" who I BELIEVE "are just a waste of time":

1) Those that go on a 50 word rant of insults with the word "if" in front of it instead of asking for clarification.

2) Someone who would state: "It's terrible that people are harmed but personally, if people are going to react with violence, I would much prefer that they do it directly upon some of the people who are directly responsible for these illegal laws. I just believe it's a shame that someone would harm an innocent child instead of a criminal, terrorist legislator." Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 27, 2011 11:57:53 AM

Gee, I sure am glad you "prefer" that people commit violence against "terrorist legislators" instead of children. It is all there. Thinly veiled calls for violence, blaming legislators/government for the problems caused by your own actions, a claim to victimhood status, and a fervor that would make a fundamentalist preacher quake with discomfort.

I have long thought that there is some overreach with some of the SOR guidelines. You are causing me to second-guess myself.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 28, 2011 11:02:51 AM

TarlsQtr: I don't know why you got so excited about my statement proceded by "if". What I said made the statement that I wanted to make regardless of what you meant. And I don't really care what you meant anyway.

And don't be an idiot and project onto me. I am not calling for violence in any way, "thinly veiled" or not. I haven't committed any violence but it wouldn't bother me if other people did. And I do think it would be moral. Some politicians are simply terrorists.

I'm not claiming "victimhood status" either. The terrorists are not going to make me a victim. I'm not allowing it. This is not a perpetraitor/victim scenario. It's a war and I've already won.

You said, "I have long thought that there is some overreach with some of the SOR guidelines. You are causing me to second-guess myself." Some overreach? Funny.

There is nothing wrong with second-guessing oneself. That is smart. But, as I said before, it really doesn't matter what "laws" the terrorists and their supporters pass. For me, I guarantee the "laws" are not going to do what they think they will and harassing me will continue to be a mistake. Anyone who believes otherwise is an ignorant fool. I don't know if passing more "laws" to harass other Registered people will ultimately be "worth it" or not, but I suspect not. As long as the laws are immoral, I'm personally confident that they will not be just nearly worthless, they will also continue to be counterproductive. But I also believe that most people who support these "laws" don't even care about that.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 28, 2011 12:08:04 PM

FRegistryTerrorists stated: "I don't know why you got so excited about my statement proceded by "if". What I said made the statement that I wanted to make regardless of what you meant. And I don't really care what you meant anyway."

Awesome. You WANTED to call me a "moron" even though you admittedly had no idea what I "meant."

Somehow, that fits perfectly as another piece of the puzzle that is you.

You stated: "And don't be an idiot and project onto me. I am not calling for violence in any way, "thinly veiled" or not. I haven't committed any violence but it wouldn't bother me if other people did. And I do think it would be moral."

I think that says it all. I have no idea what YOUR S.O. crime was, but it fits right into my experience working with SOs for 10+ years. It was "moral" because "she wanted it", "her mom knew about it", or "watching child porn on the computer is victimless." Now, shooting a legislator would be "moral" because (s)he is a "terrorist legislator."

The same old, tired, and morally bankrupt rationalizations for bad behavior.

Obviously, feel free to respond as necessary but know that I will probably not reply directly to you again. Frankly, I find you about as creepy as the SO student I once had that told me he wanted to be a mortician when released.

Of course the alternative is that your entire schtick is similar to a story from "The Onion" and I have been had. I sincerely hope that is the case.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 28, 2011 1:31:28 PM

TarlsQtr: Well, you seem to have some sense so I don't understand what you don't get about the "moron" part. Let me try this - see, it doesn't matter what you said or meant because I said that IF you (or anyone else) meant a certain thing, then you (or anyone else) are a moron.

That was a lame attempt to tie moralization of a sex crime into the moralization of harming a terrorist. Lame, lame. You people are so funny because you think if you can tie something into a sex crime, everyone will just idiotically agree with you. Cuz theyz got no damn brains! :-)

Harming a terrorist is moral in the same sense that harming Hitler would have been. It is okay to harm people who harm thousands (and more) of other people.

You have not "been had". People like you need to understand that there are people like me who aren't going to sit around and accept just whatever idiotic harassment, lies, and other BS that you little people think is okay. That's all.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 28, 2011 2:16:12 PM

"You WANTED to call me a "moron" even though you admittedly had no idea what I "meant."

Well... at least I can enjoy calling you a moron while at the same time understanding what you meant.

Posted by: Obnoxious | Sep 28, 2011 5:31:38 PM

TQ;

Thank you for your insult.

Brevity is the soul of wit! You should consider that.

PS: The mouth of the fool, works his own ruin!

PSS: My best friend is Russian Orthodox.

There are none so blind, as those who WILL NOT SEE.

Posted by: albeed | Sep 29, 2011 12:32:43 AM

How much will S.O. Solutions make off of this deal?

http://www.change.org/petitions/so-solutions-inc-we-dont-want-a-sex-offender-village-in-lake-county

Posted by: PetitioningSOSolutionsInc | Sep 29, 2011 4:07:36 PM

So Solutions Inc
6857 Ashton St
Boynton Beach, FL 33437-604

http://www.manta.com/c/mtp50lw/so-solutions-inc

Is it fear mongering or capitalism?

Posted by: PetitioningSOSolutionsInc | Sep 29, 2011 4:08:54 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB