09/03/2011
DAYTONA BEACH - By the end of this month, Daytona Beach could become the latest area city to restrict where sex offenders who've been convicted of abusing children can live.
- Most sexual crimes occur by someone the victim knows, not some stranger, and where someone sleeps at night, has nothing to do with who, when or if they will re-offend. And why do they always get the opinion of some police officer, instead of professional who work with ex-sex offenders on a daily basis? Most police officers opinions and biased, since they think most people are criminals, or "up to no good," IMO.
"In my opinion it's overdue," Police Chief Mike Chitwood said.
At least 10 other cities in Volusia and Flagler counties had the restrictions on their books by 2008.
Daytona Beach considered residency restrictions in the past. Chitwood said the issue is coming up again now because a resident recently sent a letter to him and a city commissioner wanting to know why other communities have the prohibitions and Daytona Beach does not.
Chitwood said residents, who didn't realize the city doesn't restrict where sex offenders can live, recently asked him how a sexual predator could live near a small Daytona Beach park.
- The state already has a 1,000 foot residency zone, not that it will prevent anything, so why does each county think they must do it their way? 1,000, 2,500, or 10 miles, still won't make any difference!
At their meeting Wednesday, city commissioners will take an initial vote on a measure that would put a residency restriction on people who've been convicted since October 2004 of sexual offenses against kids 15 years old and younger. Commissioners are slated to take their final vote Sept. 21, and if they pass the measure that night it would become effective immediately.
- So you see, once again, it is now 2011, and by passing a law which goes back to 2004, that is an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional. Hell, why not go back 150 years, and make your grandparents or mother/father register due to them marrying at an early age?
The proposed city law says the offenders couldn't live within 2,500 feet of any school, day care center, public park, library, church, public or private playground, mini-park and recreational open space. Even if those restricted places were just outside city limits and within unincorporated areas of Volusia County, the measure would still apply.
- Just check the articles from now, back to 2006 that we have been keeping. Every single year they change the laws, why? Because they need to make it look like they are doing something and are "tough on crime," or they could potentially lose their jobs or reputation!
Offenders already living within 2,500 feet of those places before Wednesday who properly registered their residence would be exempted. But if they moved within Daytona Beach after the law went into effect they would be subject to it.
- That is good, but again, why back date this to 2004? So you can ensnare offenders who may want to move into the area, and keep the registry large? Come on, this is pure hate and vengeance, nothing more!
Exceptions would also be given for convicts who are minors now or were minors at the time of the offense, and those who lived in a place before one of the restricted type of properties was established.
The law would target people who've been convicted of sexual battery, lewd or lascivious offenses, sexual performance by a child, computer pornography, and selling or buying minors.
- So you see, at the top it says this is for those who have harmed children, but here, these offenses, could potentially be from an adult on adult crime, and thus they would sweep them up into the large draconian net of injustice!
The measure would cover both permanent and temporary residences. Landlords with properties within 2,500 feet of the restricted places who knowingly rent to sex convicts would be guilty of a city code violation and could face fines.
State law imposes a similar restriction on sex offenders with a 1,000-foot limit.
- Yes, so why go beyond state law? I thought you could not do that, legally, and if the state was run like it was suppose to be, where state law trumps county laws?
The city considered imposing its own limits for sex offenders about five years ago, but backed off after the city attorney at the time told commissioners similar laws were getting hammered with legal challenges, City Commissioner Rob Gilliland said.
Gilliland, who hadn't had a chance Friday to read over the new measure yet, said he'd like to know how vulnerable the law would be to challenges.
"What's different today than when we did this four or five years ago?" Gilliland asked. "I'd like to know if other communities who have these laws have had problems."
- Well for one, the corrupt courts and supreme court of the state, have ruled the unconstitutional laws are constitutional, that is what has changed, the corrupt system is taking over!
Chitwood said he's not worried about legal tangles. He said his officers already closely monitor sexual offenders and predators, but he maintains the law is needed.
- Why is it needed? How has it all of a sudden become a problem?
"My biggest concern is what happens with a guy when he comes off probation," Chitwood said.
