Miami Official Creates A Park For Sex Offenders To Keep Them Away From Kids

In an attempt to keep Miami’s sex offenders in one spot where the city can keep an eye on them, instead of roaming parks where children might play, the city commissioner has turned a vacant lot into a park for the offenders. They were hanging out near there anyway, why not make it a bit more homey?

Miami Commissioner Marc Sarnoff made the move to turn the lot into a park because about two dozen men were already there, congregating at night on the adjacent sidewalk and listing the lot as a permanent residence. They didn’t have a lot of other options, reports Miami’s CBS4, as they can’t live within 2,500 feet of a school or near parks where kids play.

Some of the men living there say they were tipped off about the spot by their probation officers. They now have a park to sleep in, but no new offenders are allowed to “move in.”

All of the men who list that corner as their home on a Florida Department of Law Enforcement registry wear ankle monitoring devices, so probation officers are alerted it they stray.

The commissioner isn’t happy about having the men there, and sent a strongly worded letter to the governor and the State Department of Corrections demanding they stop sending sex offenders to that neighborhood.

You know what they say — if you can’t beat’em, corral them all together in a park so you can watch them closely.

Park Created To Keep Sex Offenders Away [CBS4 Miami]


Edit Your Comment

  1. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    We need to find a nice abandoned town, like Centralia, and move all of them there. Let them create their own society, but with no children around, no one innocent will get hurt.

    • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

      Hey, we don’t want them in Central PA either!

    • MathMan aka Random Talker says:

      I’ve been there. Crazy place. No joke.

    • Naked-Gord-Program says:

      This is a good idea. I don’t know about “letting” them create their own town since society still has to worry about security and them leaving that town and they are citizens but building a city (perhaps multiple cities based up the degree of their crime) might be a good way to go.

    • Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged says:

      Wasn’t there a Ray Liotta movie about that?

    • Jawaka says:

      What if they reproduced?

    • MeowMaximus says:

      I have a much better idea – bullet to the back of the head for all of these creeps. Society will be better off. And I want to make it clear that I mean the real pervs who molest & abuse kids, not some guy who ended up on the list because he shagged his 16 year old girlfriend.

    • sjgarg says:

      You do realize that “Sex Offender” is a very broad and destructive term applied to many less serious situations such as:

      -Public urination

      Basically, a typical male adolescent, who is an idiot, could have the rest of his life ruined because he took a piss in an alleyway after a party, or college kids at a sporting game decide to moon some people will have their lives ruined, all grouped under “sex offenders”, because mooning and peeing are just as destructive to society as the people who grope children or force themselves sexually onto others.

      I’m sure some googling will list the hundreds if not thousands of lives that have been ruined by such a broad term as “Sex Offender”

  2. clippy2.0 says:

    They should put up a fence and little bubble gum machines filled with seed and charge the kids to feed them!

    • Difdi says:

      Wouldn’t work. As soon as a kid got within 2,500 feet of them, they’d all have to move or go back to prison. I’ve never met a kid that could throw a handful of anything almost half a mile, have you?

  3. Phil Keeps It Real [Consumerist] says:

    ‘m gnn bld prk jst whr Phl cn g & rlx, nd wrt Cnsmrst rtcls.

  4. winstonthorne says:

    Now all we need is a similar hangout for people who talk in the theater.

  5. mister_roboto says:

    We need to bury about 100 nuclear bombs along the Florida border- and set them off, in the hope that it separates Florida from the rest of the country.

    • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

      Isn’t that a little harsh for the people in Georgia and Alabama?

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        but then GA and AL get more beaches!

        • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

          Come to think of it, I think there’s a missing hydrogen bomb somewhere near Tybee Island. There’s a good start!

    • LabGnome says:

      So uh, you do not approve of separating children from sex offenders and propose nuclear warfare to stop this separation?

      The internet is full of fun people.

  6. Cat says:

    “Mmm. Sounds like my kind of place”
    “You like popsicles?”
    “Boys, boys! We can settle this like reasonable and sexy teenagers.”
    “You don’t wanna hurt yourself dancing, you better stretch out those creamy hamstrings”
    “How do you feel about those computer websites that put a blue square on the home of a sex offender?”
    “Get your fat ass back here!”
    “I know what boys like, I know what guys want, I know what boys like, boys like, boys like me.”
    “You’re startin’ to piss me off, you piggly son of a bitch! ………… Call me!”
    “Well, Oshkosh b’gosh! We got ourselves a new paper boy. That’s a mighty fine sack you’re carrying.”
    “Holy Moly. It must be my birthday.”
    “This whole place is a giant mind fuck.”
    “And don’t you mouth off to me or I’m going to slap you right in your penis.”
    “If you get sweaty and want to take your shirt off, that would be just fine.”

  7. GMFish says:

    Mmmm…. gather up a bunch of pedophiles in one place. Publicize the location of that place. Sit back and wait for vigilante justice.

    • captadam says:

      The article mentioned “sex offenders” but didn’t say the ages they preferred. So if some guy was convicted of some sort of sex offense against, say, an adult woman, how does keeping him away from schools and parks where children play further the end of stopping additional sex offenses?

      • dangermike says:

        On that thought, wouldn’t this pretty much pour fuel on the fire burning in ever dendriphile?

  8. sirwired says:

    This is an unintended (or sickly intended) side-effect of sex-offender registration laws. On the surface, the laws make sense. But the end effect is that there is literally no place left within the court’s jurisdiction that they are allowed to live.

    Yes, these are largely not-nice people. Yes, many of them are a danger to society, and will re-offend if given the chance.

    But forcing them out of jail (which at least provides three squares and a place to sleep) and then sentencing them to enforced life-long homelessness seems to cross the line into Cruel and Unusual.

    • FatLynn says:

      Right you are. There’s also the fact that a “sex offender” may or may not have done anything even marginally involving children.

    • gman863 says:

      and, in a related story, Miami officials have picked a location for both their fire ant and alligator relocation programs…

    • Cat says:

      Yes, these are largely not-nice people. Yes, many of them are a danger to society, and will re-offend if given the chance.

      And some are just poor saps that were drunk at 3 am and taking a piss, while others were 18 and had 17 year old girlfriends with vindictive parents.

    • dolemite says:

      I agree. I’ve often struggled with this issue. They are dangerous, and many will re-offend. Yet, they’ve paid their dues to society. Do we further penalize rapists and murderers once they’ve served their time?

      • j2.718ff says:

        I assumed that murders aren’t allowed to take residence within 2,500 feet of anyone susceptible to murder.

        On second thought, if other comments are accurate, about how sex offenders must live 2,500 feet away from children, even if the sex offense was not against a child, then it would be logical to conclude that murders, too, may not live within 2,500 feet of children.

      • Joseph S Ragman says:

        Let me put it this way … A murderer kills his victim once. A sex offender kills his victim over and over, every day for the rest of their life.

        • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

          That’s silly reasoning. Are you seriously trying to argue that being raped is worse than being /killed/? I don’t mean to belittle the horrors of rape, but with support it is possible to cope with and lead a perfectly fulfilled life, while the person who was murdered doesn’t even get that opportunity.

    • Bunnies Attack! says:

      Offhand, does anyone know if they actually filter out sex offenders that say… prey on little kids vs say… sex offenders where they were dating someone 2 years younger than they were and got “caught” just as they turned 18 with their 16 yr old gf/bf?

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Typically those people are not required to “register.” I am very close with someone who went through that exact situation, and while his record is tarnished he did not have to register with the state. It depends what charge they are found guilty of.

      • rmorin says:

        Depends on state law. I know in MA there are different “levels” of sex offenders in the registry. Certain levels have certain restrictions. I believe the lowest level of sex offender does not even appear on public databases, only in CORI-checks and the like.

      • dolemite says:

        I think the last time I checked in my state, it simply says “sex offender”, whether you exposed yourself while peeing on the street drunk, or had sex with a 10 year old.

    • j2.718ff says:

      I’m guessing the plan is to install swings and other playground equipment. This park will therefore have to be defined as a park where kids play. As a result, the sex offenders will have to move at least 2,500 feet away.

    • bwcbwc says:

      Not so much a consequence of the registration laws as of the “no residence within 2500 feet” law. In all of Dade county, that park (and formerly a bridge near the park) is the only area where offenders can legally “reside”.

      This may be an _intended_ consequence, though. Try to force them to live in the boonies with no access to public transportation and no job, and they’ll starve to death, right?

  9. sirwired says:

    I’d also like to point out that carried to their current extremes, the sex-offender residence laws have the opposite of the intended effect.

    If you make it so difficult for these people to find a place to live, the natural reaction is to say “*bleep!* this!”, and “drop off the radar.” Which of course leads to ample opportunities to further offend.

    If the restrictions on residence were loosened so that they actually had a place to stay, they’d be more likely to actually comply with the registration laws, and would be easier to keep track of.

    It’s a lot easier to find, and keep track of, a guy in an apartment vs. one forced to live on the streets.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      I was wondering if these laws had any impact, but your point shows it could actually be a negative impact. In the end, as a society, do we want to actually reduce the amount of trauma, pain, mental anguish of potential victims, or do we want to ‘punish’ the pervs for the rest of their lives? Like so many issues, if you take the more effective approach you’d be considered soft on the bad guys. The only way to get elected is to call for burning these offenders at the stake.

    • rmorin says:

      If someone is so deranged to molest a child, what is 2,500 feet gonna do? Why just schools and parks? Why not 2,500 within a child’s residence? If proximity is associated with re-offense, then they should not be living within 2,500 feet of any children.

      • Southern says:

        Try and think of any place that doesn’t have a “child” living within 1/2 mile in ANY DIRECTION.

        You just eliminated every subdivision and every apartment complex in America.

        What’s left?

        Basically you’d have to find a house that doesn’t have any other houses within 1/2 mile of you in any direction. Unless you want to build a house on top of Mt. Everest, it’d be pretty much impossible. Even in rural communities they don’t have houses spaced apart THAT far… So unless you’re the proud owner of around 2,000 acres (roughly the number of acres in a 1-mile diameter circle), good luck trying to find a place to live.

  10. bhr says:

    I honestly feel bad for many people on the sex offender registry. No other criminals are basically forced out of society after they get out of prison/probation. There are cities/counties where it is basically impossible for them to find housing, employment, ect.

    • Cat says:

      THIS. While I don’t feel bad for the evil child molesters and serial rapists, there are those on the lists for no good reason.

      If you’re a “sex offender” of any kind, your punishment lasts a lifetime, after your time is served and you aren’t on parole.

      But if you murder someone, no matter how brutally, once you serve your (usually way too short) time, your “punishment” is over, and you’re free to kill again – as long as you didn’t also rape/sexually abuse the person you murdered. In most cases, the neighborhood vigilantes know the guy on the corner is a sex offender, but they don’t know anything about the old guy next door who killed 2 people in 1976.

      Rape and sexual abuse are despicable crimes, yes, but when did they become worse crimes than murder?

      • Kuri says:

        Well, in the as of rape or molestation, often times the victim has to live with that happened.

        However, I do agree that’s its ridiculous that your life can essentially be over if you, say, get drunk and urinate in public.

        • LabGnome says:

          Same with people who are the victims of other crimes. People can be shell shocked from being robbed at gun point their entire lives too.

          For me it just seems unconstitutional to be punished further after your incarceration. BUT, once again, our instincts for protecting children cloud our capacity for reason. I myself am guilty of it though, I certainly don’t care as much about these people getting their rights stripped as much as other people.

  11. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    Has restricting sex offenders from living near parks, schools, etc. made a measurable drop in sex crimes? I suspect not. It’s likely just feel-good laws and are effective as the TSA is at stopping shoe / underwear bombers.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      Has restricting sex offenders from living near parks, schools, etc. made a measurable drop in sex crimes?

      No, but restricting them to prison does wonders. Too bad no one has tried that.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        You should refrain from typing when you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. They do go to prison, we are discussing what happens after that.

        • TheMansfieldMauler says:

          You seem to be a very hateful person. I wonder why you are so easily angered about the plight of poor mistreated sex offenders.

          • Kuri says:

            Probably because in this day and age you really don’t have to do much to be registered a sex offender.

            • TheMansfieldMauler says:

              See, now that’s a good argument, and I don’t disagree with you on that point. The system does need some reform in that area so that a guy taking a whiz doesn’t end up on the list. I think most state laws already have the caveat that a sex offense must be done for sexual gratification, but somehow just having your wang out for any number of reasons can still land you on the list.

          • crispyduck13 says:

            I’m not hateful in general, although I have a very low tolerance of ignorance and vigilante thinking. There is more to this world than the black and white you seem to prefer, but it’s so much easier that way isn’t it?

            If you don’t see what is wrong with both of your comments then there is absolutely no point in my continuing on with you here. Not the first time you’ve laid a fresh steaming pile in these comment sections and I’m sure it won’t be the last. Carry on.

            • TheMansfieldMauler says:

              Wanting to keep someone in prison isn’t “vigilante thinking”. Vigilante thinking would be wanting to keep them out of prison so I could get my hands on them and apply my own punishment.

              You just want to throw around ad hominem attacks at anyone who you don’t agree with instead of intelligently and calmly arguing the points. Fine whatever, have fun doing that.

          • LanMan04 says:

            Because their treatment goes against the very fabric of the American legal system?

            Debt paid to society and all that? If you want to keep them in prison forever, change sentencing guidelines, but this Scarlet Letter shit has to stop.

      • huadpe says:

        The ex post facto clause is pretty particular about that sort of thing.

  12. axolotl says:

    What’s all this about sax offenders?

  13. Cooneymike says:

    We can call it a ‘homeland.’ If we need an research on how to implement we can ask the old South Africans how to do it since it worked out so well for them.

  14. Squeezer99 says:

    Maybe the law needs to be modified so that it creates liveable areas for the people. I mean, what else are they supposed to do?

  15. LanMan04 says:

    Why not just tattoo a Scarlet Letter on their foreheads and be done with it?

    I hate the way this country deals with Crime & Punishment.

    • dangermike says:

      Seriously. If they’re dangerous enough that they need to be tracked after being released from prison, they should not have been released from prison in the first place. If the concept of prison is rehabilitation of the criminal mind, then any condition not able to be rehabilitated should mean permanent incarceration (or in light of certain crimes, death could be appropriate). Or contrarily, having to track them after their sentences is up is pretty much a tacit admission that the system has failed.

  16. Auron says:

    The post (and the discussion) so far is about how restrictive the law is for those sex offenders AFTER they are released from jail/prison. I’m guessing though that you are one of those people that think that anyone convicted of any level of a sex crime (and who therefore is labeled as a “sex offender”) should be locked up for the rest of their life, no matter the circumstances.

  17. steam says:

    Oh my how wierd taxpayers footing the bill for pedophile recreation? Whats next? Provide free FIOS service?

  18. Fishnoise says:

    Sex offender restrictions — the original security theater.

  19. Jane_Gage says:

    I remember they used to live under an overpass in Miami. Maybe they should make an artificial island for them out of soda bottles. I’m curious though, what they do for money if they can’t step foot outside the dirt lot? SSI?

  20. MaxMiami says:

    The gist of this story is completely wrong. The park was created to PREVENT sex offenders from moving in, not FOR the sex offenders to live in.

    Miami-Dade law prevents sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of parks and schools. However, if a sex offender already lives in an area when a new park is created, they are grandfathered in and allowed to stay, but no new sex offenders are allowed to move in. The residency restrictions are far more draconian than the state law.

    There are very few places in Miami-Dade that are permissible, so many sex offenders use areas under a highway overpass, for example, as their official address. The neighborhood with the new “park” was one such area where they would congregate at night, but generally leave by daybreak. The new park was created to prevent more sex offenders from “moving in”.

  21. 132_and_bush says:

    If they feel that these people will offend again then they need to not release them. Or they need to loosen the restrictions on where they can live. They have so many rules that these offenders end up homeless and their probation officers cannot find them. And that’s even more dangerous.

  22. Mackinstyle1 says:

    This is messed up. Either your region’s laws on what constitutes sex crimes are way too broad, or your region has systemic cultural issues. Sex crime should not be that common that you need a pedopark.

  23. Jawaka says:

    I think that the current sex offender laws are ridiculous.

    I’m not condoning the offenses but you can’t release a person from prison after a crime and then put such broad restrictions on where that person can go that there’s literally no place in the town where they can legally live. How can these people keep themselves legal withing the conditions of their parole if it’s just plain impossible to do so. I’m sure that these people would prefer to live in a home but probably can’t because all of their families either live near a school or a park or a church or any of the other places that they’re prevented to be withing a half mile of.

  24. spartie says:

    there are enough towns that sprung up overnight in florida, and have since been foreclosed that there could be a possibility of creating a ‘probationary minimum security enclave’ of sex offenders that would be miles from any place children would congregate. Maintain only one road in and out of town and post guards to ensure no children come near it.

  25. Captain Walker says:

    We already have “Sex Offender Island”, so why not a park?

  26. soj4life says:

    Sounds like a story on this american life.