A church in Tampa, FL is planning on building a daycare center and preschool it says “the neighborhood desperately needs.”
We target working families that can’t afford a quality pre-school.
I hope that means that they will be providing a quality pre-school at an affordable rate, but the marketing language directed at people has always bothered me, particularly when used by churches. We aren’t “targeting” anyone. But the statement seems almost perverse considering the difficulty this proposed daycare/preschool has caused.
It is to be built next to an apartment which houses sex offenders.
The owner of the complex warned the church prior to filing the paperwork and also asked the council to deny the daycare. It went ahead and approved the permit Thursday. At least the apartment owner recognizes that this might not be a good idea. Why is nobody listening?
I think the closing paragraph of the story holds a clue.
State law says that sex offenders can’t live within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare center, but attorneys disagree what will happen in this situation. Once the daycare center opens the church believes the sex offenders must leave, but the apartment owner says sex offenders already living there will be grandfathered in. TampaBays 10.com (emphasis mine)
I know nobody wants sex offenders living next door. That is why Megan’s Law has been so popular. But it also has caused some problems. I know some people are very concerned about the perpetrators rights to privacy after they have completed their sentence, and for some crimes that is an appropriate concern. Even for some people labeled as sex offenders. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is actually lower than for other criminals, but is that indicative that incarceration is working to reduce the problem? Some estimate that the average person convicted of molestation has actually had over 100 victims before conviction. How long will it take to catch him the second time, especially since victims are most frequently the children of friends and relatives?
Still, where are they to live? And when they finally find someplace, it is hardly just to drive them out because the community has decided it would prefer a daycare. If this church wants to expand its ministry opportunities, perhaps it should look into ways to counsel convicted sex offenders rather than offer daycare services to working parents.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Daycare center + sex offenders? What could possibly go wrong?
Not a clue. It is hard for me to comprehend why the church wanted to proceed of why the council approved it.
The only thing that makes sense is the fact that the church thinks the residents of this apartment will have to leave.
And something doesn’t seem right about that.
Doesn’t seem right at all. Even if the sex offenders must leave, certainly they’re not going to have to leave immediately upon opening. What happens if there’s an incident between the time of the opening and the time the sex offenders are forced to move out?
Even at that, the apartment owner is talking about people living there being grandfathered in. But if the law says they can’t live within 1000 feet, something will have to happen.
If this church wants to expand its ministry opportunities, perhaps it should look into ways to counsel convicted sex offenders…
I completely agree. It sounds like there is a good chance the only reason this was sought and approved was because they think they can drive the offenders away…I can’t think of any logical (or even illogical) reason to seek or approve it otherwise. And convicted sex offenders are certainly sinners in need of a Savior too.
Nice to see you around again, Jodi! And it is sort of baffling, isn’t it? Especially since all parties were warned. But it does make sense in an under-handed political sense that the church and city council would seek to push the sex offenders out although they have Dept. of Corrections approval.
I find it hard to understand why Council allowed the plan to be passed.
The owner of the building next door has done the right thing.
The church is also recognising a need (albeit that their marketing language is terribly disempowering and insulting). Hopefully they have thought their reasons through and are not just knee jerking.
But, the council that has sanctioned a day care centre beside a building that houses sexual offenders???????
If I was a solicitor, I’d be looking at who has facilitated a breach of law and ethics here.
This was a good informative post. Many thanks.
How christian of this church to attempt to have people kicked out of their homes…
I think we’ve become a society that has become almost manic about sex- offenders. Some places have passed laws (and had them challenged) that were so broad as to prevent sex offenders from even living in the city limits. A few reasons I think such legislation goes too far:
-Sex offender does not equal child molester. Personally, I’d be less concerned about someone convicted of adult consensual incest living next to a school than I would about a murderer, yet there is no laws against murderers living around certain facilities.
-I’m not sure what these laws REALLY accomplish even for criminals whose offense involved children. As you note, most cases of child molestation involve child of family and friends of the molester. Still, to a degree, I can understand and even approve of laws that would keep child molesters (as opposed to the more abstract “sex offenders”) from living in the immediate vicinity of schools.
-As this case indicates, it seems these laws have become less about preventing crime and more about getting revenge on the perpetrator. I don’t think we should be seeking “revenge” on wrong-doers. By all means we should pursue justice, but these folks did the time that we as a society have decided was appropriate for their crime. These laws are being yielded as weapons not to prevent crime but to create a new class of leper.
The way it SOUNDS is that this church doesn’t like having sex offenders living next to it so it is using a preschool as a tool to get rid of them.
We agree there, dolphin.
It is a tough issue…but the laws don’t really do what they are designed to do. I don’t mind the idea of Megan’s law, but who has it really saved? Three children were murdered (last year?) here in the NE/IA area. All of them by convicted sex offenders who were properly registered as I recall. Most of these people prey on children whose parents aren’t involved and aren’t likely to check. And they do nothing to protect children from those not convicted, and statistics imply that would be the majority of molesters.
I think there may be an issue with sentencing in some cases…those where it is believed the person is likely to repeat the offense. Like the man who got on a bus from his group home, hid in a bathroom, and molested a kindergartener at a Lincoln public school. Now there is a massive redesign campaign that would make our schools look like prisons and for awhile we had officers in all schools, even elementary. He was in treatment, but it was also known that he was likely to repeat. Perhaps the better solution would have been to have him in a more supervised environment.
There are a lot of sex offenders living in nice little circles around some of the schools around here…but that is also where most of the apartment complexes and cheaper housing is. It is hard to get further away unless you have a decent job, and something tells me that sex offenders are going to struggle a bit in the job market.
Is it even legal under the current law for sex offenders to live next door to a church (which probably has a Sunday school, youth group, etc.)? What about parks, McDonald’s restaurants, libraries, public pools? Can they live within 1000 feet of those? The fact is, if we aren’t going to incarcerate them, sex offenders have to live somewhere.
Does 1000 feet of empty space really protect children? As a parent that doesn’t make me feel very comfortable, and it isn’t easily enforceable. Who cares where they sleep. Legs and cars can take you anywhere you want to go. I would rather know who they are so that I and my children can exercise our own common sense. Registries are a good start.
It is right for us to be concerned for rehabilitating offenders, but we must not forget that their crime has marked the lives of their victims in a permanent way and shattered the trust of society. It is not unjust for their lives to also be marked in a permanent way by their crimes. It is a sin that feeds on secrecy; that is why there are so many victims before conviction, but recidivism is low following. It should be made public, and it should bear a great deal of shame, for the good of society, as well as for the good of the offender. A truly repentant person will recognize and accept the limitations placed upon him by justice.
Dolphin makes a good point about types of sex offenders. A 20-year-old who was convicted once for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend is not someone I’d worry too much about as a parent, except maybe as a poor moral influence. But if you check the registry, you can get a pretty good idea of what you’re dealing with. That information can be wrongly used, to be vindictive, etc. But it can also be used to make informed decisions and to show mercy, like offering a job to someone who can’t get one anywhere else. It implies a choice: if I rent this apartment to a sex offender, I can’t rent the others to families with children. As much as we harp about choice in our culture, we don’t want real choices, because it means unchoosing all the other possibilities.
What people don’t want to acknowledge is what Dana says: Most of these people prey on children whose parents aren’t involved and aren’t likely to check. And they do nothing to protect children from those not convicted, and statistics imply that would be the majority of molesters.
What comes to mind is: we can’t have it both ways. We can either supervise our children, or we can supervise the sexual predators. We can’t just let everybody run loose and expect things to work out.
Thank you so much for your thoughts, Rebecca. What is disturbing me is how quickly we seem to be building small fortresses around the innocent so the guilty can be free.
Not everyone labeled a sex offender is dangerous. And those who seek treatment are often rehabilitated. But there are a number who are not seeking treatment and see nothing wrong with their actions. Look at NAMBLA.
I also can’t understand why would they build a daycare center near the apartment that houses sex offenders. There might be a plan on using it as an example, but I don’t find any means of making it work out fine.
I think it’s ridiculous. Whatever their plan is, it’s not 100% sure that they will be successful. They could’ve planned in putting it in a safer spot where it’s sure.