Sex offender challenges "500 foot child safety zone" ordinance stating children could be anywhere

[Terminator]

A convicted sex offender is challenging Lee County's "child safety zones"-- the ordinance that keeps sex offenders 500 feet away from anywhere with children in Lee County.

The offender's attorney tells WINK news that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
Parents say sex offenders give up their rights the minute they are convicted.

Lee County, FLA - Attorney Peter Aiken represents Joesph Comfort, the first man arrested for violating the "child safety zone" in Lee County.

"It's basically a feel good law. It's made to make the public feel good because everybody hates sex offenders," said Aiken.

Comfort was at a Lehigh Acres pool in July and was arrested.

"We've passed an ordinance that makes it just mere presence a crime," said Aiken.

Aiken filed a motion Tuesday, on behalf of Comfort, challenging the law.
He says it's a violation of rights and the "safety zones" are too vague to enforce.

The ordinance makes it illegal for sex offender's to be within 300 feet of places like parks, pools, or beaches.

Parents tell WINK news they strongly support the zones.

"They can go right to jail--that's a place for them," said Cape Coral mother Jessica Hafer.

"I think you lose those rights when you become a predator," said mother Laura Bruckman.

"If you talk to any sex offender they say there is no cure for them--they always have those desires. They need to be kept away from children," said Richard Jones.

Aiken says he doesn't think the safety zones are the answer because, according to his research, 80% of offenders don't come from out in the community--but inside the home.

"I've got grand kids--I want my grand kids protected. There are laws to do that--these laws don't do anything," said Aiken.

We received a comment from Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott regarding the challenge.
Sheriff Scott says "As long as there are laws there will be challenges to them. We stand fast by our efforts to protect the most vulnerable among us."

[lewisipso]

stating children could be anywhere

So can pissed off parents. And there is no law saying I can't be within 500 feet of them.

[pgg]

So can pissed off parents. And there is no law saying I can't be within 500 feet of them with a .45.

Fixed it for you

[Five-0]

So can pissed off parents. And there is no law saying I can't be within 500 feet of them with a .45, a pair of pliars, and a blow torch.

Fixed it better.

[pgg]

Fixed it better.

[Terminator]

As long as there are Romeo & Juliet situations which cause normal teens to register as sex offenders under zero tolerance laws, I will be against laws like this!

[Five-0]

As long as there are Romeo & Juliet situations which cause normal teens to register as sex offenders under zero tolerance laws, I will be against laws like this!

To be fair I don't even consider situations like this when I talk of sex offenders. There is a difference in a H.S. relationship and predators.

[lewisipso]

I don't agree with a predator conviction in regards to a "Romeo and Juliet" circumstance either. However, I pity the 17 year old who puts it to or tries to put to my daughter. I'm going to be a lot closer than 300 feet and I will have bond money in my wallet.

[Captain America]

To be fair I don't even consider situations like this when I talk of sex offenders. There is a difference in a H.S. relationship and predators.

+1

[Terminator]

To be fair I don't even consider situations like this when I talk of sex offenders. There is a difference in a H.S. relationship and predators.

Unfortunately, what you consider doesn't matter, it's what the law says...and the law says, they do consider it that way. And that's wrong.

[lewisipso]

I'm all for streamlining any sex offender law to common sense language. Of course I'm all for beating the testosterone out of whomever the law doesn't cover with a steel pipe. But that's just me.