Posted on 07/31/2006 10:21:35 AM PDT by calcowgirl
California voters will decide in November if sex offenders should stay in prison longer, live farther from schools or parks and wear a tracking device that will monitor them for life.
The latest initiative that focuses on the state's sex offenders is Proposition 83 or "Jessica's Law." It's named for 9-year-old Jessica Marie Lunsford of Florida, who was kidnapped from her bedroom Feb. 23, 2005, and allegedly molested and killed by sex offender John Evander Couey.
Under Proposition 83:
|
If the proposition is approved Nov. 7, felony sex offenders would be fitted with a global positioning system for life.
"If you have raped a child or molested a child, it's minimal intrusion for us to know where you are," said Steve Ipsen, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, which favors Proposition 83. "The GPS device says we will keep an eye on you."
Ipsen said the device will deter offenders since they know they are being monitored. And if a child goes missing, he said it also will help exclude some sex offenders from being suspects since it will show where they are.
He called the proposition an "absolute necessity."
The measure also would ban sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Local governments can expand that to include other locations.
Current law bans parolees deemed high-risk sex offenders to live within a half-mile of a school. Other sex offenders aren't allowed to reside within a quarter-mile. But that only applies while they are on parole.
In addition, the proposition would increase the penalties for sex offenders. For every forcible sex act conviction, the offender will get consecutive, full-term sentences.
It would allow for an offender to be evaluated as a sexually violent predator after committing one crime instead of two, as current law provides. And violent sex offenders could no longer use good time or work time credits to reduce their prison terms.
Instead of two years at a state hospital, the proposition would commit those classified as sexually violent predators to a term subject to an annual review.
Critics, like the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, argue it would drive sex offenders from urban communities into rural areas where there are fewer police. They also say it would push dangerous sex offenders to go underground and create an expensive tracking system for thousands of registrants who had been convicted of minor, non-violent offenses. The group also claims a similar law in Iowa restricting where offenders live doesn't work.
Ted Cassman is secretary of the group, which calls itself the largest statewide organization of criminal defense attorneys and allied professionals. He said Proposition 83 was poorly written and confusing.
"They didn't make clear how broad the provisions are. It's not clear if the GPS monitoring is intended to be retroactive," he said.
And the way he reads it, the restriction on how far an offender can live from a school or park would also apply to people convicted of a misdemeanor sex offenses like indecent exposure.
"Sex offenders and sex offenses are terrible problems in California. There is no doubt," Cassman said. "What we need is an appropriate, measured response that makes our community and children safer."
Not all sex offenders will get a GPS device and the proposition isn't retroactive, according to Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, who with his wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, chairs the Yes on 83 group.
It will affect people coming out of prison and sex offenders who aren't registering, George Runner said.
He doesn't buy the argument that the measure will further drive sex offenders underground.
"We already have one in four going underground. With the GPS, we'll know where they are," he said.
He pointed out that the proposition will keep offenders in prison longer.
The state legislative analyst estimates the proposition would lead to several tens of millions initially in state prison, parole and mental health program costs. The analyst estimates costs would grow to a couple hundred million dollars annually within 10 years.
In California, nearly 8,000 people get convicted of a felony sex offense every year. About 39percent head to state prison, 1 percent to county jail, 5 percent are in the community being supervised under probation and 53 percent are both in county jail and under probation.
And a person convicted of certain sex offenses must register with the police once a year. But not everyone does it, and authorities cannot account for the whereabouts of many sex offenders.
Of the state's 87,539 sex offenders, 20 percent are out of compliance. This means 17,583 offenders either failed to register when they were supposed to, left the area without telling officers or moved into a community without notifying police, officials said.
Locally, the percentage is higher, according to police. In Los Angeles County, 30 percent - or 4,831 of the 16,015 sex offenders - are out of compliance.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation already uses a GPS device to track and monitor 500 sex offenders it classifies as high risk and likely to reoffend. Department spokesman Bill Sessa said in about another year and a half, the department will have the devices strapped to the ankles of 1,500 more high-risk offenders.
The device is programmed to show the places where the offenders are required to be and where they're not supposed to be, he said. The latter is called an exclusion zone and if an offender enters such a place, their parole agent is alerted.
Proposition 83 is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the ballot statement in favor of it. Other supporters include Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, the California Organization of Police and Sheriff's, the California District Attorneys Association, Crime Victims United of California and the California Police Chiefs Association.
I like it but I don't think it will make it through the challenges.
It is the same as a life sentence.
I am being objective here. My prediction is it will get killed in the Courts.
I hear people say that laws like this punish 'after they have served their debt to society'. I say the alternative is life in prison. So they can serve life in prison, or be monitored for life.
I think it's questionable in some instances though as a man (or woman for that matter) could be convicted on a he said/she said situation. There is where I'm confused on this.
Oh yeah, Michael Ledford killed (alledgedly) a woman here in Atlanta last week after raping her.
He was convicted of rape several years back...
but like Andrea Yates many will claim they should go free because they are 'crazy'
Does it include seniors who had sex with their sophomore girlfriends? If so, I don't support it. Sex offenses, like any offense, have to be taken on a case by case basis. What may be appropriate for the local old man who molests children isn't appropriate for Johnny football hero who had a girlfriend two grades behind him.
Many child molestation charges are brought by vindictive wives in divorce cases, against innocent men. Prosecuters love to have scalps on their belts, especially rapist/molester scalps. These innocent men have already had their lives destroyed, these provisions would make their unwarranted misery that much deeper.
It does say "felony."
While they're at it, let's start punishing people who vote for letting the creeps out of jail. If you're so dangerous you can't be trusted to live like a civilized person, it means you should be rotting in jail.
Is the statutory scenario I described a felony or a misdemeanor?
I'm wondering the same thing. I'd love to see some specific statistics about our resident offenders that would be subject to this.
Would a Mary Kay LaTourneau be required to wear a GPS device (and the state incur the cost to monitor her every move)?
Thank you!
Voices of reason aren't very popular in the USSA anymore.
It's the breadth of the term, "sex offender" that troubles me, never mind that this helps the statists get their human tracking systems perfected.
How about we just keep the criminals in jail, or kill them like we used to do? Oh, but that WORKED.
I would like to say misdemeanor but in the hands of an over zealous prosecutor, who knows.
The more I look at this, the worse it looks. The definitions of the crimes are so vague and the evidence requirements so low you could get nailed if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Look at the "kiddie porn" automatic felony. What if some poor schmuck was looking at and downloading stuff on the Internet and it turned out that the "models" were 16 or 17?
Pretty bad law and a knee-jerk reaction one at that.
There is that "post-facto"[is that how they call it?] thing. When, and if, the law is changed, only the offenses committed after the change, are processable under the new law.
If the courts are too dumb to apply it case by case, then it shouldn't pass. And I think the courts are indeed too dumb to apply it case by case.
If the proposition is approved Nov. 7, felony sex offenders would be fitted with a global positioning system for life. This should read "sex offenders would be required to wear a TARGET and it's open season at all times"!!
and
Many child molestation charges are brought by vindictive wives in divorce cases, against innocent men. Prosecuters love to have scalps on their belts, especially rapist/molester scalps. These innocent men have already had their lives destroyed, these provisions would make their unwarranted misery that much deeper.
The above examples happen A LOT and in my opinion do NOT merit the provisions of this bill and for the examples above and ones like them ... I am against this proposition
I agree. My son turned 18, while his girlfriend he had for a year was still 2 months shy of her 16th birthday.
He was arrested for 'interfering with child custody' and 'statutory rape' (her mother ASSUMED they were having sex, probably were, but still...). Luckily the DA said the case was ridiculous and dropped it, but it could have went another way. I had to force him to stop seeing her and it is sad. This girl's mother was a loon and she spent alot of time at our house (to get some normalcy I'd reckon given that her mother was a nutcase that spent more time at the bars than at home and left most of the housekeeping/mothering of her little brothers to her 15 year old daughter). But my son not spending life as a sex offender was more important to me.
Yep, see my Post #19 with regards to my son. It DOES happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.