Posted on 10/11/2006 10:25:38 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Our view: Prop. 83 based on fear, not fact about sex offenders
Protecting children from sexual predators is a good idea, and that's the intent of Proposition 83, or Jessica's Law.
But beneath the emotionally charged rhetoric, Prop. 83 is a prime example of why Californians should reject unwise initiatives and instead focus our efforts on passing thoughtful, effective laws. Prop. 83 is too vague, redundant, costly and ineffective.
Prop. 83 would widen the protective circle we draw around our children, prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. Pushing sex offenders farther away from places where children gather sounds good, but the underlying assumptions ring false.
Sex offenders in California are already banned from living within 1,320 feet of a school; those designated as "high risk" offenders must live more than a half-mile, or 2,640 feet, away. Tacking on an extra 680 feet to the lower threshold would only make those intent on harming children walk another block or drive a few more moments.
Prop. 83 would push many sex offenders out of urban areas ---- where there are more police officers to keep an eye on them ---- and into rural and suburban neighborhoods, where schools, parks and law enforcement are more spread out.
It also assumes sexual predators prey mainly on children who are total strangers, when we know such headline-grabbing cases are the exception, not the rule. According to the state Department of Justice, strangers commit less than 10 percent of sex crimes against children. Most children who are victims of sexual abuse are attacked by folks they know ---- parents, baby sitters or relatives.
What's more, the state has already beefed up current law. On Sept. 20, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill that prohibits sex offenders from loitering near schools and parks.
Keeping better track of where registered sex offenders are located also sounds like a good idea, and Prop. 83 would require them to wear Global Positioning System devices for life so police can track their location via satellite. But this provision is so broad it will be too expensive and spread the resources needed to track dangerous sex offenders too thin.
Prop. 83's vague language doesn't clearly differentiate between most sex offenders and those at highest risk of repeating their crimes. That means the law could be used to track all 90,000 sex offenders in the state ---- even those convicted of less-threatening crimes like indecent exposure.
The state's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates this high-tech monitoring alone will cost California taxpayers at least $100 million a year. Where this, and the other hundreds of millions Jessica's Law would cost, will come from isn't explained, so taxpayers are left in the dark about whether the state or local agencies will have to foot the bill.
To make the case for such a vast expansion of the police state, proponents are fond of saying that sex offenders have higher recidivism rates than other criminals. That's just not true.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, only 3.5 percent of sex criminals are rearrested within three years of leaving prison. Compare that to 79 percent of car thieves, 75 percent of larcenists, 74 percent of burglars and 70 percent of robbers were rearrested in that same span.
Following those numbers, we would have a better chance of catching repeat criminals if we forced convicted car thieves to wear GPS anklets and barred them from living near parking lots.
Of course, our kids are more precious than our cars. We need to do what we can to keep those 3.5 percent of sex offenders from recommitting crimes and, again, the state has already stepped in. The law the governor signed Sept. 20 establishes a system to identify high-risk offenders and place them under satellite surveillance.
In Iowa, the first state to adopt Jessica's Law, the prosecutors who supported it now say the law is too broad, costs too much and isn't helping. In a February report, they said many of the Hawkeye State's sex offenders have "gone underground," and the broad language is straining resources that could be used to track ex-cons who pose the most risk.
Jessica's Law sounds good ---- but that's all. California needs more targeted, effective laws based on facts, not another reactionary initiative that will cost the state millions while adding little to the state's protections for children.
That is just plain FALSE. The quarter-mile restriction is on parolees.
Jessica's Law is really nothing but feel-good legislation. I prefer that those who prey on children should be executed.
Since so few of our 'leaders' have the stones to propose those laws, along with the liberal media who coddles these predators (unless they're Republicans), Jessica's Law is a start.
Well since the Foley scandal. we have learned that Gay and Pedophile are interchangeable Maybe we need a special new restrict law to deal with that.
restrict=restrictive
There's a lot of confusion on this whole issue and measure.. I hope folks don't knee-jerk vote this one.
I hope folks are able to fathom what is being proposed at this time and what current resources and funding are already available and how much more they will be stretched w/o more bureaucracies and bodies added and what it may cost long-term and will the package actually deliver as proposed.
This is the principal reason I oppose this initiative. An eighteen year old with a seventeen year old girlfriend is classified as a sex offender. Lifetime tracking in that instance is hardly warranted. This also installs a system capable of tracking all of us.
It's bad.
Jailing sexual predators and keeping them there is a far better solution.
Definitely the top of a very slippery slope.
I agree. It sounds extremely expensive, and far from fullproof. Who will they want to wear GPS for life next? I will give you one guess...
No, it depends on whether they are having sex. Jessica's Law is for Convicted Sex Offenders. No one is going to be at the gym door to arrest the Senior with the Junior Date.
I'd give the perverts 2 choices: physical castration or death!
Can you cite in what state Jessica's Law has been ruled unconstitutional? The SWCOTUS already rules that Sex Offender Registries are Constitutional. What is this DU?
MSM's love of sexual predators.
one step at a time
IINM, I believe that South Carolina and Louisiana have laws on the books making repeat child rape a capitol offense.
Did SCOTUS overturn SC's law?
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.