Posted on 10/25/2006 10:25:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Everyone wants to protect potential victims of rape and child molestation, and a package of recently enacted laws helps move California in that direction. It provides for:
Longer sentences and parole terms for convicted offenders.
Scientific risk assessment of all sex offenders prior to release from prison, leading to differential post-release supervision with more attention to the most dangerous individuals, including GPS monitoring of high risk parolees.
Prohibiting registered sex offenders from loitering around schools and other places where vulnerable populations congregate.
Risk-level information on the Megan's Law Web site.
The creation of school-based education programs addressing child personal safety.
Defining a new crime specifically for individuals who use the Internet to prey on children.
Limiting registrants' ability to have custody of or live with children.
A sex offender relapse prevention program in state prisons.
An expert-populated Statewide Sex Offender Management Board to guide sex offender management using evidence-based (rather than emotion-based) methods.
In spite of this comprehensive and mostly sensible legislation, California's voters still have to decide on Proposition 83, the “Jessica's Law” initiative. This ill-advised hodgepodge would:
Require GPS monitoring of all registered sex offenders, a move that, according to the legislative analyst, could cost $100 million annually within 10 years. Most of this effort and expense, however, would be wasted, because more than 90 percent of children are sexually victimized in their own homes or in the home of the offender, places perpetrators can legally be, so that ascertaining or proving their presence there offers no additional safety for children or proof of crimes committed.
Make no provision for public education about sexual offending or personal safety, a sad omission given that the great majority of sexual assaults are never reported and the great majority of perpetrators never publicly identified, much less apprehended.
Treat all registrants equally rather than requiring risk assessment and differential supervision focusing on higher risk individuals.
Prohibit registrants from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks even though research shows no connection between where an offender resides and where he commits his crime. Most registrants offended against children they were already in a relationship with (relatives, neighbors, etc.), not against children they lured from public places. Those few who do use public places to identify and contact victims will hardly be deterred by having to live 2,001 feet away. They would simply take a short walk.
Similar residency restrictions in Iowa made it so difficult for registrants to find housing that many became homeless, while others stopped registering and dropped out of sight altogether, creating a supervision nightmare. Within a few months, Iowa authorities lost track of more than 50 percent of their registrants. Iowa prosecutors are now calling for repeal of this law, which they initially supported. (Assertions that GPS monitoring would prevent this in California are patently ridiculous, as any offender desperate enough to drop off the grid would hardly hesitate to abandon his GPS device)
Clearly, the residency component of Proposition 83 is worse than worthless. By driving registrants underground it would make our communities more rather than less dangerous, while increasing workloads for already overburdened community corrections and law enforcement officers who would have to look for the tens of thousands of missing registrants.
If Proposition 83 is such a bad idea one might ask, why have virtually no public officials spoken against it? The answer is fear. Polls show that Proposition 83 is popular with voters, who unfortunately appear to not understand its real implications. Many intelligent legislators, law enforcement officials and prosecutors privately acknowledge that Proposition 83 is ill-conceived. They are, however, afraid to oppose it publicly, lest they anger an electorate that has become frustrated, angry and frightened enough to waste countless millions and even put children at additional risk on behalf of a clearly false promise that would, however, succeed in imposing additional suffering on society's newest pariahs: registered sex offenders.
Tom McClintock is FOR Prop 83, Jessica's Law.
I'll take his lead.
Thus, the luster is of the GAYS star hehehehehehe.
Common sense would suggest otherwise...
Can't we just deport all sex offenders to those islands in the Bering Strait?
I hope that folks at least read the articles and observations offered.
In California especially, folks need to be aware of the potential for unintended consequences, we have been bitten more than once previously and by well-intentioned folks.
I live in CA and I am voting against this proposition. I think what happened in Iowa after similar legislation passed demonstrates that there is a point past which monitoring sex offenders who are not in jail encourages them to drop out of sight completely, which doesn't do the public any good. McClintock is a good man, but I suspect that he's supporting this proposition because you have to pick your battles in life (and in politics), and there's no upside to coming out against a proposition aimed at combating child molestation, even if that proposition could have the opposite effect. Many people vote for the ends and are naive about whether the means actually will work.
I've read everything offered.
I still support Jessica's Law.
This is just me, but, if the guy is so dangerous and untrustworthy, that he needs to be monitored 24/7 with a GPS tracking device, why are you letting him out of prison to begin with?
Prohibit registrants from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks even though research shows no connection between where an offender resides and where he commits his crime. Most registrants offended against children they were already in a relationship with (relatives, neighbors, etc.), not against children they lured from public places. Those few who do use public places to identify and contact victims will hardly be deterred by having to live 2,001 feet away. They would simply take a short walk.
Similar residency restrictions in Iowa made it so difficult for registrants to find housing that many became homeless, while others stopped registering and dropped out of sight altogether, creating a supervision nightmare.
Within a few months, Iowa authorities lost track of more than 50 percent of their registrants. Iowa prosecutors are now calling for repeal of this law, which they initially supported. (Assertions that GPS monitoring would prevent this in California are patently ridiculous, as any offender desperate enough to drop off the grid would hardly hesitate to abandon his GPS device)
---
Iowa has a small population of RSOs, imagine what we are likely to encounter here with over 100,000 subject to a maybe not so well thought out approach being offered.
If Iowa's experiment doesn't teach us anything, then vote for it and bear the consequences and additional costs.
Good point. Maybe if we outright deported all the illegals in prison populations, we could afford to go another route.
I just don't think folks realize what this may end up being.. more feel goodism social engineering that will cause more grief both short and long-term then it will likely ever prevent.
I would add, if he is monitored 24/7 with a GPS tracking device, will they be more lenient in letting him out of prison? I think they will. If they are a danger, keep them locked up! I'll be voting NO.
If someone comits a crime, does their time and society releases them then in theory, they have paid their dues and should be free (probation or parole are different matters of course). If society doesn't wnat them to be free after their sentence, then why not give them longer sentences in the first place?
I hear ya. If they are deemed a danger to society, they shouldn't be released. It seems simple.
I thought Jessica's Law was a One Strike and you're OUT kind of law.
Not sure about that. That's why I come here, to find out what the fine print really says.
I guess we should get rid of the parole system too.
Gee! Come to think of it - some prisoners escape from prison so we should do away with prisons too!
Jessica's Law isn't hard enough - but it's a start. I'm voting for it.
I'm leary about the idea of giving the government the power to put lifetime GPS tags on people. Wait till the government expands the GPS system to include other crimes like J-walking. Better to embrace small government than big brother. If these criminals are dangerous then why doesn't the government just keep the convicts sitting in prison rather than wasting our money putting a GPS system on them?
Besides the GPS monitoring system probably violates the California State Constitutions right to privacy.
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.