Lockyer says new sex-offender law should be retroactive { Jessica's Law }

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/27/6 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

Judge to rule on new interpretation of Prop. 83

-- SAN FRANCISCO -- The state abruptly changed its position today on the meaning of a voter-approved law that restricts where sex criminals may live, telling a federal judge that the law would bar any of California's more than 90,000 registered sex offenders from moving to a home within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said he felt "a little bit ambushed'' by the shift by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who had stated in writing less than two weeks ago that Proposition 83 would not apply retroactively.

White scheduled a hearing for Feb. 23 on whether the new law, as now interpreted by Lockyer, would violate the constitutional ban on retroactive punishment. In the meantime, the judge extended an order that forbids the eviction of a Bay Area man from his current home under Prop. 83.

The initiative, approved by 70 percent of the voters on Nov. 7, prohibited any registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school and required felony sex offenders who had served time in prison to carry global positioning devices with them for the rest of their lives so that authorities could locate them.

The measure broadened both the geographical dimension and the scope of the state's previous residency restrictions, which applied only to convicted child molesters. But Prop. 83 did not spell out whether, or how, the new limitations would apply to currently registered sex offenders.

State law requires anyone convicted of a sex crime to register with local police once a year, and also after any change of address.

[Abcdefg]

"For the record, Lockyer is a cross-dresser."

I have a feeling he might also be a sadist / pedophile.

[oldenuff2no]

I voted for the law as a tool for judges to use.
Making it go backwards is wrong!!!!! No judge has ever looked at the punishment as applied to that individual offender. If they can do this to a sex offender law, then they can do it to gun laws as well. This is WRONG!!!!

[ElkGroveDan]

Yeah it's an old story around the Capitol in Sacramento going back to his Senate years in the early 90s.

[AVNevis]

At least he has transferred to an office that is mostly administrative. As AG, he was able to interpret state law to fit his liberal viewpoint. It's probably the most influential office except Governor.

The guy wants to be Governor. We need to see to it that he is stopped.

[fieldmarshaldj]

State Treasurer isn't much of a jumping off point to successful runs for Governor. Angelides failed, as did Kathleen Brown 12 years ago. Not since Republican Friend Richardson in 1922 has a Treasurer made the leap to Governor. Prior to that, only Republican (and sole Hispanic to ever hold the job) Romualdo Pacheco previously held that office (but he became Governor as he was the Lieutenant-Governor), and that was from 1863-67.

[D-fendr]

Just one of the problems with ex post facto is plea agreements. Changing the conditions of the agreement in such a major way after the fact should nullify the contract.

[El Gato]

If they can do this to a sex offender law, then they can do it to gun laws as well. This is WRONG!!!!

They already have. Felons in possession law dates back to '68 at the federal level. Lautenberg amendment regarding "domestic violence" is more recent, but has the same effect for those previously convicted of "domestic violence" *misdemeanors*

[SmithL]

As AG, he was able to interpret state law to fit his liberal viewpoint.

I guess that won't happen with new Attorney General Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.

Rose Bird's Revenge!

[AVNevis]

Jerry Brown is a little bit better. But, good point, we still have a long way to go to make sure that office is in responsible hands.

[amchugh]

*shrug* Jessica's law seemed kind of stupid anyway. If CA law enforcement can't get half these pedophiles to register as sex offenders already, I fail to see why the pedophiles would keep a GPS tracker on their leg just because we tell them they should.

I'd support a CA proposition that lengthened the sentences for sex offenders, that would actually do some good.

[G Larry]

You don't really expect the State AG to understand "ex post facto" do you?

Wonder how much Cali will spend getting those unconstitutional decisions overturned?

[NormsRevenge]

Lockyer,, the Whoreacle for Oracle...

[longtermmemmory]

You can't imagine how much of this "making law" happens in the courts even at the local level.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Sex offenders need to be locked up, permanently. If they got to be monitored when they're released that means they're still a danger to society.

Also sex offender laws need to be dramatically clarified. An 18 year old dating a 17 year old girl shouldn't be labeled a sex offender.

[Navy Patriot]

Lockyer wants to kill the proposition, without opposing it. He is giving the court a chance to kill it, then he will say he was trying to protect it.

You are absolutely right. It's classic Lockyer, he's worse than Stalin.

[Paloma_55]

I agree that an 18 yr old dating a 17 yr old should not be labeled a sex offender, however, there is a thing called statutory rape. An 18 yr old *having sex* with a 17 yr old may qualify for that charge.

There are different classes of felony and misdemeanors, it would seem (and I believe it is so) that the difference in age is a mitigating factor in which class of crime the defendent is charged. There are also juries which will help to ensure that a person is not branded for life for a minor offense, and there is plea bargaining.

IMO, the requirement to register should only be placed upon people who have engaged in sexual activity with minors under 15 and more than 3 years younger than them or for non-consentual sexual assault or battery... but better yet, I would have a 2 strikes law for such offenders and for some offenses, like pedophilia, one strike.