Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Predator law fuels financial concerns (Prop 83)
Fresno Bee ^ | 12/11/06 | E.J. Schultz

Posted on 12/11/2006 2:31:36 PM PST by calcowgirl

Proposition 83, approved by 71% of voters, requires felony registered sex offenders to be tracked for the rest of their lives with Global Positioning System devices. It also prohibits all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Prison terms and parole periods also are lengthened.

Among the many questions: Who will pay for the GPS devices, estimated to cost up to $10 a day per device, plus staffing and computer costs?

Another major question: Do the laws apply retroactively? If so, every one of the state's 90,000 registered sex offenders — including 3,453 in the central San Joaquin Valley — would be banned from living near schools or parks, even if their crime was committed years ago.

(snip)

Assembly Member Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, who helped draft Prop. 83, said the intent of the measure is to make the restrictions prospective, not retroactive. If courts decide otherwise, she said she will push clarifying legislation.

As for cost, she says she will lobby for the state to pay for GPS tracking, even for offenders under local authority. It will be expensive. The state's legislative analyst has estimated that Prop. 83-related GPS costs will run "several tens of millions of dollars annually" and will grow in 10 years to about $100 million a year.

The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for GPS tracking for offenders coming out of state prison, which amounts to about 300 offenders a month.

Left unanswered is who is responsible for tracking felony offenders coming out of local jails or on local probation, a population estimated to represent 59% of the 8,000 felony sex offenders convicted each year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: calinitiatives; callegislation; jessicaslaw; prop83
Heavily excerpted. Bottom line (imo): this law is a costly mess.
1 posted on 12/11/2006 2:31:40 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The flood of lamestream mess coverage of perverts was to visually associate perverts with men and women who would vote Republican.

MSM screwed up [no pun] as Americans correctly see perverts as gay, ergo a reflection on the dims.

2 posted on 12/11/2006 2:36:11 PM PST by 100-Fold_Return (MONEY Cometh To Me NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
In the People's Democratic Republic of Kaleefoaneeah, money grows on trees. There are no taxpayer costs for government programs. Government mandates "just work", because they're magic!
3 posted on 12/11/2006 2:36:52 PM PST by TChris (We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us. - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Heavily excerpted. Bottom line (imo): this law is a costly mess.

That's exactly why I voted against it. The potential unintended consequences were staggering.

I'm waiting for the really expensive aspects. Since the predators can't live anywhere decent, they will get subsidized housing; they will demand constant therapy, room and board at the very least.

It would be so simple to force them to pay for the program, both the hardware and the monitoring. If they can't afford it, they stay in the slammer with minimum rations and NO amenities.

4 posted on 12/11/2006 2:39:41 PM PST by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

I agree! Let the perverts pay for the devices and monitoring as a pre requirement to their freedom.


5 posted on 12/11/2006 3:02:33 PM PST by passionfruit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Among the many questions: Who will pay for the GPS devices, estimated to cost up to $10 a day per device, plus staffing and computer costs?

Simple: Make the pervs pay. You don't pay the bill, your worthless butt goes back to prison.

6 posted on 12/11/2006 3:09:41 PM PST by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

what you need to concern yourself about is the precedent set..if the people accept this for a group that has been demonized you can bet incrementalism won't be far behind


7 posted on 12/11/2006 3:55:25 PM PST by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Perhaps - but let's see now... the same libs who don't have a problem with spending escalating amount of money on social programs suddenly find money tight when it comes to keeping our children safe? Whatever my reservations about Prop. 83 are, the matter of fact is voters want Sacramento to put our children's safety first. When it comes to law enforcement, are the Democrats even listening?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

8 posted on 12/11/2006 5:35:28 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
Are you suggesting that sexual predators shouldn't be demonized?
9 posted on 12/11/2006 5:40:50 PM PST by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Simple: Make the pervs pay. You don't pay the bill, your worthless butt goes back to prison.

Nice in theory, but it wouldn't stand up to court challenge. What you're advocating essentially sentences unemployed sex offenders to life in prison while allowing more financially able offenders to walk. No court would permit that (nor should they, wealth should not be a factor in determining punishment).
10 posted on 12/11/2006 5:41:27 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Are you suggesting that sexual predators shouldn't be demonized?

This is California, where a man having sex with his own drunk wife can be charged with rape and labeled a sex offender. Personally, I tend to reserve judgement until I find out what they've done.
11 posted on 12/11/2006 5:44:05 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

what i'm suggesting is if you allow things like this based on something most agree is disagreeable then, eventually, you will have the same thing applied to you..be carefull what you cheer on.


12 posted on 12/11/2006 5:47:05 PM PST by rottweiller_inc (inter canem et lupum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson