In 2006 California voters passed what would be the latest in a string of ill-considered laws to protect children from sexual predators. At that time it passed Jessica’s Law, one of the string of laws around the country named for Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in 2005 by a man previously convicted of a sexual offense.
Among the stringent requirements was the mandatory registration of “sex offenders” for life, to allow officials to monitor and track individuals, who range from dangerous sexual predators to people who happened to be convicted of relatively minor offenses, as we have seen in this county.
However, now there is a challenge to that provision because the fact of the matter is that it limits where sex offenders can live. Think about how few residences in the City of Davis are not within just under half a mile of either a school or a park.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza has ruled this provision to be partly unconstitutional.
As the LA Times reports, “He issued the 10-page ruling Monday, after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court. He noted that the court has received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared. In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that Jessica’s Law restrictions had resulted in “a marked increase of homeless/transient [sex offender] registrants.””
“Clearly there are places to live in Los Angeles County,” said State Sen. George Runner who authored Jessica’s Law. “That’s what’s so astounding about the ruling. Even those who have found a place to live are now being allowed to live across the street from a school. You don’t give a card to every sex offender, pervert in the county to let them live wherever they want. That’s just wrong. The voters didn’t want that and it’s wrong for a judge to unilaterally decide that.”
But is Mr. Runner correct in terms of there being plenty of places to live 2000 feet or more from both schools and parks, and is Jessica’s Law actually doing more harm than good?
What is truly ironic, and also noted by a task force whose report was released this week, the provision actually increases dangers to public safety because it has vastly increased homelessness of these offenders, who thus have become much more difficult to track.
The task force, which is comprised of 36 members, many of whom are law enforcement officials, found that since the law went into effect the number of sex offenders who register as transients has risen from 88 to more than 2100.
“Homeless sex offenders put the public at risk. These offenders are unstable and more difficult to supervise for a myriad of reasons,” the task force reported. “They often change sleeping locations, requiring Parole Agents to continually investigate those areas to ensure they are appropriate and not in a high-risk area.”
Any changes to the law would either require a two-thirds vote of the legislature or repeal by the voters – neither of which appear particularly likely.
The task force issued these findings following two high profile cases in which blame was placed on parole officials for failure to properly supervise. Of course, officials have no such excuse, at least in the case of Phillip Garrido, who was living in a home and well-monitored.
Nevertheless, laws such as Jessica’s Law have the intention of protecting children from predators but often fail to consider unintended consequences. They have made residency locations so restrictive that they work opposite to intendion.
Other recommendations of the task force focus on assessment of risk of re-offending, and thus supervision is focused on their risk level and reducing of caseloads.
The problem is that this law is way too broad, as it lumps a lot of different classes of crimes and individuals into one broad category.
In Yolo County recently, the case of Michael Artz, who faces lifelong sex offender status for having sexual contact with a younger classmate, raised the point that not all of these “offenders” are created equal.
Is Mr. Artz the same type of threat to the community as Phllip Garrido or John Gardner, two recent high profile cases in which things went awry? No. So why the same sort of restrictions?
We really need to ask ourselves what our goal is here. Do we really aim to marginalize a broad class of people, many of whom are probably of little threat to their new communities? Because that is what this law is doing, both through residency restrictions and stigmatization. In that sense, we are probably creating greater threats, and a burden for an overworked law enforcement system.
I think if we really need to monitor people, which is somewhat debatable anyway, we have to gain a much greater sense of who is truly a threat, and who committed a crime that is not likely to become a pattern.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “What is truly ironic and also noted by a task force whose report was released this week, the provision actually increases public safety because it has vastly increased homelessness of these offenders who thus have become much more difficult to track.”
The report says the provision INCREASES public safety bc it has vastly increased homelessness…? Did you mean DECREASES?
It was also my understanding that the gov’t was providing re-entry housing for sex offenders bc of this problem. From nhi.org: “There are several types of nonprofits that are involved in housing ex-offenders. This is largely a function of their mission: either to serve this population directly (or indirectly), and/or to serve the poor, urban communities that many ex-offenders call home.”
have just gotten that edited, am a little late today…
Typo, my bad.
Re-entry housing might be a solution or it might be another path to more problems which I can foresee. It doesn’t appear to be in place now at this time.
This is just another example of how California is hurt by the initiative process. Proposition 115 was written and passed by the People and eliminated “live” preliminary hearings. This was ostensibly to save time for the DA’s but has caused cases to go to jury trial which have no reasonable likelihood of conviction because they do not get tested at a preliminary hearing. Massive waste of taxpayer money.
A proposition is also the way that the unconstitutional law that Michael Artz was convicted of (Penal Code 288.3) was written and passed. Think about it — any initiative is law written by people who did not swear to uphold the Constitution as legislators do. They could be your bartender. They did not necessarily even read the Constitution. But they right the laws we in California live by. This is the only state that allows initiatives to go directly to the ballot without legislative review and most states do not even allow initiatives. Taxpayers spend massive amounts of money litigating issues arising out of them. The initiatives not go thru committees and the give and take of legislative study.
The statutory one that could subject Michael to prison purports to hold Michael’s actions illegal for communicating with Y. with the intent to have sex (ora copulation). The cops arrested him 800 feet before he got to her door. The prosecution theory was based on the fact that he was going to force her with pictures he did not have. Problem? She could have answered the door and said: Shove it! I have changed my mind. Publish your stupid pictures. I would rather that than have sex with you again since you have a girlfriend. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” The jury found he was not a violent guy *count one*, and he did not have the pictures so he would have left. No crime. See the problem? If this were criminal… Penal Code 288.3, then why would the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agents, Sheriff’s drug teams, etc. monitor drug buys with marked money? Why not just monitor the telephone calls or wiretaps and once the magic words are spoken, arrest the guy who communicates the intent to buy? Because criminal law requires more than words — it requires a complete act. Same with the prostitution stings. You have all seen them on t.v.; undercover female police officers getting the John to the point of completing the crime — where it is clear there is no going back.
Similarly Jessica’s law was written by the People. Two big problems beyond those David points out. All initiatives are constitutional amendments to the California constitution and require a 2/3 vote to overturn them. That is absurd. Second: most people don’t know Jessica’s law is only enforceable by Parole agents as a violation of parole. It won’t apply to Michael Artz unless he is sentenced to prison, (unlikely on his facts) and then only for the time after his release while on Parole (3 years). So sex offenders not on Parole can live right next to a school. Parole is generally 3 years long. Do any of you think this is a smart way to make laws for our state?
kd: “The cops arrested him 800 feet before he got to her door.”
Would you have preferred them to wait until after he did something terrible?
To kd: By the way, that was a rhetorical question…
“Clearly there are places to live in Los Angeles County,” said State Sen. George Runner
Those of us who live out in the country were not thrilled with this initiative. We already get your junk cars, stray animals, and trash. Now we get your sex offenders, since there are very few places in urban areas that aren’t within 2000 feet of the listed sites.
So Mr. Shor, you don’t want them near you either.
I believe they should be evenly distributed where people live, not disproportionately located in rural areas or rendered homeless.
Good save…lol
You disagree, Rusty? Or are you hoping for the Island solution?
Yes I disagree, would you want a convicted sex offender living next to you and your young children? Would you ever feel safe when your children are out playing or unattended?
Then where would you put them?
In terms of would I want a convicted sex offender living next to me and my young children, depends on who it is. Michael Artz, not so much of a problem. Someone on parole, a bit more. But where do they get to live?
Jessica’s Law was a poorly written initiative with predicted consequences, and they have occurred.
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-jessicas-law-turned-antioch-into-a-paedophile-ghetto-1780287.html[/url]
“Someone on parole, a bit more. But where do they get to live?”
Like I said, maybe next door to you, your child’s school or a park where your children like to play at. And if you say you’re okay with that I find that really hard to believe.
You haven’t answered the question, rusty. Where should they live?
“Where should they live?”
Somewhere not within 2000 ft. of a school or a park, maybe in the country, right Mr. Shor?
Rusty49: Yes I disagree, would you want a convicted sex offender living next to you and your young children? Would you ever feel safe when your children are out playing or unattended?
Have you ever went on Meagan’s Law and checked your neighborhood? More than likely their is at least one in your neighborhood. I have 2 that live eye vision from me. I would rather know where they are at than not know. I have two daughters, and when they are outside playing they will never be unattended. When they are on Megan’s Law I can at least see a picture of their face and get an address. I have never seen the two in my neighborhood walk down the street, a homeless offender is most likely to walk on the streets. It is highly that I will not know he is an offender. I know someone from an incident that happened 31 years ago and who did not do the actual rape, and who was in the home while the rape took place, not to a child but an adult and he still has to register and has not had no sexual crime since and he too is under this same law. They really need to re-evaluate the situations on each individual. Because everybodys case is different. I do not like the idea of re-offenders being near schools or my children. I think their should be some type of recovery home for them, than you got others who’s cases are not what’s played up to be. Tough issue….
[i]”I believe they should be evenly distributed where people live, not disproportionately located in rural areas or rendered homeless.”[/i]
I think one problem we have with sex offenders is we group them together as if they are all the same danger upon release. A psychotic serial rapist who breaks into a woman’s home in the middle of the night is just not the same thing as an adult male who has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend (like Elvis Presley). Yet both are tagged as “sex offenders.”
The most dangerous, probably unfixable class** of offenders is those who are sexually attracted to young children. If a man of that sort–I think it is always men–ever molests, kidnaps or rapes a child, he never should be released from prision. Never, ever.
We have so much consternation over where such men should live upon release. But that goes past what I believe is the main point: such criminals, upon first conviction, should be locked up for life without parole. They are simply too dangerous to ever live in society.
An equally dangerous population of sex offenders is the type who would break into someone’s home (or other private space) and rape a woman, whether one time or (more likely) multiple times. Those criminals should also never be released. The chances that they will re-offend are too great. (Phillip Garrido, before he kidnapped and serially raped Jaycee Lee Dugard, was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in the Lake Tahoe area. Why was he ever let out after that? He should have been hung or given life without parole.)
The sex offenders we should be managing, after they finish their time in prison, are those who have done no more than “lewd and lascivious acts” or “statutory rape” or “date rape*” or “child porn” or other crimes of that nature, which, while vile, are likely to not be repeated due to a psychiatric malady or which have not caused irreparable harm to the victims.
I am not one who generally believes in long prison sentences. I can’t think of any other crime besides rape or child sexual abuse where I think life without parole is justified. But certainly, in my opinion, those who would harm someone in this manner are damaged goods, not worthy of ever being released.
*I’m probably getting into dangerous territory with “date rape”. I don’t think it is ever cool or non-criminal. But I don’t think it is quite the same thing as stranger, stalker or break-in rape. At the same time, there are probably degrees of date rape, ranging from a case where a couple was involved in consensual sexual activities and the male illegally went farther than his victim wanted him to up to cases where the perpetrator arranged the date for the purposes of raping his victim. In the latter case, that is pretty much the same thing as an irredeemable violent rape which deserves life without parole.
**I’m no expert on this topic. However, an acquaintance of mine who lives in Davis and works as a staff psychologist at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville told me once, “they can never be fixed.”
[quote]”they can never be fixed.” [/quote]
does that include chemical/physical castration?
[i]”does that include chemical/physical castration?”[/i]
I don’t know. You can check out this site ([url]http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html[/url]) for more answers.
[quote]does that include chemical/physical castration?
[/quote]
That approach assumes that these offenders are, in effect, just people who are unable to control their hormonal impulses – either because the impulses are “too strong” or because they are “too weak.” For many sexual offenders, such as serial rapists, the crime is not at all about sexual impulses, but rather about inflicting violence and terror upon the victim(s). How else to explain the beating, torture and/or murder that often accompanies violent sexual offense(s)?
Castration (chemical or physical) does not affect a rapist’s ability to rape – only his ability to impregnate. There is no reason to believe that castration would remove the demented pleasure that a rapist derives from terrorizing his victim.
Rich Rifkin: “The sex offenders we should be managing, after they finish their time in prison, are those who have done no more than “lewd and lascivious acts” or “statutory rape” or “date rape*” or “child porn” or other crimes of that nature, which, while vile, are likely to not be repeated due to a psychiatric malady or which have not caused irreparable harm to the victims.”
I can understand your reasoning. The problem is that many rapists start out with lewd and lascivious acts and work their way up. It is very common for a rapist to start out as a peeping Tom, then graduate to reaching out and touching females passing by, to then dragging them into the bushes and raping them, to raping and killing their victims. It is a “unnatural” progression from less serious crimes to the ultimate crime of killing the victim for sexual gratification. The serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer would be a classic example. He started out as a little child scraping up road kill and examining it, then graduated to torturing animals, then went on to torture and kill humans.