Jessica's Law far too broad; No on Prop 83

By: North County Times Opinion Staff - | Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:27 AM PDT ∞

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.

Ads by Yahoo!

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

22 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Marcus wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:32 PM:Wow...you guys are WAY off base again. Wake up!

Angry Dad in Temecula wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:04 AM:What a stunning display of ignorance by the North County Times editorial board. Are you guys chug-a-lugging pitchers of ACLU Kool-Aide? Not only am I voting "YES" for Prop 83, but I may just decide to vote to discontinue my subscription to your newspaper due to your declining standards. Rest assured, sex predators are cheering your editorial today.

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2006 6:50 AM:Since sexual orientation is genetic, and these sexual predators like children, I wonder if the Times would write an editorial in favor of life imprisonment for sexual predators? Or is the Times among the Mark Leno crowd, how many pieces of child porn does it take to make a felony, only in the Times case it would be: How many kids will be molested to make it a felony?

Amanda wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:48 AM:Whose side are you on? Who is writing these opinions? Release your names don't hide behind your newspaper's name. The North County Times is getting to sick for me.

Ken wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:57 AM:As a reasoning person, I wonder how anyone would vote for a Proposition, in this case Proposition 83, that has 2 parts in it that are in direct violation of the Constitution. The 2000 foot limit applied to all sex offenders as well as GPS tracking of all sex offenders are Ex Post Facto, have no provision for Due Process and do not provide 5th amendment "just compensation" for "governmental taking" of an offenders property. Get those two things out and it is a Proposition worth voting for.

Al wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:12 AM:As of today the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register and the North County Times have agreed that what the laws the Governator signed recently makes Prop 83 a waste of taxpayer dollars especially in all the lawsuits it will generate. The North County Times does not seem to buy into hysteria, but rather thinks.

Response to Ken wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:28 PM: Ken when the articles of the constitution were written I don't think child pedophilia, child molesters, rape etc.. was on their minds neither was the open access that the internet brings. Certain articles of the constitution have to be amended to fit the problems and crisis of our time not hundreds of years ago. If there is disparity between the will of the people and the constitution then the courts and congress have the ability, power and the right to amend if it is for a just cause. I believe protecting our children in our society is our responsibility and every able body adult should protect its future’s interests and this would be OUR CHILDREN!!! It is time we start taking care of the children in our nation...

To al wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:33 PM:Now Al who do you think is going to sue on behalf of these predators? The ACLU and believe me there may be a lawsuit here and there but certainly not as exaggerated as you may think. I believe the protection of children is much more important then the rights and protection of pedophiles, child rapist, murders and molesters.

GG wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:52 PM:I love it when people pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they agree with on any given day. While we're amending it, can we do something about the second amendment? When it was written, I don't think the framers foresaw the vast choice of weaponry that is so readily available today. Or is that a part you like? Bottom line is, if something is unconstitutional you can't do it, and that includes presidents.

Ken wrote on Oct 12, 2006 8:24 AM:How many of you remember the old story with the phrase "When they came for the (blanks) I was not afraid because I was not a (blank)". The point is that once the Constitutional rights of ANY person or group are trashed, the floodgates are open and EVERYONE'S Constitutional rights are trashed as well. Let's go for drug dealers next. And how about anyone who at any time got a DUI? Where does it end?

Al wrote on Oct 12, 2006 9:01 AM:To Al questioned who will sue and said that the protecting the children is more important than rights of pedophiles, etc. I am truly sorry that you feel that way and more importantly sorry that you buy into the hysteria that the media feeds you and then amplifies over and over. I am glad that the "molester" who was accused of slaughtering large animals, cleaning it up before the parents picked their "molested" children up from Sunday-school DID have constitutional rights and was found to be INNOCENT. People who were well educated bought into those accusations because of the hysteria of the time. The sentences have been too lax for too long and the proper way to fix it is to do what the Governor already recently did - sign into law the changes in sentencing guidelines. Passing a Proposition that will be costly, ineffective and tied up in court seems like a waste of time and the money "for the children".

To Al wrote on Oct 12, 2006 11:04 PM: Al- I don't care how much money it costs to put in place laws to protect our children. We spend billions on Iraq, Afghanistan wars now that is hysteria. You need to do some serious reading and research facts and cases before you criticize and accuse people of hysteria. I guess ALL parents are HISTERICAL when it comes to safety of children in you opinion I may guess.

Al wrote on Oct 13, 2006 8:29 AM:To Al - I am a parent. I am cautious. I believe that child molesters, especially those who molest a child under 14, should be put away for life at the least, FOLLOWING THE LAW. I want my daughter to be safe. I also want her to learn respect for the law and the value of keeping one's word. What does it teach her when she sees adults breaking the highest law in the land and claiming it is to protect her? How much will she trust the law? Is cheating (the system) really what YOU want her to learn? Or do you want to teach her that she can pick and choose what laws she wants to obey and when, sort of like GG wrote about? I will not break the law nor will I advocate that anyone else does. I am prudent and have shown and will continue to show my daughter someone she can respect and who will protect her - legally.

Fred Lopez wrote on Oct 13, 2006 6:05 PM:Nowhere on this proposition does it guarantee the safety of our children! This proposition was written by mean spirited individuals that are right now protecting one of their own...Rep. Mark Foley. The Republicans are saying he's not a predator or pedophile but what make what he did any different than what other people have been accused of doing. Congratulations North County Times for not being affraid of speaking the truth about this horrid law that will only do more harm than good if its passed. All of you are buying into the fear mongering that the Republicans use to have propositions like this pass. Well I'm not buying into it because not everyone on the registery is a child molester. The have cast a huge net on everyone and that is illegal. Like Ken said, take those two provisions out of the initiative and maybe, just maybe I'll change my mind. Until then I'll have faith in the two new laws that were just signed by Governor Schwarzenegger to help ease our minds. Remember, this law will not protect our children from people that have never been caught...it will only provide a false sense of security.

Brad wrote on Oct 13, 2006 6:36 PM:To all of you that are being misinformed about this terrible proposition. The U.S. Department of Justice has two studies that they conducted on sex offenders. One study had only 3% of them reoffending. The later study had 5%. Those recidivism numbers are very low. These numbers are in stark contrast to what the authors of Proposition 83 want us to believe. The study they are quoting includes all type of new offenses. From a convicted sex offender being arrested for stealing cigarettes to them being arrested for doing drugs. Once you weed out all of those other type of new offenses then you have you 3-5% reoffense figures. Nothing we should be worried about. Besides the Times clearly tells us that the Governor signed new law to protect us from sex offenders. We don't need Prop 83 anymore. Have faith in the system. No on 83!

John wrote on Oct 13, 2006 6:49 PM:All of us parents want our children to be safe but the truth of the matter is that stranger danger isn't what we need to worry about. Children are being molested by people that we are suppose to trust i.e.; clergy, friends, police, teachers, uncles, cousins, etc. you get the point. Jessica's death was terrible but it was perpetrated by a mentally ill sex offender that was on the run. Even if Florida at the time had GPS to track them he probably would have cut it off. The GPS devices are not tamper proof and will not save lives. Making all offenders move 2000 feet from schools or parks wont help protect our children either. We need to be smarter when it comes to these kind of issues. Instead of banishing them lets give them counceling, therapy anything that will help them get rid of what ever urges they may have. If treatment works for alchoholics and drug addicts then it will also work for sex offenders. Therapy not banishment-No on Prop 83.

5th generation san diegian wrote on Oct 14, 2006 5:57 AM:I want to thank the North County Times and their staff writers for seeing Prop. 83 for what it is. We have laws that make it a crime to have sex with someone under 18. It makes no difference if both parties are willing participates. Under California law, two 17 year olds in the back of a Buick could be labled sex offenders. California Penal Code 647.6 is a misdemeanor. It does not require any sexual touching or intent. CONVICTION REQUIRES REGISTRATION. I am embarrassed that there are so many ignorate people living in San Diego. People, You need to wake up. Vote NO on Prop. 83.

howard wrote on Oct 14, 2006 6:33 AM:I want to thank the North County Times and their staff writers for seeing Prop. 83 for what it is. We have laws that make it a crime to have sex with someone under 18. It makes no difference if both parties are willing participates. Under California law, two 17 year olds in the back of a Buick could be labled sex offenders. California Penal Code 647.6 is a misdemeanor. It does not require any sexual touching or intent. CONVICTION REQUIRES REGISTRATION. I am embarrassed that there are so many ignorate people living in San Diego. People, You need to wake up. Vote NO on Prop. 83.

Greg wrote on May 10, 2007 11:11 AM:It seems allot of people are lumping up sex offenders with child molesters. This law is flawed; it makes no distinction between a person who showed his wee wee, made a dirty phone call or got caught with a prostitute 20 years ago. Many of these offenders have been rehabilitated and moved on with families of their own to protect. Why not just say child molesters and violent predators cannot live near schools etc.? The law is too broad. And I'm always suspicious of the people who get all worked up over this type of opinion.

Fred wrote on Jan 20, 2008 12:16 AM:Jessica's law is stupid, barbaric, pointless. The people who support it are brainwashed idiots. It does nothing to protect the children, and brings us ever closer to a totalitarian society. Wake up, people!

Caren wrote on Jan 26, 2008 10:25 PM:Contrary to what some people would like others to believe, sexual predators are not able to be rehabilitated. There is no cure, because these people do not think there is anything wrong with them, or what they do. They do not believe there is something amiss in their brains. Using children in sexual behavior is about power and control on behalf of the adult, nothing more. and the reason it is done in secrecy is because the person is a sneaky coward. They have an illusion that lives only in their own mind, and no where else. One pedaphile has an average of 67 victims and is known to them. If they would use their brains for something else, which they are not capable of doing, instead of sadistic corruption, they might amount to something, instead of sneaky ****going around molesting. All of them should be eunichs, except the problem wouldn't go away...a lobotomy, yes!

thinkinghead wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:25 AM:A lot of these people have children to support financially. Is California ready to pass out welfare checks to these children of now-displaced parents? Now not only are these children victims of the offending parent's actions, they are victims of the State.

Thank you NCT for explaining why there has to be a better way.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos