ZMan wrote on Feb 1, 2007 2:50 AM: * If the sex offender laws are kept, why discriminate? If sex offenders must suffer for life and be on GPS, so should ANYONE with a criminal record. If this is not done, then it is discrimination. Anyone with a criminal record should be on a registry on the internet for the whole world to see, and be on GPS for life. DUI offenders should not be able to live XX feet from an alcohol store and should have their license revoked. Drug dealers should not be able to live XX feet from anywhere children congregate, so they cannot sell our kids drugs. Murderers should not be able to life XX feet from ANYONE, since they may kill again. DUI offenders kill more people than any other crime (I believe), and I'm sure the entire public would love to know if a murderer, thief, drug dealer, etc lives in their neighborhood. If all this was on the internet for all to see, I'm sure everyone would NOT leave their house at all. These people are everywhere. Why are sex offenders being "scape goated"? EVERYONE WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD SHOULD OBIDE BY THE SAME LAWS SEX OFFENDERS HAVE TO OR IT'S DISCRIMINATION!! * When will people ever realize no matter how tough on crime, all the zero tolerance, all the registries in the world will not prevent a murderer from murdering, a thief from stealing, a dealer from dealing, a user from using, a rapist from raping....accusations on any sex crime, child abuse, or domestic violence will literally nail your butt to the wall! No DNA has to be present, No violence has to be present..... HEARSAY ALONE IS LITERALLY NAILING THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO THE WALL BECAUSE OF THE BIASNESS IN THE LAWS. * "Buffer Zones" are a false sense of security! * "Buffer Zones" are banishing people from their town, state, and possibly the country! * "Buffer Zones" create homelessness, which costs society lost productivity, individual dignity, and creates additional problems for enforcing any accurate registry! * "Buffer Zones" do nothing, except banish! It could be 50 miles and if someone wanted to re-offend, they'd just get in a car and drive! * It should be MANDATORY that anyone in prison get therapy, and out of prison, if needed. Therapy does work. If you just lock them up, when they get out, they will be worse off. Therapy teaches people how to not act out and help, regardless of what the general public thinks. Just ask a therpist. * We need to STOP this hysteria and get sex offenders the help they need. * You can pass all the laws you want but without therapy and this "mob" mentality will not solve anything! * I am sick of politicians using children to get their laws passed! Who would want to vote against anything that is "for the children"? * "Stranger Danger" is a smoke screen & hype! Most child sexual offenses occur by someone the child knows, like a family member or close friend! * These laws are being passed by politicians using sex offenders as scape goats, for votes! * Registries do NOT protect anyone or prevent crimes! * Registries are punishing sex offenders as well as their families and children, and opening them up to vigilantism. DON'T THE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN OF SEX OFFENDERS COUNT? They are suppose to be "for the children", right? * Registries are NOT being updated in a timely fashion, so the public is getting false information! How is this helping the public or protecting them when they cannot rely on them? * Registries are putting families and children of sex offenders in a public position to be socially outcast and discriminated against with regard to employment, housing, schooling, etc! * About 90% of the people on the registry are NOT sexual predators or pedophiles that these laws were for in the first place! * These laws cost millions, if not billions to enforce, and they cause prison over-population, which is already a problem, especially in California! AND TAX PAYERS PAY FOR ALL THIS! * GPS does not prevent sexual crimes! Another false sense of security which cost tons of money! Plus they are suppose to pay for this, which will eventually go homeless. MAKE THE TAX PAYERS WHO WANT THESE LAWS TO PAY FOR THEM! * These laws cause sex offenders to go underground and into hiding, due to the strict nature of the laws! How is this protecting anyone? * These laws are all abount money for law enforcement and votes for politicians. Prison is a business! Politicians are salaried and want elected/re-elected! Law enforcement get paid for people in jails, prisons or on the registry! * These laws blatantly disregard the United States constitutional rights of all citizens! (i.e. ex-post facto, due process & others) * These laws are cruel and unusual punishment! A sex offender cannot go to a fast food restaurant which has a playground! Why? We have just as must of a right as you to get a burger! Plus they cannot go anywhere kids congregate, which is endless (i.e. Amusement parks, Movie theaters, the list is endless) * Sex offenders can go to church, but must leave immediately afterwards. If a sex offender owns a business and someone decides to put a church or school next door, they have to now sell their business and move. This is not right, move the church or school, the sex offender was there first! * These laws continue to punish people even after a sentence has been served, and they are trying to get on with their lives! (i.e. ex-post facto) * These laws are driven by fear-mongering, opportunistic politicians and will do nothing to actually protect children! * There are over one million women and children whose lives are inter-twined with a sex offender in the United Stated. They should matter too! * Follow the money trail, these laws are conveyor-belt laws to benefit law enforcement! They get paid for the number of people in jail, prison or on the registry! * They are currently a one-size-fits all for sex offenders! Not all sex offenders are predators or pedophiles that these laws are suppose to be for anyway! * They are modern day witch hunts and a scarlett letter! * If Sex Offenders are re-offending, why does the registries grow each day? Because new people are being added daily for stuff like "public urination", "mooning", "concensual sex", "young children playing 'Doctor'" and various other minor offenses that we need not worry about. We need to worry about predators & pedophiles! * Now they are trying to make it a law that a sex offender, if they have kids, cannot "take a picture" of anyone under 18. This is totally stupid! Can't even take Christmas pictures, birthday pictures, etc! * Also, because a sex offender owns a business in town, many people are trying to get the business shut down! The sex offender had the business for awhile. If you don't like it, MOVE!!!! * The Nazi' did this back when Hitler was in power, with the Jews, Turks, etc. * The thing about pedophiles not being able to take pictures of kids is stupid. You'd better shred any pictures you have of your kids when they were babies, like diaper changing, baths, etc.

Angry Dad in Temecula wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:42 AM:A great deal of thanks and many kudos to legislators like Dennis Hollingsworth and Jay LaSuer as well as radio talk show host Rick Roberts. These people and many others spearheaded this legislation and also finally ensured that the Megan's Law sex offender registry was placed on the internet. A special 'thanks for nothing' should go to all of those intransigent liberal-democrat legislators in Sacramento like Mark Leno who blocked any and all public safety bills dealing with tougher sanctions for sex offenders. It would seem that with Sacramento's democrats, 'tolerance' and 'diversity' is even extended to rapists and pedophiles. It is utterly shameful that these democrats serve as puppets for the ACLU while families and kids were put at risk by these criminal coddling democrats.

ShadowMan wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:45 AM:I totally agree that these laws are discriminatory, unconstitutional, and represent additional unwarranted punishment after-the-fact. The only other group of criminals which are required to register with local enforcement (to my knowledge) are arsonists, however there is no online registry for them. Great post ZMan, however, readability of your post is lacking.

Sandy K wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:53 AM:Sorry ZMan, if you're looking for sympathy you ain't gonna get it. If a woman chooses to stay with a person convicted of being a sex offender and subject her family to the pain of that life then she has no reason to complain. Personally, I would never allow my children to go through the misery of living with the shame even if they were not at risk. Most of us divorced our husbands for far less. Dateline NBC has done a pretty good job of showing us how many of these guys there are loose in our society and they all seem to claim they are really harmless and weren't going to do anything to the child they may have driven hours to meet. Nope, I don't buy it and neither do other decent people. Children and women in general have my support over the "rights" of some sex offender.

AWoman wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:30 AM:It sounds like ZMan is a disgusting, whining sex offender who is crying because he broke the law and now has to pay the price. Keep ranting beacuse it will only get worse for you.

The people wrote on Feb 1, 2007 10:46 AM:Wo Zman, You sounded like a pissed off sex offender. The people have spoken. What make you think you perverts should have your freedom back after you convicted of suck heinous crime? We live in this great country and have been very tolerating of perverts. If you are in the Middle East, you probably is a eunuch now or worst executed!

KC wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:03 PM:Registering as a sex offender seems like a simple penance. Why are you ... about it ZMan? The penalty should be alot worse. By registering, the sick perverts are in some cases being protected by the law. Who protected the young innocents violated by the sick perverts? The penalty should be death. But its always nice to know when they're thrown in the general prison population. Murders and thieves don't like child molesters. Poor little put upon sick perverts.

New in Town wrote on Feb 1, 2007 3:43 PM:FACT: Pedophiles are likely to repeat their behavior. People who are abused as children may go on to become abusers themselves. There are people like my uncle that molested his daughter when she was about 12. I have visual, auditory and ofactory memories related to that same uncle and have anxiety attacks if I have to be near anyone that has facial features similar to him. I was also molested by another uncle and my dad's uncle. I have lifelong effects from the abuse even after years of therapy as an adult. Other crimes do not necessarily cause this kind of life long damage which, in my opinion, is worse than a death sentence to its victims.

Alf wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:00 PM:In our criminal justice system there is a thing called a sentence, you finish the sentence for the crime you committed, the law AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAY THAT IT IS OVER. ANY PUNISHMENT AFTER THE FACT IS FORBIDDEN. ONE CRIME, ONE TIME, PERIOD. Whether someone is likely to repeat a crime is, oddly enough, considered in their sentence. That is why when the sentence is done, that's all FOR THE ONE CRIME. I do not sympathize with sex offenders, I look at a larger picture of - getting a toe-hold by destroying Constitutional rights of any Citizen or group of Citizens and using that to destroy the Constitutional rights of the next hated GROUP OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. AND THE NEXT.

Sex offender wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:31 PM:I am one. I molested someone 25 years ago. I served my time for what I did. I am not whining about that. I am not whining at all. I am one of the ones who obey the law. I register annually within 5 days of my birthday. I comply willingly, without complaint. Did you get a DUI? Did you do your time, like I did? Did you "go straight" afterward like I did? Did I believe that except for annual registration and having to notify the local authorities when I was gone for 5 business days that I was done? Like my signed court order of a sentence says? Like the Constitution says? Like we were taught in school? I do not whine, I seek and demand remedy for proposed laws that seek to punish me again and again, for the same crime FOR WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PAID. When I moved here, when I got the permit for my house, while I built my house, when I moved into a house that I built, it was not illegal for me to be here. What part of "double-jeopardy" and punitive EX POST FACTO LAWS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL do you not understand? Or will you be the one called "whining" when they do the same sort of thing for whatever crime you did? I will fight in court anyone anytime that thinks that they can pass an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I do not whine, I stop hot-heads who think that they are above "the law of the land". If I do not stop them, then the very people who hate me become exactly like I was, thinking that I could pick and choose what laws I wanted to obey, if and when I wanted to obey them. If an "additional punishment" law is passed against me, just wait, your turn will roll around, I guarantee it.

To The people wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:39 PM:Our Constitution says that you can't pass a law that punishes someone twice for one crime. But the Constitution also has a way that it can be changed. Changing the Constitution is the only way for "the will of the people" to put someone in double jeopardy. If an amendment is proposed that only denies that right to sex offenders, then another amendment has to be made to the equal protection and due process parts that "the will of the people" oftentimes conveniently forget.

To AWoman wrote on Feb 1, 2007 8:44 PM:I think zman just hates paying the price, and paying the price again and again and again and again. Do you like paying $100 for something and getting billed another $100 and another $100? I think that is his point. Or do you do that to your husband, make him pay 20 times for one thing?

To Sandy K wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:00 PM:I guess you never made a mistake or worse. I guess that you think that a wife or worse yet a woman who marries someone that she knows all about, believed what is becoming a scrap of toilet tissue called our Constitution that said that what the Judge ordered is all he had to do. When the Constitution was written, the British would pass laws to control those rebelious colonists. The British passed the laws after something was done so that they could jail people who they otherwise could not put in jail. Because of this passing laws AFTER THE FACT our Constitution bans the passing of punitive laws AFTER THE FACT, "Congress shall pass no ex post facto law". Is it called whining to call additional AFER THE FACT punishment un-Constitutional? Is it reasonable to expect that a soon to be or new husband who has served his time will not be subject to any further punishment?

Dogs wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:31 PM:Just think about it. If the Van Dams had aggressive dogs, let's say, a Chihuahua or German Shepard, this scumbag wouldn't have made it past the sliding glass door. Just a thougt for all you folks who think keeping aggressive dogs are bad.

So many misconceptions wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:09 PM:The Van Dam daughter was the victim of a neighbor, someone she knew, not a snatch-and-run predator. People do not realize that most people on Megan's Law Database ARE NOT CHILD MOLESTERS AT ALL, nor are they the most dangerous, mentally ill type that kill approximately 50 children per year IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. The politicians who are backed with prison guard donations started this hysteria to build up the prison industry. Samantha Runion was the victim of a rare "snatch-and-run" predator. How many others acted out their mental illness in this manner in California this year. The answer is none. The law is ridiculous, will not protect one child as more than 93% of child molestation cases occur within circles of families and friends. Almost no abductions are made from schools or bus stops by strangers. The re-offense rate of child molesters when they are actually guilty are less than 5%, the lowest of all crimes. When people defend the Constitution, it doesn't mean they are defending child molesters which constitute a very small percentage of those in Megan's Law Database. Google up the facts. GPS devices are cruel, keep people from being able to get a job and serve no useful purpose. They are an abomination as are those who are playing God with the lives of others, these laws do nothing to prevent mental illness at the core of child molestation when it isn't some divorce or nasty child custody dispute. One never knows when this will knock on their own door. We can only pray the Constitution will be honored by the demons conducting these hysteria campaigns which are simply not based in fact.

longmemory wrote on Feb 1, 2007 11:21 PM:New in Town I am truly sorry for your suffering at the hands of your own family members. The point of this discussion is that none of these current laws would have prevented your uncles from molesting you. You can find on the internet facts about child molesters, just go to google and enter vote No on Jessica's Law. The fact is that about 40% of "child molesters" are under the age of 18 years old. Which in most cases means that they aren't sexual deviants at all....this is the problem with hysteria, it goes after the wrong people. I am certain you could understand prevention of such crimes as being far smarter than any approach.

Ken wrote on Feb 2, 2007 7:42 AM:A few points to ponder: 1) about a month before the election our Governor signed into law, bills that had almost everything that was in Prop.83 EXCEPT the parts that were un-Constitutional and would wind up in court, yet he still was "yes on 83". Why? He wanted the emotional vote. 2) "Dog" is right, except that, as "Alf" pointed out, "Whether someone is likely to repeat a crime is, oddly enough, considered in their sentence." That is why, in a trial, there is the determination of guilt and then a separate sentencing. 3) Unless a GPS can detect intent, it is useless when the offender is somewhere other than "problem areas". It might verify his or her presence at a place and time, but if that place is his or her house or that of a relative, the GPS does nothing to stop him or her. 4) If such there be, compare the percentage of molesters who commit their crime at home versus those who grab a child. 5) Of those who go outside family and friends almost all are in prison. 6) It is the sex offender who takes the responsibility for his or her offence, does his or her time, cleans up his or her life, follows the law, complies with all the rules and regulations that is the least of your worries. 7) If you buy into the "once a molester, always a molester", then there is "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and I would bet that there are many times more repeat drunk drivers than there are repeat molesters. The repeat molesters make more headlines seemingly because it is more socially acceptable to drive drunk and kill or maim 4 or 5 children than to molest 2 or 3.

Fred Lopez wrote on Feb 2, 2007 11:10 AM:To all of you out there are are very familiar with the two cases talked about in this article, Van Dam and Runion, this is for you. Both of the children where not killed or assaulted by a Convicted Registered Sex Offender. Westerfield was never on any sex offender registry and neither was Avila. They are first time offenders that got caught and will spend the rest of their lives in jail. This is the exact same scenario for almost 98% of all child murderers, all first time offenders, all caught and doing life or are on death row.

Brad A wrote on Feb 2, 2007 1:57 PM:Residency restrictions don't work. Check the State of Iowa for proof of how their is no correlation between where an offender lives and where a crime is committed. GPS tracking devices will not save lives either. The State of California will not be able to monitor the thousand and thousands of registered sex offenders living in this State. GPS can't tell you who is with the person let alone tell Police what he or she is up to. Good point Fred, the two perpetrators where not convicted sex offenders so no law on any book could have prevent those incidents from occurring. All Americans have Constitutional Rights. If we start striping away the rights of this group of people you can bet believe we are all next. See what the U.S. Attorney General is doing right now with the Habeas Corpus.

Elena R wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:13 PM:Too many people under one umbrella. Not all sex offenders are convicted child molesters. We have a huge misconception about sex offenders and we can thank our wonderful politicians for that and all the lies they feed us. All these new laws to help protect our children would probably be more effective and pass muster with Judges and courts if they only applied to convicted child molesters, repeat offenders and not everyone on the registry. I have children of my own that I need to protect and these laws we keep passing are only going to create more harm than good. We are pushing the offenders to the edge and if we keep pushing them too far they are going to snap because they won't have anything else to lose. ZMan, I applaud your wife for not being naive and narrow minded. We all deserve a second chance in life and if you blow it after that then you're on your own. Good luck to you and your family!

Beth wrote on Feb 3, 2007 7:48 AM:Elena is correct. Do you people understand that a blind man masturbating in his own home with the blinds open was thrown into jail for 6 months and must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life? Do you people understand that the Prison Guards Union and the Parole Officers Union benefits most from Proposition 83, passed in November 2006? There must be a way to separate out violent people; people who prey on others, e.g. rapists; pedophiles and so on from others who are getting thrown in with that group! Don't you understand that we are losing our constitutional rights one by one, albeit relatively slowly, and one day you will turn around to find we are living in a fascist police state. Please think of the old USSR or of Nazi Germany ... it is not far away unless people begin to understand nuance and stop following what politicians who pander to us all are doing!!!

To Beth wrote on Feb 3, 2007 1:03 PM:Should someone who molests a child, serves their sentence and does not repeat any sexual offence for over 20 years be lumped in with someone who molested 2 years ago? Does a person deserve to be judged by the consistancy of their behavior since they pay their "debt to society"? Prop. 83 would say NO, the person is always a danger, that someone can be punished time after time by being forced from their home AFTER finishing their sentence. That is the basis of the first challenge, filed Nov. 8th, that the what the 83 people call "retro-active and what people who use reason instead of emotion call an Un-Constitutional punitive ex post facto law.

Beth wrote on Feb 4, 2007 8:44 PM:Just to clarify: I hope nobody confuses me with the post directly after mine. The person used the nickname or handle of "To Beth" and I read it thinking at first it was directed to me. Obviously, it's not and I don't quite know what to make of someone taking a nickname or handle so that anyone else might confuse me with that person. As to the substance of the commments made by "To Beth": I agree with their spirit, however, I would never use language such as "what people who use reason instead of emotion call Un-Constitutional punitive ex post facto law." Frankly, "To Beth's" comments (for whatever reason, place in quotes) contain poor grammar, misspellings and the unnecessary dig concerning emotion vs. reason.

To Beth wrote on Feb 5, 2007 6:27 PM:I was responding to you, Beth, hence the handle "To Beth", quite commonly used here. I am actually Alf, it used to be Al but there was another Al before me so I changed mine.You are partially correct in declaring "misspellings", there was one "consistancy" should be consistency. You are correct regarding one instance of an extra "the". Shall I try again? The basis for the "morning-after" suit is the un-Constitutionality of the punitive ex post facto aspects of Prop. 83. Proponents euphemistically call "retro-active" those parts that are actually punitively ex post facto and therefore un-Constitutional. I put the emotion versus reason there not as a dig, but as a reminder. Emotions are what drive mob mentality. Look back at the posts and articles in the weeks prior to the election and just after the election, with a little time between then and now, doesn't many of them look somewhat foolish?

To Beth wrote on Feb 6, 2007 7:31 AM:Before you nail me on it, I started with "doesn't that degree of hysteria look foolish?". Then I reconsidered and changed it to "many of them look foolish" and forgot to change the "doesn't" to "don't". The proper ending, after the comma, should be "don't many of them look foolish?" "At leest i doon't tipe in all UPPER or louer cayse and i dont sey taht its there folt fer" my mistakes. Please accept my apologies and consider the idea rather than my failure to proof-read properly.

JD wrote on Aug 1, 2007 9:09 PM:These laws are enacted to make our childern safe. I don't feel sorry for sex offenders.