In light of the recent arrests of two registered sex offenders in connection with four murders in Orange County, I’d like to share an article that I originally wrote a few months ago for OC Lawyer Magazine. The tragedy brings into focus the critical shortcomings of our state’s sex offender registry and the stress it puts on a criminal justice system already in crisis. As far as public policies goes, the laws regulating sex offenders are incredibly difficult to approach and reform, but we owe victims (and potential victims) a system that actually works…
“Given that we are a society of law, let us demand that the laws we do enact achieve their intended mission. Let us stop creating a false sense of security and wasting our precious resources on laws that simply do not work.”
~ Andrea Casanova, mother of a victim murdered by a repeat sex offender
Introduction
This article discusses recent developments in the struggle over “Jessica’s Law,” a measure passed by voters that amended the Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”). The Ninth Circuit recently published an opinion that improves the procedural posture for parolees challenging the constitutionality of Jessica’s Law. Meanwhile, enforcement of SORA has broken down under the weight of Jessica’s Law. Thousands have been made homeless as a result of the law’s residency restriction, leading many to choose evasion over compliance. Compounding the crisis, California is taking unprecedented steps to lower its prison population. In effect, this means violations of SORA largely go unpunished. Jessica’s Law has proven to be a practical and humanitarian disaster, and worse, it continues to take a toll on the wider criminal justice system.
Proposition 83: The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act
Proposition 83 passed with the support of seventy percent of California voters. Commonly known as Jessica’s Law, supporters invoked Jessica Lunsford, a nineyear- old girl who was killed by a convicted sex offender who had failed to report where he lived. Jessica’s Law is not limited to offenses against children. Nevertheless, its advocates argued in the Official Voter Guide that the law “will protect our children by keeping child molesters in prison longer; keeping them away from schools and parks; and monitoring their movements after they are released.” Moreover, it was reasoned that the current law is too lenient because of the “high risk that a sexual predator will commit additional sex crimes after being released from prison.” However, Jessica’s Law and SORA target sex offenders generally, past and present, a group not particularly likely to re-offend.
The controversy over Jessica’s Law has largely been focused on two of its provisions. One of those is the residency restriction prohibiting any person subject to SORA from ever residing within “2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.” The other provision, a means to enforce the first, requires sex offenders to submit to GPS tracking by wearing an electronic ankle bracelet. These measures are not likely to curb the prevalence of sex crimes. Potential victims of sexual violence, both children and adults, regularly congregate in many locations other than schools and parks. More important, the law ignores how the vast majority of victims come into contact with predators. The American Psychological Association warns that “stranger danger” does not significantly contribute to the prevalence of sex crimes. Of the 190 sex offenders in California who have re-offended, only one met his victim in a park, and the park was more than 2000 feet away from where he resided.
The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the residency restriction. The case is an outgrowth of a previous decision by the high court, in which habeas petitioners claimed the residency restriction is an “unreasonable, vague and overbroad parole condition that infringes on various state and federal constitutional rights, including their privacy rights, property rights, right to intrastate travel, and their substantive due process rights under the federal Constitution.” Noting the issue’s complexity, the court remanded the cases for evidentiary hearings.
Following through with the California Supreme Court’s instructions, a judge in San Diego found that the residency restriction, where applied as a “blanket” parole condition, is unconstitutional as an arbitrary and oppressive official action. The judge cited evidence showing that the residency restriction prohibited offenders from living in all but three percent of San Diego County. Additionally, when affordability and rent prospects were considered, the realistic figure is “significantly less.” The court of appeal affirmed the lower court, ^ arguing the law as applied “treats all parolees the same regardless of whether his or her crime involved the victimization of children or adults.” Given the deference generally afforded to state courts on penal matters, the Ninth Circuit’s recent intervention concerning Jessica’s Law is particularly interesting in light of contemporaneous state proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit’s Intervention
The Ninth Circuit, in Thornton v. Brown, held that a parolee could challenge Jessica’s Law, as applied by the California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. A matter of first impression, the expansive approach to Section 1983 has implications beyond the current controversy. In effect, the Ninth Circuit has given parolees direct access to federal courts. While the claim was limited to injunctive relief on appeal, the opinion reads like a road map for money damages. The imposition of civil liability may give way to the reform needed in the parole system. However, it is far from clear how practitioners are to discern whether a parole term is cognizable under Section 1983.
In Thornton, a parolee sought money damages and injunctive relief against the CDCR. The claim challenged two provisions of Jessica’s Law: the residency restriction and the requirement to submit to GPS tracking. The parolee had been convicted of sexual battery in 1987 in Tennessee. Twenty years later, he was convicted of non-sexual crimes in California requiring a period of parole administered by the CDCR. Due to the earlier sex offense, the parolee was subject to SORA. The federal district court dismissed the claim, directing the parolee to the federal habeas statute. Persons “in custody” can file a habeas petition challenging state policies under federal law, but only after “exhausting” opportunities for relief at the state level.
As the parolee in Thornton was not required to exhaust his options in state court, the dissent accused the majority of disregarding the policy of the federal habeas statute, which is to avoid unnecessary friction with state courts. Generally, a person in custody cannot bring a claim under Section 1983, in lieu of a habeas petition, if its success would necessarily imply the invalidity of the state’s conviction or sentence. Traditionally, parolees are “in custody” in this context. The majority found that the imposition of GPS tracking and the residency restriction have no bearing on the fact or duration of the plaintiff’s parole, only its conditions.
The dissent saw no distinction between the conditions of parole and the fact of parole because the CDCR possesses discretionary authority to impose the terms. More to the point, the dissent argued that the majority’s holding is unworkable because it is impossible to differentiate between the conditions of parole and terms essential to the sentence. Given the limited applicability and purpose of Jessica’s Law, it does seem arbitrary, if not incorrect, to conclude that its terms do not constitute the fact of parole. Nevertheless, it defies common sense to bar parolees from making a Section 1983 claim for no other reason than that they are on parole. Parolees are not actually in state custody. Deference to state courts in this context is premised on the state’s continuous, direct, and intimate supervision of its prisoners. In the words of the majority, parole “is by its nature less confining than incarceration.”
Homeless and Unregulated Sex Offenders
The fall-out from Jessica’s Law illustrates the fallacy of considering parolees as in custody. The Sex Offender Management Board has repeatedly reported that Jessica’s Law has resulted in an ever-growing homeless rate among the state’s more than 100,000 sex offenders. In 2010, it reported that thirty-two percent of sex offenders paroled under the CDCR were homeless. Moreover, the residency restriction effectively banishes offenders to rural areas of the state because urban communities are densely populated with schools and parks. This is particularly prohibitive because one is more likely to find employment, affordable housing, and legal aid in cities. The confinement of prisoners, of course, does not give rise to such concerns.
Moreover, Jessica’s Law encourages local governments to place additional residency restrictions on sex offenders. Its restrictions already have the effect of forcing offenders to amass in certain areas. Neighbors are easily made aware of their presence due to the online sex offender registry, and in turn, put pressure on local authorities to enact further restrictions. Hundreds of localities have passed ordinances imposing varying restrictions. For example, one prohibits a sex offender from living 1000 feet from another sex offender. Cities in Orange County have recently put in place the most restrictive ordinances to date. Alternatively, cities have responded by building “pocket parks” that effectively drive offenders out of the area.
Semantic quibbles aside, those subject to Jessica’s Law are in a category unto themselves. Sex offenders hardly constitute a sympathetic group, and that is part of the problem. Subjecting even the most loathsome among us to the whims of popular outrage has no place in an ordered society. The legal regime imposed on sex offenders today sets a precedent that can be used in the future to justify similar impositions on other groups. Moreover, the arbitrary provisions in Jessica’s Law may only frustrate the fight against sexual violence. The Sex Offender Management Board has cited research showing that employment and stable housing are the most significant factors in predicting whether a sex offender will re-offend. In addition, more sex offenders are going wholly unregulated as a result of Jessica’s Law as they become increasingly willing to abandon their tracking devices. Parolees, then, ignore all provisions of SORA, including registration of current addresses with local police.
Conclusion: Facing Unpleasant Facts
As authorities struggle to cope with limited resources, the problems created by Jessica’s Law are taking a toll on the state’s larger penal system. California is being compelled by a federal court order to take major steps to lower its prison population.To comply, the “realignment” program prevents parole violators from being sent to state prisons, directing them to county jails instead. Struggling with their own budget and overcrowding issues, county jails are being forced to prioritize among violent criminals. Ultimately, the lack of resources means that those in violation of SORA are set free within a day, if booked at all. State legislators have responded by calling for tough mandatory prison sentences for those removing GPS devices. Senator Ted Lieu maintains that by imposing tougher punishments, “sex offenders will have second thoughts about roaming freely among the public with zero oversight.” Perhaps, but given the state’s track record and the conditions imposed upon these offenders, second thoughts will not lead to different decisions.
Doubling down on Jessica’s Law is unwise in any event; but given the circumstances discussed above, it would be counterproductive. The sixty-five-million dollar per year program will direct resources away from effective crime prevention and into a misconceived and failed program. The GPS tracking devices are powerless to stop crime because they do not reveal the sex offender’s actions. The devices send occasional signals to independent contractors who merely verify whether the offender is complying with residency restrictions. As such, their sole purpose is to enforce a policy that many are realizing is arbitrary and needlessly oppressive. As California faces unprecedented legal and financial challenges, we cannot afford to choose a false sense of security over reasoned public policy. Jessica’s Law protects no one and it has proven to be costly in more ways than one.
Are all sex offenders treated the same or are there “degrees” for sexual offenders?
I’m asking because I think there’s a huge difference between a 19 year old being with a 15 year old and 40 year old going after a 9 year old. I’ve read stories where young men are labeled a sex offender and their entire life is ruined by that.
I think as long as those guys (and women too) are lumped in with what I would call real sex offenders, it dilutes the meaning of the word and makes coming up with workable solutions much harder.
Worse than that, I imagne. “Indecent exposure” is a sex crime requiring registration. So the college kid caught streaking is lumped in with the rest.
*Only when you are watching porn on your computer in the privacy of your own home….not at the Public Library…you understand.
Sorry, just came back and looked at this, R&A. Was your reply meant to be somehow relevant to my comment?
CA does not classify sex offenses by degree, it is a single policy for quite a diverse, and large, group of people. The law applies to all those deemed sex offenders by the statute and there is a pretty long list of qualifying crimes. Statutory rape, your sympathetic “19 year old being with a 15 year old” scenario, is actually not on that list. However, a confusingly similar crime, ‘molesting a minor’, or something like that, is on the list of qualifying sex offenses.
@Daniel Lamb – sexual conduct, any sexual conduct, with a 15-year old is “Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Child under 16” and comes with mandatory sex offender registration registration. Sexual Conduct with a 16/17 year old is Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor and is not subject to mandatory sex offender registration, rather discretionary, depending on the age of the defendant and circumstances.
It should be pointed out that, before 2005, oral copulation or sex penetration (crudely put, a bj or fingering) with any minor under 18, by a person of any age, had a mandatory registration component. Now it is up to the judge. Before no mitigating circumstances mattered. I shudder to think how many people are out there having to register with that conviction (going back to the 40s. 1940s, that is.)
There is an unintended consequence to having an extremely punitive sex offender registry and that is most offenses are committed by family members and those know to the victim. By the registry being punitive against families and not just to individuals doesn’t it seem logical that victims will not report abuses in order to protect their family as a whole? So, the punitive nature of the registry by default becomes it’s own worst enemy.
Henceforth all OJB articles will be written with this degree of research and care. Until the next one, that is.
Nicely crafted, counselor.
Thanks Greg. I am pretty sure your opponent is on the wrong side of this particular issue. But I don’ know… sex offenders? We may be reaching the outer-limits of the possible.
“After successfully pushing for a ban at county parks, Rackauckas spent many hours and nights this year attending city council meetings across the county lobbying for ordinances that would make it illegal for registered sex offenders to enter city parks.”
http://www.voiceofoc.org/county/article_9ab162f0-42a3-11e2-886e-001a4bcf887a.html
I’ve been raising that issue. It was declared unconstitutional — but he’s still proud of the “accomplishment”!
My pledge is that, while I may run for re-election, I’m not going to grandstand to achieve it. That will be a big change.
These ordinances are currently being challenged all over the State by people who are not willing to wait if and what the CA Supreme Court has something to say. After them being found unconstitutional in but a lower court as well as the CA Court of Appeals.
I hope the residents of all these cities will send a thank you note to the OCDA.
Good point but lets put some reality to work here. I am an OC registered sex offender hairstylist (I know that’s a scary thought) of 14 years. Tony Rachaukas (The Orange County DA) thinks it’s somehow okay for a danger like me (a registered sex offender) to work alone at night with women in a salon environment. (I regress)
The problem is Registrants while on parole and probation often have to congregate together. Like when going to therapy or a visit to their probation officer. The issues cause by Jessica’s law and residence restrictions also limits where they can live so they end up living very close to each other. The more restrictions you good people put on them the more likely they’ll violate the law just to live. Kind of a pre-1945 Germany thing.
Ever looked at what it takes to become a registrant? Teens sexting, urinating outside, etc. There were children put on that evil list as young as 9 years old. Seems like to much of law enforcement is focused on low level offenders. If there was a tiered system these ladies might still be alive today. Because Law enforcement would of had a stronger grip on those that pose more of a threat. TRUTH
*Sounds as if Child Predators are replacing Marijuana users in our penal system. How bad can that be? Our question of course is: Why were these folks out on electronic leashes and were allowed to cut them off……without someone busting them?
Interesting and informative article, but the editor needs to clarify its title. Is this a failure to implement Jessica’s law or the Jessica’s law is a failure? Also none of the victims were from Anaheim, and not all of them were murdered in Anaheim.
Thanks man, I changed the title. Good catch!
I remember when Jessica’s law was being promoted. My wife and I were leaving Target pushing our baby in a stroller and some clown asked us “do you want to sign this petition to help protect your child?
I just shook my head in disgust to think these intelligent looking individuals were duping a stupid society into believing another law would would protect my child and theirs.
This is a great article with valid arguments but I would like to point out the negative and sometimes devastating effect on the innocent victims connected to convicted sex offenders which can consist of parents, spouses, children, neighbors and etc.
Apparently, they are considered acceptable casualties and unworthy of consideration?
Thank you for that comment. I often wonder what the lives of these people’s wives and children are like. Having to deal with most likely sub-standard living conditions down to outright dangerous and homeless situations, registry induced poverty, lack of care by one parent in i.e. schools or parks, harassment, bullying, violence, etc. Often for no other reason than being listed on this registry.
All in the name of protecting women and children. Bizarre.
I read about these two suspects in the news today. The statements by law enforcement are laughable, especially Tony Rackauckaus’s statement that “they put a stop to a serial killing that would likely have continued beyond this point.” They did stop them, but they didn’t prevent anything, four people and probably more are dead, and they didn’t stop that.
I just wish someone down in OC was willing to ask Tony and other law enforcement why all these laws, the registry, GPS monitoring, residency restriction’s, compliance checks and everything else, like AWA and SORNA, Megan’s Law etc ad nausium, designed to prevent this sort of thing and keep people safe has utterly failed; AGAIN.
These police and other officials need to stop patting themselves on the back and tell us EXACTLY how those ankle bracelets helped prevent anything at all, and how denying thousands of people their right’s guaranteed under the constitution and bill of rights helped these dead people. What is wrong with people? Why do the keep believing in all these laws when the truth about these laws is laying right in front of them; dead?
The specific reason why are judicial system failed to protect four young women from 2 convicted “child” sex offenders is the following. According to the story in the OC Register, In 2007, the younger suspect was arrested and charged with 3 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct against a girl under the age of 14. Our judicial system plea bargained him down to 1 count. He therefore, was sentenced to 3 years in prison rather than a much longer sentence based on 3 counts. He got out in 2010 and according to the OC Register, fairly soon after was picked up for violating the terms of his parole. This I believe is automatic grounds to be put back into prison. However, again our judicial system failed us by not incarcerating him for his parole violation. Now he and his older friend are charged with the murders of 4 young women and the police suspect them of other murders as well.
Daniel Lamb concludes that Jessica’s Law is responsible for so many homeless sex offenders after they serve their sentences. Sex offenders on parole have stricter guidelines to follow until they finish the full term of their parole and therefore could be impacted by Jessica’s Law residency restriction. However, the law was meant to restrict all sex offenders residency not just parolees. Here the law has failed 100%, I repeat failed 100%. Why? Jessica’s Law has no penalties. Therefore, it is totally unenforceable with regard to sex offenders who have completed their parole or in other words the vast majority of released sex offenders in California. Not one sex offender has been arrested and convicted under Jessica’s Law after completing their parole term. Not one!
Hi Barry Levinson
You might find this to be interesting.
http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%203-21-14%20(2).pdf
I would bet anything that these guys being listed on a Sex Offender Registry (SORs) had a lot to do with the fact that they committed crimes. The SORs are not needed. Good parents have no need for them, bad parents will never be helped enough by them. The SORs make everyone who is listed on them more dangerous. They are truly idiotic social policy.
Daniel if you are a responsible blogger and contributor to this site, you should acknowledge your factual errors in your above blog post. Please do so sooner rather than later. It is now 4 days since I have corrected your errors and still no acknowledgment from you of your mistake. No one should be allowed to make statements of fact that are not correct and then not take responsibility of the error. It makes the blogger look bad as well as the site administrator. Step up or step down sir!
I am sorry, I read your comments but I do not understand what you want me to correct.
Daniel it is very simple what you need to correct. You are blaming Jessica’s Law for causing homelessness among released from prison sex offenders. I am telling you that Jessica’s Law has not penalties and no sex offenders who have completed their parole has been arrested and convicted under Jessica’s Law since November 2006 when it was approved by the voters of California. None! Your argument for homelessness is factually incorrect. Your facts are wrong and therefore the conclusion you draw is also wrong!
Jessica’s Law has nothing to do with being arrested, it adds to the PC290 regime regulating sex offenders post-incarceration.
It is becoming quite clear that you do not want to deal honestly with the facts since you continue to not answer my very specific and direct question to you. Jessica’s Law was to restrict 290 sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a public or private school or a park. Since Jessica’s Law has no penalties attached, 290’s can live anywhere they want in the state unless there is a municipal statute that provides penalties. What kind of law do you practice Mr. Lamb?
Dude, you need to relax and lose the confrontational attitude. You are angry and your valid points are not coming through. OK, I see what you are talking about now, and yes, that is part of the absurdity of the present situation. As discussed in my article, those subject to 290 are just ditching their bracelets along with the whole regulatory system; hence why I say Jessica’s Law is bringing the whole thing down and allowing sex offender to literally roam free and unregistered. BTW, I am not in the habit of telling my clients to break the law even if I know they can get away with it…
Hi Barry Levinson:
I beg to differ with your conclusion that Jessica’s Law doesn’t cause homelessness. I believe it’s a major contributing factor to homelessness of people on the registry, as well as the Adam Walsh Act and others. Here is a link to the latest California sex offender management boards report with fact’s and recommendations. It is very enlightening.
http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%203-21-14%20(2).pdf
Daniel and the rest of the people reading this blog, please forgive me but I do get upset when people like Daniel ignore the facts and the truth just to give their position more validity. It is wrong, it is dishonest and it is not right.
And guess what. I will never think differently. There are two kind of people in the world, those that are honest and those that are dishonest and you sir have been less than honest in your remarks about Jessica’s Law. You still have not said, yes Barry Levinson you are absolutely right, Jessica’s Law provides absolutely no penalties for those finished with parole if they fail to adhere to Jessica’ law provision restricting their living within 2000 feet of a public or private school or a park. Thereby, allowing these sex offenders to live anywhere they want, hence it is not causing these post-parole sex offenders to be homeless. Not in one single case! That is the truth sir. Sorry it does not fit your very misleading blog above.
Ladies and gentleman we will never advance as a society, as a community and when people apparently choose to mislead and yes even lie to try to prove their point.
And yes Daniel, the truth matters to me, it should matter to you and it should matter to everyone as well!
Barry.
Chill out. Running around calling honest people dishonest is a really good way to piss people off.
You are way out of line.
Mr. Levinson you are only half right. As a parole violation, the provisions in Jessica’s Law do carry a punishment, though this too is quickly becoming a joke as our county jails overflow.
Likewise, when someone is on parole there is a long list of restrictions. One of these, invariably if the parolee is subject to PC290, is a prohibition on possessing “anal beads” or any like sex toy. Now, there is no enumerated punishment in the law for a sex offender in possession of anal beads, but possession would nonetheless carry a punishment because it constitutes a parole violation. Similar things can be said about marijuana possession.
Now, I have heard nothing but good things about you, so I would like to be friends. If you, and/or Chairman Nelson, would like to sit down with me and explain why you think the courts and me got it wrong, I would be happy to write-up a corresponding blog post. But I am trying very hard to tackle the issues that most won’t touch, so I would appreciate some civility and the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Levinson is only telling half the truth.
Clearly 290 registrants under supervision are subject all kinds of restrictions including their residences being approved by their parole agents / probation officers. As such the percentage of registrants under supervision that are homeless is exceedingly high. As a matter of fact, one of the murder victims of Q. Ocampo (? – the Marine who murdered 4 homeless people a couple years ago) was killed due to the sole fact that he was sleeping outdoors as a homeless parolee because he was not allowed to stay overnight at his mother’s house.
As far as those not under supervision, it is true that Jessica’s Law, as provided by Prop 83 has no penalties spelled out at the State Level.
However, Proposition 83, resulting in PC 3003.5(c), explicitly (!) gives municipal jurisdictions authority to attach the penalties that were missing under state law to their own local ordinances.
Many, if not most, have done so, hence making it a criminal offense for any person required to register under Penal Code 290 to establish a residence in the affected areas. Many cities are for all intents and purposes off-limits, save for areas in the river bed or the cemetery (example).
And THAT is what is contributing to the increased homelessness amongst registered sex offenders, even those not on parole or probation, who have finished their sentences decades ago.
Far be it from me that Mr. Levinson is purposely twisting the facts here, rather that he is not aware of this collateral legal morsel. Or is he? Or is he upset that just last week the California Supreme Court, by declining to hear an appeal, essentially killed the Parks Ban that he and Supe Nelson kicked off in Fullerton and that the OCDA took to most cities in OC and ultimately, its demise – one can only assume at considerable expense to the tax payer?
Good job! You can write the next post on sex offenders.
Daniel now we are on the same page. However, if you review my comments I made it clear Jessica’s Law ( JL) has no penalties for sex offenders after the end of their probation and parole periods. So we now are in full agreement.
And you are also correct with the overcrowding in our jails and the feds pushing the state to release criminals early to alleviate the crowding, that very few sex offenders will be heading back to jail for violating JL or any other parole or probation violation. The GPS bracelets have been mostly a failure since its intent was supposed to stop additional crimes. Yet all it has done has been to help law enforcement convict sex offenders after they have committed additional crimes while either wearing the GPS braclets or after they unlawfully removed them.
This I believe is a failure of our legal system to provide the necessary resources to track these sex offenders while on probation or parole. You can have the best laws on the books but if law enforcement does not enforce a law, it becomes basically useless.
It took a while, but I am happy we have come to some understanding on the facts. I have and will always respect another person’s opinion regardless if it differs from mine as long as we base our differing opinions on the facts and how those facts impact the issue at hand.
One last point, if Jessica’s Law were written like Fullerton Ordinance No. 3149, it would impact far less sex offenders, as ours only restricts child sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or daycare center not ALL sex offenders. I believe besides adding penalties to JL, it would be wise to amend the language to also only restrict CHILD sex offenders.
Great, now onto my post on police oversight!
@Barry Levinson – you continue to play word games. Please read my post above. While indeed Jessica’s Law proper has no penalties attached to it, the fact that it explicitly authorizes municipalities to attach criminal consequences as they see fit and the fact that many have done so results in the same net effect. Which is vast areas of cities that are off limits to and resulting in large number of homeless sex offenders. Does it not. While this may make you feel good I fail to see how any increase in the homeless population, criminal record or not, is a gain for society.
Residency restrictions for those not under supervision are still subject to review by the higher courts. A person not on parole or probation should be able to live wherever they well please. Only time will tell.
You are correct.
Residency restrictions are theft by criminal regimes. There are no Americans who support them.
And while these criminal regimes continue to play games harassing families of hated people, we all continue to see that we still don’t even Register so many people who are so much more dangerous than “sex offenders”, let alone create residency restrictions for them. It’s not about public safety.
290expert, I am not playing word games. However, it is an interesting charge from someone like yourself who will not even identify himself/herself to this readership community. I have to give credit to everyone on this blog who has the integrity and courage to state who they are to the readership. You on the other hand, apparently, do not possess that integrity and courage.
This web site neither requires nor encourages citizens wishing to engage in a rational discussion, exercising their First Amendment Rights, to disclose their full name. As such I view the latest turn of conversation a feeble attempt to ‘shoot the messenger’ as opposed to debating the issues.
As a matter of fact, some of this nation’s founding documents included those written under a pseudonym. Publius – 290expert, what’s the difference? His writings stood the test of time, though his name has slipped into oblivion.
But fine. @Barry Levinson, I eagerly await your response to the rational and supported points (complete with references to the California Penal Code) I have made. It is my hope we can stick to the argument, regardless of who might make them.
At the risk of being redundant, you state “…Jessica’s Law ( JL) has no penalties for sex offenders after the end of their probation and parole periods. So we now are in full agreement”.
But that is only ‘half true’ and ‘word play’ indeed, as JL explicitly authorizes cities and counties to create their own restrictions, complete with criminal penalties (for something that is a civil consequence of a conviction).
Many jurisdictions have done so, per JL’s authorization, resulting in a vast increase in homelessness amongst persons required to register under PC 290, both on and off parole / probation. Directly, inderectly, however you want to view it, due to Jessica’s Law, and nothing else.
Whether or not this truly in the best interest of society is a different discussion for a different day.
I stand by my comment. James Escalero
I want to clarify my remarks on identifying oneself while blogging. If one wants to state his or her views on any subject and does not want to identify who they are, I do not have an issue with them.
However, when anyone wants to attack the morals, ethics, and/or honesty of someone else, they should have the courage to identify themselves.
I agree.
I generally agree, Barry — and that’s the general rule I follow here. Usually I wait for a complaint by the target, though, if their involved in the conversation. Vern tends to be more laissez-faire, though, and he has the final word.
I think that allowing anonymous attacks on others has made much of the OC political blogosphere’s comments sections unbearable. OJB’s is by far the best, except maybe for A Bubbling Cauldron.
Clearly Greg, the anonymous and very harsh attacks that were a fairly regular part of the Friends for Fullerton’s Future blog, was in my opinion, a big negative that took away from a generally informative discussions and revelations about city government.
The most harmful anonymous comments in my opinion was the group hate speech. I believed FFFF was wrong when it would not respond critically to those who would put out the hate speech on a fairly regular basis. If you are a libertarian as they were, you can allow everything to be published no matter how untrue, disgusting, bigoted the comments are. My problem was there refusal to stand up to these bigots by refuting their filth. My point is that any blog who does not respond and stand up to the bigots leave the impression that either the site administrators agree with the bigots or could not be bothered responding to them. If you want to attack smart people with differing opinions, you must have some basic guidelines that all should follow. If you do not follow them the site administrator has the obligation, IMHO to at least refute the obvious haters who love to have an audience in which to spew their filth.
I think that Vern and I try to do that here, Barry, but I’m sure that, like everyone else in the world, Vern is imperfect.
(Me too, of course.)