Sex offender initiative headed for approval
By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer | ∞
NORTH COUNTY ---- Despite widespread support, a California Department of Corrections official says a statewide proposition to toughen punishment and monitoring standards for sex offenders is a misguided effort.
"In my opinion, this is bad legislation, but it's going to pass," Doris Mahlum said of Proposition 83 that voters are expected to pass on Tuesday.
One of the most stringent and controversial features of the proposed law calls for most felony sex offenders who have been sent to state prison to be monitored by an ankle bracelet for life.
The measure also proposes increased penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters, prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park, and requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.
It also expands the definition of sexually violent predator and changes current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to review.
A spokeswoman for Yes on 83 said Thursday that, contrary to what opponents of the measure say, only serious offenders would be required to wear the monitoring devices. For example, if a 20-year-old man were convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 17-year-old girl, he would not be required to wear one of the devices, said spokeswoman Becky Warren.
Some sex crimes are felonies and others are misdemeanors. For example, distribution of obscene material is a misdemeanor, while rape is a felony.
Another provision would bar anyone required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Current law establishes a limit of 1,320 feet for most registered sex offenders and 2,640 feet for those who officials believe have a high risk of offending again.
Statewide poll results released Wednesday by El Cajon-based Datamar Inc. showed that among 1,237 registered voters who are likely to cast ballots Tuesday, 69 percent favor Prop. 83. The automated telephone survey was conducted between Oct. 28 and Oct. 31. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent, at the 95 percent confidence level.
The initiative
The Jessica's Law initiative was named in memory of 9-year-old Florida girl Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped from her home, sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender who had failed to report where he lived after being paroled.
Proponents say it would protect children by keeping molesters in prison longer, requiring mandatory minimum prison sentences and not allowing early release for any reason. They also say it would keep them away from schools and parks, while monitoring their movements.
But, Mahlum says the main problem with the proposal is that it's based on the premise that most sexual molesters are strangers to their victims. Mahlum supervises about 250 sex offender parolees who live in an area that stretches along Interstate 215 in Riverside County south to San Diego County and east to the Arizona border.
"Such laws will create a false sense of security, since most children are molested by someone they know," she said.
But the measure will pass, she said, because most parents are fixated on the idea that strangers represent the biggest threat to their children.
"Most people don't want to accept that more than 90 percent of child molestations are committed by people the family knows," she said.
Despite its drawbacks, don't expect most politicians to come out against the proposal, Mahlum said.
"It would be political suicide," she said. "Perception is everything, people would say they are soft on child molesters."
Local officials weigh in
Local elected officials are in solid support of the measure, despite the costs involved.
Prison, parole, and mental health program costs are expected to cost $200 million a year within a decade, according to a state legislative analysis. It could cost several hundred million dollars in one-time costs to build more space at state mental hospitals and prisons to accommodate the increased number of incarcerated sex offenders, according to the analysis.
Encinitas Mayor Christy Guerin said that while the costs may be great, she thinks voters want the tougher requirements.
"You are supposed to represent your constituents who are saying this is a high priority," Guerin said. "People want everything possible done to feel safer."
Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler had a similar take.
"If society believes we need to spend that amount of money, then we need to do that," she said. "We need to deal with the cost and accept that responsibility."
County Supervisor Bill Horn said the law is a necessity because the judicial system has failed to keep sex offenders in jail.
One of the main opponents to the measure is the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a statewide organization made up of criminal defense attorneys. The organization agrees with Mahlum's opinion that the measure is misguided in its focus on stranger danger.
"Law enforcement experience shows that when sex registrants reoffend, their targets are usually members of their own household," organization President Carleen Arlidge wrote in arguments against the measure.
More residency restrictions and monitoring devices would drive underground the very sex offenders who pose the greatest risks to children, she argued.
Proponents of the measure reply that monitoring sex offenders "could have saved Jessica Lunsford," and could still "prevent countless other children from being attacked and murdered by sexual predators."
What research shows
Studies indicate that residency restrictions may have unintended consequences, according to a paper published by the California Research Board in August.
Study authors cited a Minnesota Department of Corrections report which concluded that residency restrictions create a shortage of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them to move to rural areas where they are isolated from employment opportunities, social support, social services and mental health treatment.
"Such restrictions can lead to homelessness and transience, which interfere with effective tracking, monitoring and close probationary supervision," the report states.
It also cited a Colorado study that concluded that placing restrictions on where sex offenders live "did not deter the sex offender from reoffending."
Yes on 83's Warren said that despite the Colorado study's conclusions, "it's amazing how many of these guys move near schools after they have completed their parole or probation ---- parents don't want these guys next to schools."
When it comes to the effectiveness of the GPS used in the ankle monitors, the track record was better, according to the paper.
Florida, the first state to require lifetime electronic tracking of convicted sex offenders, did research in 2001-02 that showed "sex offender parolees fitted with the devices were less likely to commit new crimes than those who were monitored by traditional means."
The study showed that 6 percent of sex offenders who wore electronic monitors committed new felonies or misdemeanors compared with 11 percent of those who were not monitored electronically.
The Florida research also showed that electronic monitoring is expensive, costing that state $3,600 a year per offender.
Warren said it's astounding that California has an "honor system that says, 'We trust you to come and check in with us once a year to let us know where you live.'
"That is why we are missing so many sex offenders now," she said.
Contact staff writer William Finn Bennett at (760) 740-5426, or wbennett@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
john wrote on Nov 5, 2006 6:44 AM:why not the death penality for those who prey on children?why not castration for repeat offenders?why not an open season on theese dirtbags? do something real dammit.Oh , too harsh.
Randy wrote on Nov 5, 2006 8:55 AM:Why are we always looking for some behavior to demonize? Does it make us feel better about ourselves because we are oh so superior?
Uncommon Sense wrote on Nov 5, 2006 12:50 PM:If you do the crime, you must do the time, but after you have paid your debt to society you should not be continuously punished. I do not agree with the electronic monitoring. Why not electronically monitor bank robbers to make sure they don't go near banks or murders from being near people? While the emotional part of me really likes banning sex offenders from around schools and parks, the logical part of me knows that the huge majority of sex offenders are not strangers stalking a school, they are relatives, neighbors, etc. So this measure, while good intentioned, isn't going to do much other than cost taxpayers a lot of money. I'd be much more in favor of this if it applied to parolees only.
JD wrote on Nov 5, 2006 12:57 PM:The idea of requiring someone to wear a GPS device for life is beyond human decency. What is this, the year 1500?? I didn't know the Scarlett Letter was back in style. If someone is convicted of a crime, any crime, and they serve their sentence, that should be the end of it. Why doesn't this law put an ankle bracelet on ALL released criminals? Why not put bracelets on people convicted of DUI, or killing someone while driving drunk? The ankle bracelet would work far better in that case, keeping the drunk from driving and killing someone else. This judgemental attitude that society has taken on is extremely scary. This law is not about protecting society. I hope it is voted down.
Ken wrote on Nov 5, 2006 3:14 PM:About Proposition 83, people have used the term "applied retroactively" with regard to the possible application of the 2,000 foot limit and GPS ankle bracelets to sex offenders who have already completed their probation or parole or jail or prison sentences. This is a case of being inaccurate at least and a lie at worst. Buying into the rationalized lie that all it takes to make an un-Constitutional law become within the Constitution is simply to call it something else is not sane. Call it what it is, an Ex Post Facto Law or applying a law in an Ex Post Facto fashion, either way it is the same - Un-Constitutional. Since the term "ex post facto" means "after the fact" and the U.S. Constitution bans ex post facto laws, the aforementioned aspects, applied to ANYONE after they have been sentenced is Un-Constitutional. But the 2,000 foot limit and GPS are not based on reason, they are based on emotion, hysteria and realization of political gain. The politicians just recently passed laws with virtually everything EXCEPT the 2,000 foot limit and GPS almost "behind our backs" and STILL are supporting this proposition KNOWING that these two things will make Prop 83 be tied up in court until it's ruled un-Constitutional. If, on the other hand, this proposition is upheld, then there are no more Constitutional rights for ANYONE. When the Constitutional rights for any group of citizens are trashed, WATHCH OUT!! "First they came for ..." Google that phrase. Understand it. Next it will be GPS for ANYONE who at ANY time had a drug or DUI or? ARE YOU NEXT?
Paul wrote on Nov 5, 2006 3:43 PM:The question I have is yes the monitoring should, but this system is way too expensive. When are folks going to wake up and realize that the next step these cretins take is to kill their victim so they don't leave any eye-witness. This was so stated in open court by a just convicted pedophile! You can psychological treat these folks, but what is the repeat rate?
Ken wrote on Nov 5, 2006 4:31 PM:I have looked at all the sources that I can find and, if you throw out the "studies" at either extreme, the overall repeat rate for sex offences is between 3 and 4 percent. That is too much. But the repeat rate for other offenses (drug, DUI, etc.) is more, about 4 to 6 percent. Other offenses can be just as devastating - addiction, disfigurement, dismemberment - both physically and emotionally. The problem is not that longer sentences are needed, they are, but do you throw away the Constitution to do it? The reason that the governor just signed that new bill a few weeks ago (see my entry above) is that the bill was Constitutional, Prop. 83, as written IS NOT.
Thanks Ken, wrote on Nov 5, 2006 5:18 PM:Appreciate your comments and time to do the research.
Susan wrote on Nov 5, 2006 5:35 PM:The Crime Victims Groups have condemned this witchhunt law which is unconstitutional, the CCPOA who donated $25K has now come out against it, Steve Cooley Republican DA dropped off the board and Attorney Dennis Riordan has a lawsuit to file the day after it gets approved It didn't work out in Illinois or Iowa, it treats minor offenders as if they are on a par with mentally ill child molesters It will put GPS monitors on people for life, backed by law enforcement labor unions and GPS monitor manufacturers. It will do nothing to protect children and will waste $500 million in resources that could be used to protect those less than 1% of all sex offenders who fall into the "snatch and run" category. Half the "child molesters" are teens 13 to 17 years old as 93% of child molestations occur within families And Jessica's Law will do nothing to prevent that! It will cause the arrest of more teens for having sex with one another and then when enough families are devastated under this new law designed to keep the prisons stocked with fresh humans an initiative campaign and millions in lawsuits will repeal it Your child is much more at risk of being wrongfully accused as a sex offender than ever being attacked by a stranger! 50 kids a year in the entire country are killed by mentally ill people compared to 2000 killed by drunk drivers Think about what this is really - a political campaign. Do a Google.com search on No, Prop 83 to get the facts
Behead them wrote on Nov 5, 2006 6:50 PM:I have less of a problem with beheading child molesters than I do with lifelong GPS bracelets. Who's next, drunk drivers, father's that don't pay child support? Those that failed to pay their taxes on time, or payed a traffic citation late. Where would it end, and what does future technology hold? It's a slippery slope that starts with somebody else and could slowly work it's way to you and I. What starts off today as punishment for the worst in our society could then become an everyday part of reality for everyone in the name of "safety". Remember how drug testing in the workplace started? Now almost everybody is expected to test regardless of any drug use history. I've always thought it was interesting that to run a piece of equipment, drug testing is mandatory, but to run the country as a Senator or Congressman, you're excluded from the same conditions of employment that many others with far less responsibility are held to. Why not microchip everyone at birth and have bar code readers at every intersection? Technology is Big Brother's best friend and we have to be forever vigilant against those who would trade freedom in the the name of safety. The bracelet won't stop molesters
Ken wrote on Nov 5, 2006 9:03 PM:Beheading, unless it is considered "cruel and unusual", is just another form of the death sentence. As long as it was written into law Constitutionally and carried out only on those convicted after the law is passed, why not? We gas people, fry (electrocute) people, used to hang people (I don't know if anyone in the U.S. still does), I think the military still has the firing squad and we O.D. people. What protects us all from the "mob" of our worst behavior is an old piece of parchment.
webmaster@theevilnextdoor wrote on Nov 6, 2006 12:44 PM:Most sex offenders have families, friends, relatives, and children. Some are required to register for much lesser crimes of flashing, prostitution, incest, and a host of other offences. Contrary to the media�s torch, grouping all registered sex offenders as dangerous. Even the DOJ in a report states American politicians have lied. This you can find on the Department Of Justice website, November 2003, NCJ 198281. ... Only 3.5% of new sex offences are committed by offender on the sex offender's registry. The remaining 96.5% are committed by unregistered citizens. See how 3 year old children have been placed on the registry and how citizens are held indefinitely after teir sentence has been served. See it now on You Tube at ...
John Caballo wrote on Nov 6, 2006 2:25 PM:Living restrictions wont work. They have been tried in Iowa without sucess and they are working on having the law repealed. Applying them retrspectively will hold the passage of the law in Federal Court. Both The United States and California have Ex-Post Facto statutes. If the Federal Courts allow this to pass, even though the constitution prohibits it, we had all better move to Canada. Wise up California, vote NO on this prop. Don't be taken by the hysteria, none exist. The GPS companies will prosper and so will the pocket book of all the politicians that have stock in those companies.
Brad wrote on Nov 6, 2006 2:40 PM:Every article I have read in the last few weeks just praises the miraculous GPS tracking device and how it MAY keep our children safe. I don't know about you but I will not sleep better at night knowing that we just dumped 500 million dollars on a device that MAY protect our children. If they want us to vote yes on this stupid prop Senator Runner should GUARANTEE the safety of our children for that kind of money. Also, does anyone have any facts about tracking devices? Like do they prevent crimes? Are they tamper proof? Can they tell us exactly who is in the room with the person wearing the device? And then a question to law enforcement-small cities that will become sex offender meccas please-how fast will you be able to deploy units to intercept a sex offender if he is out of bounds?
Fred wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:21 PM:Here we go everyone, crunch time! The Three Strikes Law has backfired. Everyone afraid of getting sent to prison for a third strike is running from the law...gee, I wonder what is going to happen when sex offenders are snatched from their homes in the middle of the night, like kidnapping them, just to get them to leave their residence so they can comply with the zoning restrictions. What dire concequences we are going to have! I am going to Vote NO on this horrid proposition because, well, exuse me for stereotyping but the white males are the ones that commit the craziest of the child molestations but they are few in numbers so the ones that will suffer the most will be the blacks and the hispanics. Just like the three strike law!
Phil wrote on Nov 9, 2006 5:50 PM:This is a bad law and the courts will gut it. When their sentence of imprisonment and parole are finished that is it. Shall we have lifetime tracking for spouse beaters, bank robbers, 7-11 robbers, car thieves? Where do we stop. Well, we stop at the completion of the felon's sentence, that is where we stop. Semper Fi!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. 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.
Today's Stories
Advertisement