Skip to comments.Part of Jessica's Law ruled unconstitutional
Posted on 11/04/2010 10:19:46 PM PDT by jerry557
California corrections officials this week stopped enforcing portions of Jessica's Law in Los Angeles County after a judge ruled that the 2006 statute restricting how close sex offenders can live to parks or schools is unconstitutional.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza concluded that the controversial measure left sex offenders in some areas with the choice of being homeless or going to jail because the law restricts them from living in large swaths of some cities such as Los Angeles.
He issued the 10-page ruling Monday after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court. He noted that the court has received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared.
In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient [sex offender] registrants." In 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles. By this September, that number had jumped to 259, Beck said. Most of the new cases were filed in the last six months.
"Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County actually undermines public safety," wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising judge of Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Another liberal judge coddling perverts.
Vote him out the next time his name appears on the ballot.
It is a stupid law, the best way to handle child molesters is to keep them in prison or put them down permanently.
Personally, I don't know the answer to this one. Once someone has served the time for their crime, are they to be further punished? Don't get me wrong, sex offenses against children are dastardly crimes. Either execute-or life sentences. But to create a circumstance where a paroled offender can find no where to live, then really, where is the justice in that?
I’d like to execute them. But liberals recoil at the notion of putting to death monsters who assault our children.
It’s an Unconstitional Bill of Attainder. End of discussion.
Good question. If they’re that dangerous, they have no place in this world.
In that sense, the other poster is right, Jessica’s Law isn’t the right solution.
Abort the offenders. Problem(s) solved.
this judge is nuts
US Supreme Court has already put a nix on executions for rape. So that’s not happening. That’s a dead issue. Justice Kennedy was the swing on that one a few years ago and went with the liberals.
So if you go for life in prison, you got to find room. Prisons are already overcrowded. So you got to offset it by reducing sentences for other felonies. Take your pick...
Exactly. And everyone here who has been harping on following the US Constitution should understand this. You dont get to say follow only certain part of it.
When someone commits a crime and is found guilty, put them in prison. When they have served their time and are released, leave them alone and let them try to rebuild their lives. If a crime is extremely violent or serious, put them in jail for a LONG time! But if they are released, then leave them alone too! Once a person has paid their debt to society, they have PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY! Isn’t that the purpose of prisons, to punish people for crimes they commit? Once they have served their time, it’s nothing less than corrupt to keep on punishing them. It’s not that difficult to understand. One more thing, most sexual offenders of children are either friends of the family or family members so even if offenders live on the moon they will most likely still be around the kids they are most likely to offend with, and even if they live nowhere near a school or park, all they would need to get near a school or park, is a car!
I voted against it for exactly that reason. This day was inevitable.
By the same token Federal law that deems schools “Gun Free Zones” should be ruled un-Constitutional.
So, is it worth it to mandate where they can/cannot live? Probably not. Is it worth it to give them very long sentences, knowing that for each year they are behind bars means fewer children are getting molested? Oh yeah.
And I'm not including the teenagers who are boffing other teenagers getting accused of child molestation. Some states have commonsense laws in this regard and others are just stupid.
Jessica’s Law? Hey, wait a minute. I recall something about Mark Lunsford’s son being accused of unwelcome contact with a 14-year old. He just adopted a “boys will be boys” attitude about it.
That and Mr. Lunsford was accused of having underage porn on his computer.
You are entirely correct - in our system of justice, once having served the punishment as prescribed by society, a citizen should be allowed to resume his life as a citizen. It is the American way.
If people are appalled at this attitude, I can empathize. My suggestion is that the penalty for the crime be mandatory life imprisonment - with no parole, even for first-time offenders.
This would necessitate a change in the current penalties, but then it would become the prescribed punishment levelled by society - and I would be fine with that.
Child molesters (not statutory rapists with a 16 year old girl friend, not ‘sex offenders’ who had to audacity to pee outside) should be put to death. Anyone who experiences sexual gratification messing with an unwilling or prepubescent child should be put to death.
Then we would not have to worry about where they live.
Good luck getting the votes in most legislatures....
A concept hat so many of the law and order execute them all crowd here fails to grasp.