Part of Jessica's Law ruled unconstitutional

LA Times ^ | 11/05/10 | Andrew Blankstein

[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."

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

I>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.

What I think many here fail to grasp is that more and more, the people who are ending up on these "Sex Offender Registries" are folks who are 17 and 18 years old who had consensual sex with their 16 year old girl friend.

Or as in the case of Georgia where you can be placed on the registry for life if you take a piss in public and a minor happens to see you. Regardless of circumstances, intentions or your history.

Everyone here sees nothing but "Sex Offender" and automatically thinks of some kiddie raping monster.

Registries like these were initially designed to mean well but over time have turned into nothing more than a vehicle for the government to control more and more of its citizens for life. Deny them the right to own guns, vote and now a place to live.

The spirit and the letter of these registries are unconstitutional as someone already said. The are nothing more than a bill of attainder and completely unconstitutional.

[newzjunkey]

This is about CA law not what happens in Georgia or some other state. I've looked at the CA database over the years and I've never seen a so-called "Romeo & Juliet" case in it. Those examples are as uncommon and far-fetched as the proverbial harmless joint smoker going to prison longer than a murder or the need for millions of abortions because one rape may have lead to a pregnancy.

The CA database is full of hardened, often repeat, sex offenders usually convinced of molestation of or oral copulation with a child under 14. I've had at least two in my community living with a backyard against a public parks. One park is next to a school.

[runninglips]

I agree, that also goes along with my stand on restoring gun and voting rights to former inmates. I don’t mean allowing them to CC on day one, but after all fines are paid and the parole or in other terms are met. Either you are a citizen, or you are not. Former felons HAVE to be allowed to strive to become completely part of “normal” society. Actually, I think the reason that the “man” is afraid of letting former felons own guns, it is their favorite means of putting them back in prison. You know, man pulled over for broken tail light, found with pistol in the trunk....sent away for 7 years.

[RoadGumby]

the problem being, that with a thief, when his time is up, he can get out, and often be ok with not thieving. No so with pedophiles. Many will tell you, candidly, that when they get out, it is open season again.

[Sporke]

Well, I completely agree with you too about Voting/Gun rights. This may or may not be unrelated, but in the “old days” if you had a felony you at least had the option of leaving the state you were convicted in and totally starting over, because for the most part, your record wouldn’t follow you to another state. With the internet, there is no longer ANY option, once you are convicted, EVERYONE will know it, wherever you are. It’s bad enough that they can’t find any job, but for the law to continue to punish them just adds to the problem. I believe that’s one reason so many continue to commit crimes. Many times they have zero options to earn money legally. :-/

[Smogger]

Well, what is the answer? While child sex offenders have perpetrated a horrible crime, once their sentence is up, just where are they supposed to live if there are restrictions that effectively relegate them to the streets?

Assuming that they have served their entire sentence, they end up in very rual counties where they are MUCH more difficult to monitor, if that's the desire. If they are still on parole or probation you end up with a situation where they are unable to get housing anywhere so they end up living on the streets, where, you guessed it, they are much more difficult to monitor!

[Smogger]

I forgot to mention that parolees and probationers are normally forbidden from leaving the county that they were paroled to, or are on probation in. Just leaving is a parole or probation violation.