Blockbuster Democracy - logo
 

Does Jessica's Law Work?

January 16, 2009 - 8:36am

In 2006, California voters adopted Prop 83, an initiative that put severe restrictions on where sex offenders can live. (Not within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other areas where children gather). Now the LA Times reports that the state's Sex Offender Management Board says there's no evidence that Prop 83 has reduced crime. There's also not enough available, suitable housing for those who comply with the law. The state is spending $25 million a year to find housing for about 800 folks--a tiny fraction of those affected by the law.

Jessica's and Megan's Laws help nobody, not even the victims.

Life happens and it is very unfortunate at times. However, you can't punish an entire segment of society by making them prisoners in their own land. The basic human needs are food, clothing, and shelter. Some Judges, District Attorneys, and Probation Officers absolutely crush these people by imparting very harsh penaltys without concern for these people who are themselves, victims. Because of Jessica's and Megan's law, these people cannot find shelter, lose their jobs and can't get a job because they are felons. They have no money and no hope of getting a job. You don't treat a scam artist who bilked millions from people and ruined many peoples American dream, like this, then why sex offenders. Lets put every murderer, robber, car jacker, embezzler, shoplifter, and all drug addicts on a national database so that every person will know what you did, and also, they can't live within 2000 feet of a school, park, or playground. Every crime has it's victim. What are these sex offenders supposed to do? Their food, clothing and shelter then falls on the state. These people whom you all tend to want to lock up, are victims too. However, they more likely were bombarded with their particular type of abuse (either physical, emotional, sexual or all three) on a daily basis at or away from home, and that is why they are in the condition and predicament they are in. Yes, they must be stopped, but, once under control, don't stomp on them and keep them from the basics of human nature which again is food, clothing, and shelter. In addition they must have the right to provide for themselves (by means of a job) the dignity of gainful employment.

You, the people who make uneducated and emotional laws are at fault. Statistics prove that 90% of all sex crimes do not happen near schools, parks, or playgrounds. Stop playing with peoples lives and start helping these forgotten victims. They are sex offenders because they were first victims and they need help. They were victims when there wasn't protection laws and everyone turned a blind eye. Where is your compassion? We are all guilty if we continue to hold these people down without a ray of hope. It's just what they have had their entire life. No hope! No help!

Legislature can help by reclassifying who is a "sex offender"

Everyone in California convicted of a "sex offense", as defined by the California Penal Code, must register with the local police department his name, address, email addresses, vehicles, employment and/or school name and addresses each year on his or her birthday. Federal laws also require similar registration information to be collected and forwarded to the feds, but for a different (mostly overlapping) list of offenses.

As we have seen, it makes little to treat all "sex offenders" the same way. Anyone who has never attempted physical contact with a minor, or was a teenager with a teenage lover, really is in a different class than a sexually violent repeat-offending child predator.

There is no rational basis for preventing adults who had consenting sex with adults, or who had no sexual contact with anyone, from residing anywhere near schools, parks, and playgrounds.

Since the voters apparently thought all "sex offenders" were after schoolchildren and would abduct them and do who knows what, I suggest the legislature reduce the scope of this term down to what the voters apparently already believe it to mean, namely, violent offenders who had sexual contact with children under 13.

This would free up massive amounts of money for better uses, including better monitoring of violent offenders currently on parole.