greetings from Public Enemy #1

you're right. prop 83 does nothing but hurt more people. take care of yourself.
i know it's meaningless, but if it's any consolation, 53% of san francisco county voted against it.

JESSICA'S LAW BLATANTLY DISREGARDS THE UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS! IT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, AND IT CONTINUES TO PUNISH PEOPLE EVEN AFTER A SENTENCE HAS BEEN SERVED. IT IS DRIVEN BY FEAR-MONGERING, OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICIANS AND WILL DO NOTHING TO ACTUALLY PROTECT CHILDREN. THERE ARE ONE MILLION WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHOSE LIVES ARE INTER-TWINED WITH A SEX OFFENDER IN CALIFORNIA. THEY SHOULD MATTER TOO. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL, PROP 83 IS ANOTHER CONVEYOR-BELT LAW TO BENEFIT LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS A ONE-SIZE-FITS ALL WAR ON THE PEOPLE THAT MUST NOT PASS!
Comparison of Jessica's law
with Existing law


Assemblyman, Mark Leno


Child Sexual Abuse

Jessica's law will place severe restrictions on the lifestyles of ALL convicted sex offenders who have a PC 290 requirement to register with law enforcement in the community in which they reside. This does not only include child molesters but any and all sex offenders regardless of the offense and when it took place. The two major restrictions are
1) ALL sex offenders must live 2000 feet away from any park, school or other areas the community deems necessary for the duration of their registration requirement, (which is usually for life).

2) ALL sex offenders must wear GPS ankle bracelets, not only for the duration of their parole (which will be increased to five and even 10 years) but for their ENTIRE LIVES! The sex offender is expected to pay for this device if he/she can afford it.

3) ALL sex offenders will be unable to earn good-time credits while in prison. They would have to serve the entire sentence regardless of their recovery and good behavior. There are many other stipulations within Jessica's law (e.g. increased prison terms) but these three conditions are exceptionally unjust, unwarranted and a big waste of resources. The law targets the mentally ill, their families and will ensnare teens, marking them for life with a red-letter punishment when they may not be a predator at all. Jessica's Law is the next war on the people. It will do nothing to protect children and will destroy more lives.
Sexual Predator
Defined

NICA:
Politics and Irrelevance



There are many types of sex offenders; not all involve the forcible rape of young children. In fact the current fear-mongering and political posturing taking place right now is based on deceit. Candidates need the donations and endorsements of law enforcement labor unions. These politicians know Jessica's Law will produce a steady of flow of inmates to keep the over-crowded prison industry booming.


They are pandering and using a very emotional subject to get themselves elected by the punishers' well-oiled voting machines. The truth is that more than 90% of sex offenses take place in families and child rape is almost always committed by someone the child knows. People have a bad habit of grouping all sex offenders as violent child molesters such as the one who murdered Jessica Lunsford in Florida.

This just isn't so. The reality is, these types of sex offenders are extraordinary. The "snatch-and-run" type of sex offenses against a child are extremely rare, averaging about one per state per year. Compare that to 2,000 kids killed by drunk drivers. Jessica's Law will do nothing to prevent that and really does nothing to address the prevention of the mental illness that causes sex offenses. Many offenders were young (19-20 years old), and they had sexual relations with their 16-17 year old significant other. Others are accused as part of vicious child custody and divorce cases.

In addition, there are offenses like indecent exposure and bigamy that are considered non violent. And there are many cases where the offender was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs; this would have the effect of lowering his/her inhibitions. One should never condone crimes of this type; but none of these offenses automatically makes a person a violent sexual predator. Yet they are caught up in the hysteria.

Bureau of Justice Statistics


False Rape
Allegations


Sex Offenders:
Flaws with the System



5% Rearrested



FBI Report

Most offenders of children DO NOT frequent schoolyards and playgrounds. 90% of child victims knew their offender and almost half of those were family members, i.e. the offenders had a trustful, nonviolent relationship with the victim. How is a GPS ankle bracelet or the 2000 foot living requirement going to prevent or even slow down offenses of this type? The answer is, they won't. The living requirement will force thousands of people to be relocated. Most of these people will be unable to afford that. For those getting out of prison or on parole, The California Department of Corrections(CDC) will have to pay for the relocation. This money will ultimately come from YOU the taxpayer.


Additionally, many sex offenders would be forced to move into rural areas where job opportunities are very limited. Many will actually loose their jobs, be separated from their families including their children, and be stigmatized when they arrive in areas that don't want them anymore then the populated cities do.

What we will finally end up with is an increased welfare expenditure because of lack of income, increased police involvement because of public confrontations and hostility, and possibly a greater incidence of crime and noncompliance due to stress and frustration.

Not to mention suicide because the situation is so hopeless.
The GPS ankle bracelets will inflict greater despondency on the offenders, but above all it will cost a phenomenal amount of money not only to monitor and maintain the these bracelets (most sex offenders will not be able to afford this cost) but also to hire personnel to monitor all 60000+ sex offenders. It will take a police mobilization the size of Iraq to enforce monitoring for life, which is the entire idea that the politicians and law enforcement labor unions have in mind here. And, of course, what is to stop someone from simply cutting the bracelet off? In the rare event of a stranger-type child crime, there is no way to stop a mentally-disordered offender from acting out as there are children everywhere. How ridiculous! The best type of prevention is for parents to know where their children are and to teach them safety. Jessica's Law will prevent no crime.
Back to the Community:
Safe and Sound Parole Policies


STOP REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILIA!


A large number of offenders who have not been convicted of a sex offense are commiting more sex offenses then the smaller number of convicted sex offenders. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice called, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison in 1994 , supported the notion that there are more non-convicted sex offenders (meaning they went to prison for a non sexually related offense and once out did not fall under the doctrine of Jessica's law) out in the streets commiting sex offenses then released sex offenders.(See a synopsis on this report by Tom Watson in the news articles section of this web site.) The report stated that within three years of release the individual sex offender was four times more likely to commit a sex offense then the individual non-convicted sex offender.

But out of 9,691 repeat sexual predators, 517 re-offended sexually (5.3%) and out of 262,420 non-convicted sex offenders 3,328 re-offended sexually(1.3%). 3,328 is much greater than 517 so despite the percentages there seems to be more non-convicted sex offenders commiting sex offenses.(In this example almost 85% more.)
This means if the vast majority of sex offenses are being commited by people who are non-convicted sex offenders then the 2000 foot living restriction and the GPS ankle bracelets will have little affect on the amount of victimization; it is not justified spending hundreds of millions of dollars and destroying thousands of people's lives for the actions of a small number of repeat sexual predators who could be dealt with separately. Kern County has paid out $5 million in wrongful imprisonment lawsuits during the past few years after child molestation witch-hunts in the 80's sent people to life. Some people spent 20 or more years in prison before the children grew up and told the courts they were co-erced by prosecutors to lie. This horrible example is still happening even with existing sex offender laws which are extremely harsh.
About Recidivism


New Hope for
Treatment of Sex
Offenders


SOSEN
Age of Consent


The Association for the
treatment of Sexual Abusers


SOhopeful International:
Societal Myths about Sex Offenders

Treatment of sex offenders is less costly then incarceration in prison and reduces recidivism. Most people's first reaction to victimization is punishment regardless of the offense. A sex offense, however, is without equal because of the almost sacred attachment we have toward sexual encounters. If someone steals from us or punches us we may feel hurt, but if that same person touches us in an unwanted sexual manner, we feel more than hurt; we feel not only violated but shocked, dazed and traumatized. To anybody who has experienced such an offense, it is unforgettable. Our innocence as well as our trust in other human beings goes astray. And this is exactly why the first priority in any society should be to prevent these offenses from happening in the first place! All the money spent on maintaining the restrictions of Jessica's law would be better spent on prevention of mental illness and substance abuses, more education and treatment.

People, at an early age need to be educated not only intellectually but empathically as well. Because there are no such curricula offered in grade schools, many young adolescents are committing sex offenses.

Some teens are being ensnared by similar laws for having sex with others in their own age group. Other states are having terrible problems and trying to repeal similar laws they passed not realizing the resulting devastation. Your child is in much more danger of being wrongfully accused as a sex offender than they are of being molested by a stranger. All our forefathers would be considered sex offenders even under existing harsh laws as well as most seniors who married others under the age of 18. Think about that! The cost of supervision and treatment of a sex offender is approximately $5,000 to $15,000 per year while the average cost of incarcerating an offender is $22,000 a year not including treatment. Of course many offenders will go to prison, and at this time there are no treatment options while incarcerated. This is unfortunate because many studies have shown that treatment does reduce recidivism and thus reduces victimization.

Providing treatment options in California prisons is far from impossible, but unfortunately that is not a priority with politicians taking money from law enforcement labor unions. Follow the money trail, those who are promoting Jessica's Law have often taken large donations or charged with sex offenses themselves. A sex offender can't get treatment until they are out of prison in most cases. And because they will not earn good-time credits under Jessica's law, they will have little motivation to change.

The violent and predatory atmosphere of prison creates more crime and mental illness than it prevents. To reduce or better yet prevent recidivism offenders need to learn about proper sexual conduct, but they also need to learn how to adapt to society. After years in the hostile and unproductive atmosphere of prison this is more difficult and quality treatment is essential. Keep in mind, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism when compared to all other crimes.

This category of conviction is a favorite amongst prosecutors because it requires no physical evidence, no witnesses, no DNA, no actual proof to win a conviction. All that is required is the word of the victim. In many cases sex offenders are accused due to child custody diputes and nasty divorces. After all, who will stand up for a sex offender? It's an easy conviction. Most political prisoners are in for a sex offense for this reason. Every prisoner is some mother's child and many of them are innocent or guilty of a much lesser crime as there is no justice in the courts today. Destroying people for life is unChristian and unAmerican and does nothing to solve the problem of mental illness. In fact it endangers society to get caught up in this hysteria.
Detaining "Sexual Predators"
in Mental Health System


Prison Cost in
California


California Penal Code

What does all this mean? It means Jessica's law will not work! It will add more problems to an already mismanaged criminal justice system. Prisons are already overcrowded and cost a phenomenal amount of money to operate. With public grade schools closing to save money should we build anymore prisons? Should we hire thousands of personnel to monitor all 60000+ sex offenders? Should we break apart families and make people sell their homes to accommodate the 2000 foot rule? This is cruel and unusual punishment which is forbidden by both the US and California State Constitutions. It is also an ex post facto law since it further punishes people after they have already served their time and paid their dept to society.

It will cost millions of dollars every year that could be used for much more productive agendas' such as prevention of mental illness and substance abuse, treatment, education and the improvement of the poor socioeconomic conditions that fuel disruptive behavior in the first place.
But most importantly, this law will not appreciably reduce victimization. It is not enough to say, "Well some is better then none," or, " Let's see if it works," or, "It's better then nothing." This law will disrupt and destroy many people's lives who are not sexual predators and are not a danger to the community! People need to think long and hard about the consequences of this unconstitutional initiative. Public safety is important, but we can't let fearmongering and politically manufactured hysteria dictate our decisions to the point of ostracizing an entire group of people because of what a very small number of mentally ill offenders do.

A federal judge has
already
blocked enforcement
of one part of this new law.

For details on lawsuit(s),
please see
sfGate.com

San Francisco Chronicle
Prop. 83 buffer zone for sex criminals blocked

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, November 9, 2006

Registered sex offenders won a reprieve Wednesday from the most far-reaching provision of an initiative that state voters approved overwhelmingly to restrict where convicted sex criminals can live.

Proposition 83's buffer zone, which bars any registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, may well be an unconstitutional retroactive penalty, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled. She issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the provision in four Bay Area counties at the request of a local man, who said the initiative would force him out of the community where he has lived for more than 20 years.

Illston found that the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, had shown a "substantial likelihood of success'' in demonstrating that Prop. 83 is a punitive measure that should not be imposed on people who committed sex crimes before voters passed the measure Tuesday. She barred enforcement of the residency restrictions until Nov. 27, when a hearing is scheduled before another federal judge on a preliminary injunction that would extend the ban.

The order applies only in San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Sonoma counties, whose district attorneys were named as defendants, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. The suit said John Doe lives in one of the four counties and would move to a new home in one of them if forced to comply with Prop. 83.

But Dennis Riordan, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said the restraining order serves notice on law enforcement officers in the rest of California that they should not enforce the residency restrictions at least until Nov. 27, because they would be risking a lawsuit for damages.

Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, Andrea Hoch, issued a statement saying the governor would vigorously defend Prop. 83, which passed Tuesday with more than a 70 percent majority.

The initiative greatly expands residency restrictions, which previously applied only to child molesters, and also requires registered sex offenders to carry Global Positioning System devices for life so authorities can track them. That provision was not affected by Illston's ruling.

The new law "will provide California's families and children with numerous important safeguards from sexual predators who live in our communities,'' Hoch said.

John Doe, according to his lawsuit, pleaded no contest to a "non-aggravated felony'' more than 15 years ago, served a sentence, received treatment and "has led a productive and law-abiding life'' ever since. Based on his rehabilitation, his conviction was formally erased by a Superior Court judge more than 10 years ago, but he is still bound by a lifetime requirement of registering each year with police as a sex offender.

Because of Prop. 83's ban on living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, John Doe "has effectively been banished from his community'' as well as from residential areas in virtually every city in California, the suit said. It said the forced relocation amounts to retroactive punishment and would be imposed without any evidence that he is dangerous.

But one of the authors of Prop. 83 said the measure wasn't intended to apply to John Doe or other currently registered sex offenders.

"We have been very clear, throughout this whole process, that it's not retroactive,'' said state Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster (Los Angeles County). "We believe that it's implemented when you come out of prison.''

However, the text of Prop. 83 doesn't specify whether the new residency requirements cover those who are already registered as sex offenders, or only those who commit crimes in the future that require them to register. Runner said the authors intended a third option: covering future sex offenders along with current prisoners who will be required to register when released.

The first option, making Prop. 83 fully retroactive, would affect 105,000 people now registered as sex offenders, most of them under supervision by local police and probation officers, according to a pre-election report by the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The report said some offenders who were unable to find new housing might simply disappear. Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the agency, said Wednesday that the department would seek additional state funding for housing and monitoring of some of the 9,000 sex offenders who are supervised by state parole agents.

In a separate development Wednesday, a federal appeals court upheld a California law that allows prosecutions for sex crimes against minors within a year of the minor's report to police, even if the crime happened many years earlier.

The law, which took effect in 1994, was challenged by a Solano County man, Victor Renderos, who was charged in 2001 with molesting his girlfriend's young son in the early 1990s and was sentenced to 66 years in prison. Renderos said the law imposed retroactive punishment by allowing prosecutors to revive charges that would have otherwise been barred by the statute of limitations.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law was not retroactive because Renderos had still been subject to prosecution when the measure took effect, putting him on notice that he could be charged if his victim complained to police.

His attorney, Anne Beles, said she would appeal as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a broader California sex-crime law on similar grounds in 2003.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko [at] sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 20

My son was convicted after an under age girl lied about her age and practically raped him at a party while he was intoxicated. She admitted this to the authorities, but since it was in the inbred state of Illinios, the male is automatically at fault. Even though this was a one time occurance, with no repeats, my son will be forced to register as a REPEAT OFFENDER for the rest of his life since he now lives in CA (it has been explained to me that a sex offender that moves is trying to avoid mandatory reporting requirements and is therefore required to register as a repeat offender). More than 8 years later Illinois refuses to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. My son is now happily married with a new daughter of his own, but due to the current laws (which he scrupulously follows to the letter) he will never be able to find a decent job because of his forced RSO status. Previous laws were bad enough, but now I have real fears for the welfare of my granddaughter since the knee jerk reactionaries here in the Granola state (fruits, nuts and flakes) have made it possible to make him homeless if the city builds a park too close to his current residence. There is no allowance in any of the current laws for rescinding or reducing a conviction after 5 - 10 years without a repeat. I firmly believe that this new law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and should be repealed immediatley. Where is the justice when members of Congress get away with multiple sexual offenses (against pages), yet a VICTIM of sexual misconduct is convicted under antiquated laws. I firmly believe that we are building too many prisons in the state of CA....at the rate we're going, 2/3 of the population will be "IN THE SYSTEM" in another 20 years. We need to find a better way to deal with non-violent crime. Those of you here in CA who think you are creating a "safer" society by pushing felons into more desperate situations are idiots. All you're doing is building a tidal wave that will come back and drown you when the "bad people" out number you. Punishment of proven violent crime should be swift and final. Punishment of non-violent crimes needs to be revamped and proven rehabilitation needs to be recognised under the law...thanks for letting a concerned parent and grand parent rant a little

Politically, I agree with most of what you say .
But, legally and practically, your son should see a lawyer who specializes in criminal law;
especially in sex crimes; and particularly in "PC 290" (the Calif. Penal Code section about registering sex offenders).
While waiting for results of the current broad test case (about retro-activity of the residence limits), there may be smaller and more specific ways in which a lawyer could help your son.
Lately, some PC 290 specialist lawyers have been sending ads by snail-mail to PC 290 registrants. So your son may have received such mail. I think these letters are legit, tho obviously these lawyers seek to make money. [ Ads by lawyers used to be considered unethical; but that old view has changed. ] If I were rich, or even middle-class, I'd hire a private lawyer.
Alternatively, your son could contact a criminal defense lawyer back in the state and county where the conviction occurred -- especially about getting the felony reduced to a misdemeanor; or, possibly, getting it dismissed, voided, expunged, whatever. Laws vary from state to state; so don't assume that California rules apply in other states.
[ Note: I have nothing to do with any law firm;
and I cannot vouch for the competence of any particular lawyer. ]

Outgoing Calif. Atty. gen changes interpretation of new law;
.....
[ excerpt from SF Chron report: ]

(Nov. 27) 14:26 PST SAN FRANCISCO --
The state [ of CA] abruptly changed its position today on the meaning of
a voter-approved law that restricts where sex criminals may live,
telling a federal judge that the law would bar any of California's more than 90,000 registered sex offenders from moving to a home within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said he felt "a little bit ambushed'' by the shift by Attorney General Bill Lockyer,
who had stated in writing less than two weeks ago
that Proposition 83 would not apply retroactively.

White scheduled a hearing for Feb. 23 on whether the new law,
as now interpreted by Lockyer,
would violate the constitutional ban on retroactive punishment.
In the meantime, the judge extended an order that forbids the eviction of a Bay Area man
from his current home under Prop. 83.
[ ... ]
[ for more, please see
http://www.sfgate.com ]

After reading Chron account of REVISED position of Calif. Atty. Gen,
I guess the two statements are logically compatible -- just barely.
Meanwhile, under the revised oposition, here's some practical advice for any RSO (registered sex offender, unde PC 290 et seq) in California:
DON'T Move.
Don't change your place of residence.
You're probably allowed to stay wherever you were on Nov. 6 or 7 of 2006.
DON"T move to any other residence. Stay put.
By late February 2007, the situation may improve.
Meanwhile, read and study the SF Chronicle report by Bob Egelko ( on the recent hearing).
He's the Chron expert on complicated court cases. Go to
http://www.sfgate.com
and then search for Egelko.
The next story of this matter will probably be in January,
when the parties file written arguments.
Next hearing will probably be in February.
Please note that a new California Attorney General (Jerry Brow3n)
takes office in January.
His opinions might (or might not) differ
from those of the outgoing AG (Lockyer).

Between now and late Feb, try to astay calm.
Try meditation, yoga, prayer, etc....

DON'T move
(unless you're leaving Calif. entirely and permanently).

Please go to www.therapy-key.com to submit your petition for a sensible sex-offender law. 88% of SOs are not reported, and some would like to seek professional help. The Catch-22 is mandatory reporting of molesters by therapists. So, they do not seek help for fear of incarceration and a lifetime of sigmatization afterward. Please read the facts at www.therapy-key.com. Then please act! Our lawmakers need to know that the public favors this type of legislation, so every signature counts. Thank you! Betty Schneider

No disrespect intended here (ok that's a lie) but it sounds to me like the registry out there is working the way it was intended. To make people think. From what you explain, it's unfortunate that your son had to be made an example of the hardships that come with a sex offence conviction, but we all choose our own fate. You can't blame intoxication for his dillema. Kids (and adults these days) need to actually BE responsible. That means staying out of situations that could end up like your sons incident. (Or keeping it in your pants until you meet someone you actually want to mother your child) The law doesn't need to change to make it easier on him because he made a mistake and because he might be a "good" person. Instead the law needs to stick to it's gun's instead of backing down to california's whiny, self serving, "everyone is a victim" attitude.

Next comment is for all... and if it offends, tough shit.

For one of the many that live outside the big cities I say keep your pedophiles, sex offenders, and other criminals and selfish bastards in your own areas instead of trying to work the law to justify an action... (now there is some food for thought.)
The mindsets of heavily populated areas (ESPECIALLY in California) really sucks. Keep your self serving attitudes in your area and quit moving to small towns across the US and spreading your selfish diseases. If you have something to give, move on out, if you are looking for something to take. or a life made the "easy" way be careful and remember that the 2'nd amendment is for us also, and we are probably a better shot that you are.

This is in regards to the comment by 1union1..

[Quote: The GPS ankle bracelets will inflict greater despondency on the offenders, but above all it will cost a phenomenal amount of money not only to monitor and maintain the these bracelets (most sex offenders will not be able to afford this cost) but also to hire personnel to monitor all 60000+ sex offenders.]

I could set up a system like that for around 150K or so (plus the cost of the bracelets, so in an area with a lot of offenders that could add up,but not that bad in the scheme of things. ) and the only personnel and infrastructure that would need to look at it are already in place... (Public safety dispatch centers etc..)

Don't try to thwart that one with the taxpayers dollar card dude, cause that is bullshit.