Prop 83, Jessica's Law, ruled unconsititutional

asdf (8.00 / 1)

God, I hope significant portions of this thing go down. Seriously, do we want every sex offender ever to move from urban areas ()where they've got a shot at necessary resources) to the middle of nowhere (where I grew up, and let me tell you it's screwed up enough as it is)?

Not to sound hugely sympathetic to sex offenders, but (1) the term has never been particularly well defined and (2) they're people, and we're going to have to live with their existence, whether we like it or not. They've served their time; be watchful, folks, don't be cruel.

---

by: spit @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:12:22 AM UTC

The truth about Jessica's Law... (0.00 / 0)

Many politicians, especially Republicans, would like all of society to believe that ALL sex offenders are predators lurking in every corner of our communities ready to jump at every opportunity to abduct and assault our children. They try to twist reality by playing on our worst fears as parents by instigating rage in all of us with assistance from the media by sensationalizing child abduction cases as examples why we should banish ALL sex offenders. The truth, however, is that not all sex offenders are like the ones we see on TV. The great majority of them are first offenders who's offenses are misdemeanors. After all, there is a legal basis why our justice system classifies certain offenses as misdemeanors and that is because they are much less serious than felonies. Check the legal dictionary if you don't believe me. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate sexual predators especially those who victimize children. Like most people, I absolutely believe that these sex predators should be monitored closely upon their release from prison or be it as Jessica's Law put it - sent away to a place where they would not be able to harm children. My beef with this law is that it lumps all people in the registry as a predator and subjects them to a one-size-fits-all punishment.

When someone kills another, our justice system makes every effort to determine the degree and circumstances to which the slaying was carried out. Hence, there is murder one, passion killing, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, etc. Why can't we apply the same logic when we are dealing with sex offenders? Is it fair to treat sex offenders much worse than murderers, robbers, carjackers, drug dealers and the rest? I don't think so because each of these other criminals are potential sex offenders also. If they have the will and audacity to commit these non-sex crimes, what makes you think they will never commit a sex crime? In fact, many sex offenders have other criminal records as well. Hence, it makes no sense whatsoever for our society to be cleansed of sex offenders while these other criminals live in our midst without any restrictions. Are our children really any safer?

Jessica's Law attempts to punish again and again and again and again those who committed thier indiscretions decades ago with no regard to the level of seriousness in each offense. Most of these people have paid their debts to society, regretted their mistakes, and have lived law-abiding lives ever since. It must be difficult enough to find steady employment and to live a normal life when your face and private information are posted all over the Internet.  Had these past offenders known decades ago what their lives would be like under Jessica's Law today, most of them might not even have the audacity to commit their crimes. It's plain and simple. You cannot apply today's rules to those who made an error in judgement in a different time.  It's changing the rules in the middle (or in this case, in the end) of the game. That is simply not permitted in the Constitution. As a society, we simply cannot allow these twisted politicians who are using our children and playing with our fears to get elected to get away with these constitutional violations. Imagine what's in store for us if Jessica's Law becomes the precedent. Next thing we know, we'll have new punishments for those who were convicted of DUI, theft, drug-offense, white-collar crimes, etc. Is that what we really want? Sex offense is a hot button issue now with all the media attention, but in a few years another crime will be the focus of modern persecution. Watch out illegal immigrants! 

I'm not done. These same politicians who author these crazy laws offer children safety as their primary reason why they do it. Why is it then that they don't try to be just as aggressive in combatting the murder of innocent children in the inner cities of America? Every year, hundreds of children are shot and killed in drug and gang violence in many metropolitan areas, but there doesn't seem to be as much hysteria and call for crackdowns on these senseless killing compare to when one white suburban child is killed by a sex offender. Are the lives of rich suburban children more precious than those children in impoverished areas? There are just as many minority children that are molested and assaulted as their suburban counterparts. We have Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, Adam's Law, but why isn't there a push to have a law named after any of the minority children killed? Perhaps Michael Richards can explain it to us better.

I'm afraid we are becoming a paranoid society paralyzed by our irrational fears over crimes that have not yet been committed. Our corrupt politicians want to punish offenders for their perceived future crimes based on their past records. There is, however, an alternative motive for these politicians to append their names in these stupid laws. It's a great platform for them to win people's admiration and votes come election time. It is something they can brag about to their contituents. Whether these laws actually save lives is questionable. In fact, lawmakers in places like Iowa who pioneered these residency restriction laws are now working to repeal it because it caused more problems rather than provide solutions. Think about it. When you have thousands of offenders who went underground due to the unreasonable provisions of the law, are our children any safer? When you have thousands of deranged, suicidal offenders who's lives and families have been torn to pieces with nothing to look forward to and nothing to hold them back, are our children any safer?

It's time to stop the persecution and allow those who are rehabitable to get their second chance to prove their humanity. After all, we all make mistakes. Some of us are just lucky enough to not have been caught with our indiscretions. Ironically, many of the lawmakers who work so diligently - and hypocritically - to pass these laws are themselves guilty of the very same offenses they are warning us about. I wonder how many more Mark Foleys are out there. Let us concentrate on the most dangerous and deserving of society's wrath and remove these unconstitutional barriers on the minor offenders who have learned their lessons and are trying hard to re-integrate themselves into the society.

---

by: rocketman0621 @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 20:16:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should post this as a diary (0.00 / 0)

I'll promote it sometime over the long weekend.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 23:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting comment from another forum (0.00 / 0)

Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid - very afraid — of these laws.

Long before Hitler killed the first Jew in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of human beings by — you guessed it — attacking the rights of sex offenders. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be “sexual deviants.”

The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for “Megan’s Law.” They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear pink triangles, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included long prison terms, loss of voting rights, confinement in concentration camps, and (sometimes) the death penalty. All of these laws were justified by the Nazi’s in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megan’s Law: to protect the children from sexual predators.

Of course, Hitler had other things in mind, as history shows us; and targeting sex offenders was just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for his later attacks against the people he truly hated.

It’s doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitler’s rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights — and he started with the most universally despised group he could find.

Anyone who thinks that this couldn’t happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you can’t single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else.

---

by: rocketman0621 @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 00:25:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

She sure ran on it, though (0.00 / 0)

so it served its purpose.

Very sad about the CA-45th today.  But Roth fought the good fight, and his campaign fed the grassroots for the long haul. 

I'm union staff, but not a spokesperson for my union - all posts represent my views solely.

---

by: Beth Caskie @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:10:14 AM UTC

Roth had a great impact (0.00 / 0)

I think that seat will flip if given the proper resources.  And goodness knows that Bono is not the best campaign strategist.  Roth exposed some of her weaknesses, but he just didn't have the resources to take her down.

Now, if we could get some of the forces that are nominally on our side to stop supporting her (ie the HRC), we'll be in a lot better shape.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 16:05:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

First step in our "53-district strategy" (0.00 / 0)

should be to focus on districts where the Republican incumbent got below 60% (Lungren, Do-LITTLE, McKeon, Dreier, Calvert, Bono, Rohrabacher) and run more aggressive grassroots campaigns with populist Dems there.

My blog


Twitter

---

by: cali_girl_in_texas @ Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roth was fantastic. He should definitely run again. (0.00 / 0)

And we could get Russ Warner to run again in my hometown. I heard he was the Dem that would have fared best against the too-entrenched Dreier.

My blog


Twitter

---

by: cali_girl_in_texas @ Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:36:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 83 a poor written law full of flaws (like the three strike law) (0.00 / 0)

Well people, Here we go with another poor written California law. Has everyone already forgot the three strike law that ended up putting persons in prison for 25 years to life for such acts as stealing a slice of pizza? Now we have voted on another poor writtn law that wants to make all persons ever convicted for a serious sexual act as predators and force them out to areas where there is much less ability to keep track of them. According to state and federal DOJ stats, the major majority of all sexual crimes ARE,WAS and IS committed by a family member or a close friend to the family or to the victim and most a one time conviction that was committed many years ago and not by some stranger jumping out of the bushes. The fact to the matter is the predator the worst being the sexually violent predator is only a very small group with regards to sexual offenders as small as 2%(according to DOJ stats)and the crime committed by a true sexual predator are really quite rare with regards to the majority of sex crimes committed. And being there is over 100,000 persons in California alone with a sex crime conviction in their past that is 0nly 2000 persons out of 100,000 and most sexual violent predators have been charged convicted and are already in custody doing long terms. So what good is it going to do to make non violent sexual offenders out as predators, putting a tracking device on dad or uncle Bob or Grandpa or the boy next door and then making them move out and away from their homes and uprooting the family because they live to close to a school or a park. It should be advised that most sex crimes in california being violent and even non violent kind if a minor was involved is a felony so, that would force close to 90,000 persons to be effected by this new and poor written law. This law just as the three strike law is and was written for public safety and that is good but this law needs to be recalled and rewritten to place the enforcement upon thoes persons to whom is known to be a true danger to public safety the persons who have been deemed by the courts through its Doctors and PhD(s)trained in sexual crimes as true predators. Placing this statue on a person who has a sex crime in their past who was not deemed as a predator and a danger to the public safety is a very bad law a flawed law and that is the real danger to public safety

---

by: neilbfisher @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 17:34:46 PM UTC

Re: Prop 83 a poor written law full of flaws (like the three strike law) (0.00 / 0)

Well said. The problem with initiatives like Prop 83 and the 3-strikes law is that when voters see these things on the ballot, they don't have all the information they need and they vote on it based on emotions notwithstanding any unwanted consequences that conscious voters would not have voted on if they know all the facts. These are very emotional and complex issues that should never be thrown to the electorate who probably have less than 30 minutes in their hands to really weigh the issues and know what's at stake. That's why we have A STATE LEGISLATURE to deal with these matters.

These wayward so-called "tough on crimes" legislation appeal heavily on most parents with young kids due to it's language. What most parents don't realize, however, is that it could be a double-edged swords when their toddlers grow up to be teenagers, start dating, makes an immature mistake with their girlfriends, and finally get caught in this Jessica's Law trap - FOREVER!  Remember, this law does not differentiate between a true predator and those who committed statutory rapes when they themselves are minors. According to Jessica's Law, everyone is a predator.

Ask yourselves this question. Why are we so repulsed and increasingly hostile to sex offenders TODAY? It's not like its a brand new menace. Sex offenders have been around for as long as this country is in existence. But we pay more attention to them today because the media have manipulated us to be that way. They sensationalize each case because its good for their ratings. But the whole thing is political and economics, you see. I've come across many editorials on this subject and for the most part the folks who pushed this law are those who stand to benefit from it the most: manufacturers of GPS tracking systems, private monitoring contractors, prison advocates, aspiring politicians looking for a vehicle to the Capitol, etc. Folks, the best thing we can do to protect our children is to love them, educate them, and to never leave them when they should not be left alone. These 2000 foot barriers will do nothing to prevent a determined predator from doing the unthinkable. It is up to you to deter him by being a responsible parent. Just because a 2000 foot barrier has been put into law does not mean you can set you kids free to go to any parks without supervision. If you do, you're asking for trouble.

---

by: rocketman0621 @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 16:35:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]