[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Jessica's Law: A foolhardy mission?

by: Brian Leubitz

Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:22:24 AM PST


This is culled from a comment by rocketman0621 on a diary about the federal court ruling against Jessica's law.

  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.

Brian Leubitz :: Jessica's Law: A foolhardy mission?
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.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I overall agree (0.00 / 0)
I'm not going to repeat what you've said, but I will add some things

Here's what I like saying: The law is good and original. The problem is that the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good. The good stuff is already law, and the stuff that isn't is bad.

I'm mainly going to address how the residency restrictions and GPS are counterproductive:

How about for all murderers, they either get death or life without parole, depending on severity

You know what % of sex crimes are committed by strangers against strangers? 10%. So they choose to treat the 90% who've done it against someone personally like the minority 10%. Unless all those children whom they've done it against live within 2,000 feet of a school or park currently, what are we doing? They can live within 2,000 feet of the victim, but not near a school of strangers.

Might I add, the victim doesn't have to be a child to be subject to these residency restrictions. So if they prey on the elderly, they can still live near a nursing home. By restricting places where they don't cause harm and allowing them to be near a place where they would, how does that help?

Why are we painting them all with the same brush? One size does not fit all, and one size is more likely to result in recidivism than some other ways

The result of laws like Jessica's law is, along with what he said about not registering, them ending up in rural counties. Not all of them, but a good majority will. Law enforcement is already stretched thin in those areas. Not only that, it's's harder to find a job, which leads to less stability. Stability and likelihood of staying clean are directly related. This isn't sympathy. This is about public safety

GPS is an effective tool when used discriminately. It should only be on high-risk sex offenders. By putting them on ALL of them, regardless of crime severity or victim, we're drowning the information such as the high-risk sex offender location in a pool of less important stuff. Not only that, if someone wearing one goes in a tunnel, down a canyon, etc... the signal is lost and the alarm sounds. Law enforcement will then be forced to waste time and energy on those false alarms

I will admit they provide for passive monitoring. That is, if a crime was committed at a certain time in a certain location, they can use the GPS program to see who was there, but... why are we wasting money on a GPS for ALL of them regardless of their likelihood to re-offend, when we can be using it on proven things that reduce recidivism, thereby preventing the crime in the first place

It is not their sincerity in protecting kids, it's their judgment in this case that sorely lacks

The Silent Consensus


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox