Chelsea’s Law: A Light to Shine On

Today — February 25, 2014 — I want to take a moment to remember the legacy of a girl named Chelsea King.

Chelsea was an activist, a runner, a student, a friend, a daughter, and a spunky, charismatic, jovial bubble of joy. This Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of Chelsea’s disappearance from Poway, Calif., and eventual murder. While she no can longer light up rooms with her smile or belt out a tune on her French horn, her legacy carries on today in the form of Chelsea’s Law.

Chelsea’s Law protects California’s children today with increased penalties, parole provisions and oversight for violent sexual offenders of children. This law is specifically targeted at criminals that our society cannot risk letting loose again: Certain offenses carry a one-strike punishment, meaning that especially vicious crimes would automatically merit life imprisonment without parole.

The rationale for such harsh sentences is clear: The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that child molesters and statutory rapists released from prison have a 5.1% recidivism rate — 5.1% of these criminals were rearrested for a new sex crime within three years of their release. While that number does not seem very high, over the course of many years, not adopting a one-strike law would risk the safety of many children. Chelsea’s Law is now in place in California, and variants of it are being pushed forward in other states to prevent these avoidable tragedies. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another law named after a victim. Yeah, that will surely prevent crime! [sarcasm]

This article left me feeling like the author has a personal vendetta against sex offenders or at least one one in particular. It sounds like she’s willing to open the prison gates and let out people convicted of every crime with the exception of a sex offense.
I followed the citation from this article about the clinical Psychiatrist who claimed “rehabilitation is not equally possible for serious violent offenders, like rapists.” Her statement was out of context (Surprise) and had nothing to do with Ca. prop. 36. It was from a BBC promotion for a TV show that aired in the spring of 2004. That’s a serious stretch for a little credibility. The BBC promotion interchanged the word Paedophile (sic) with Sex Offender so frequently I was beginning to think they were the same thing. NOT!

Again. Another law that promises to end sexual violence and like all the others will only pull the rug out from those past offenders who saw the light and wish to lead a lawful, productive life. The author has no empathy for the 95%, so she says, who don’t reoffend, their spouses, children, friends and employers. Of course, her opinion is all too common. The result will be more people in prison for sex crimes who will never see the light of day, and guess what, more millions to keep the prison system humming, more lives in poverty to drive wages down and more delusions,that it is all making for a safer world.

There was one person who committed that crime ckelky ..whatever..stop blaming people who had nothing to do with your misfortune …..what that ckelky stuff needs to let people know how easy it is to be labeled ‘sexoffender’…are you telling the people evidence can be removed and replaced instructing jury to false evidence telling them that ..?? telling the people the deception false evidence that comes from a trial setting follows up with the false evidence information they give the public…that ckelky stuff needs to apologize to alot of people they wrongly blame..nobody else here involved ..stop blaming and be on your way.

Anyone remember the early Saturday Night Live skits with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain doing a point/counterpoint? Remember how Dan Akroyd started his response to Jane Curtain? He would say “Jane, you ignorant slut…” Well reading many of these articles posted here, including this particular one, that becomes my response to the authors. Crude and crass, I know.

My response to Amiee Trujillo’s article;

Ah yes; just another ill conceived and poorly researched article written from a biased point of view. I, for once would like to see a comprehensive piece written instead of this type of one sided rehash. The part I find the most amusing in a ludicrous sort way is the statement “Chelsea’s law protects California’s children”. It is clear Aimee Trujillo has only heard a fraction of the entire story. I’m curious what Aimee Trujillo’s response to this empirical and scholarly document is.

I’m curious Aimee Trujillo; after reading the above empirical/scholarly study, and considering as of 2013 there 80,484 registrants in California;

just how many children would you estimate are being placed in harms way and are leading a marginal (at best) existence because Chelsea was kidnapped and murdered? And do you think it’s fair to these innocent children?

This is just an example; Let’s say every one on the registry in California has two children, which equals 160,968 children experiencing the effects of Chelsea’s law, compounded by the myriad of other laws aimed at the “sex offender” only, and the social stigma is only a small part of what these children go through on a daily basis.. That’s quite a few children, now isn’t it? I must also conclude that Aimee Trujillo has never heard first hand what the effects are on these children. Here Aimee, watch this.

Now Aimee; do you know how many people get murdered because of laws like this one?

I’m not even going to go into the financial cost/harm to California because of this and other laws; But if Aimee Trujillo decides to do some real research and write a responsible unbiased article that is not a mockery of truth perhaps my self and others would be willing to share some more truth’s that seemingly never get reported.

Chelsea King lived in our neighborhood. Not only that, but Chelsea was also a peer counselor in the program in which I worked. I remember the day that I found a flier attached to my windshield about her disappearance, and remember thinking that perhaps a Mountain Lion had attacked her due to the very remote location in which she was jogging.

It was all so horrifying. I also turned to our son, who was with me at the time, and said, “This isn’t going to be good for you”. You see, our son was on the registry, and sure enough the following day he was hog tied and searched. Our neighbors acted like vigilantes against us, and said that they would have us removed from the home we had owned for 25 years. I remember I couldn’t sleep thinking that someone might harm us.

While grieving for Chelsea and her family, I too was grieving for all of those on the registry and their families who would now suffer for these murders. Murders, not minor sexual offenses.

In my opinion, this author uses Chelsea as a ploy to write about the ill effects of the Three Strike Law, (which I agree, needs to go) but seems to be okay with lumping every registered citizen with those that have committed a murder. She appears to want to take the spotlight away from other crimes, and shine it solely on sex offenses. I hate these people. Why can’t we just concentrate on violent crimes period. Not low level drug crimes, not low level sex offenses, not low level petty theft etc. Why do they use us to make those crimes less then.

John Albert Gardner *** name corrected by Moderator *** was just 19 when he was sent to prison. Already a very disturbed young man who, in my opinion, may have not deserved what punishment he received,(after reading the reports) And then after six years in prison with no treatment and harassment he just got sicker. After his release becoming homeless and hopeless, he then became a sick monster who chose revenge. So, how does this make society safer?

If he had received treatment would it produced different results? Would Chelsea and Amber be alive today?

I can’t understand that so many people are focusing on the “sex crime” part of this whole story. It was a murder first and foremost and murderers need to be brought to justice. Not the murderers who have done their time already, or the ones who might commit a murder in the future (since we don’t know who that is) but the murderer who committed this crime. Will we have to monitor every person in this country since we won’t know who will be the next offender? That is impossible and a waste of time to try. Many sex crimes are and will be committed by someone who is not on the registry, so should we put the whole country on the registry as a precaution? Again, I would rather have them focus on punishing the people who actually commit a crime and not on the ones who may never commit another offense, and when we talk about offense, it can be anything from the “Romeo and Juliet Offender”, the “Streakers”, the “Exhibitionist”, and yes, the occasional “Rapist” or “Child Molester”. What a way to confuse everybody and have law enforcement waste precious time with the silly “offenses” since they can’t focus all their time on the criminals that really matter or should matter to those who are so concerned. Think about it. Everybody is on the registry for life, and every day new “offenses” to make you subject to the registry get added, hence every day, more and more, and more people get added. Pretty soon, the country will have everybody on the registry. Good luck monitoring this. The real “rapists” are laughing right now, happy all this is happening since they will be harder to trace with that much commotion. Good thinking (sarcasm).

I emailed my comment to the author Aimee.