Sex offenders should not be allowed in parks or beaches

In 2012 a law was passed that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering areas where children would likely be present. This in includes parks, playgrounds and beaches. However, according to ABC News the law was overturned in an appeals court in January 2014 because it was said to violate California’s state law.

It is clear the state of California and its cities are not doing all they can to protect the families and children of California by leaving them vulnerable to dangerous criminals.

In May 2012, District Attorney Tony Rackauckas released a statement explaining the conditions of the law that would be put into effect within 30 days. Under this law, if a sex offender entered one of these restricted areas, they would have been charged with a misdemeanor, facing six months of jail time and/or a $500 fine for each separate facility entered. Santa Ana was one of the first cities to pass their new ordinance laws and since then dozens of cities have followed.

However, now with the overturn of this law, registered sex offenders will be allowed in areas with a high population of children. Sex offenders have committed heinous acts and they should not be allowed into parks or beaches. Full Op Ed Piece

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. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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 in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

Hmmm…my post was deleted from the Op-ed site. I had provided links to studies, court cases, and the usual litany of sources that renounce what the opinion writer said, then challenged her to be a journalist and perform due diligence. When I tried to post a less-tinged followup, I found that my account has been banned from posting on The Titan site. I am not one to critique people’s opinions, but in this case the writer is majoring in journalism (communications), and scheduled to graduate this year, so there should be a higher standard to her presentation of opinion.

This article is not even worth commenting on. On so many levels it is plain bad and lacks any merit.

The writer of the ignorant piece adds….”at all costs “. Brubaker is
here to tell you its gonna cost millions a dollars..millions a dollars for the
blatant reckless civil rights violations for everyone in this california registry….
the selfish greed to punishment discrimination goes against the foundation of law…that
fullerton writer needs to take some courses in history and fundamental rights….do it before your
seventh year there ends…)))))))….unbelievable .

I never got the verification email; just as well, because I’m sure mine would have been deleted like the opinion of Eric Knight was. It’s pretty obvious that KAYLI CRAIG gets her research material from non credible sources like the newspapers and whatever she has heard and not from empirical sources. The article is poorly written trash.

My comment also was not posted. Makes me wonder.

I hope this article wasn’t written by a journalism grad student as it was poorly written, lacked any supporting facts, and contained more grammatical errors than a 1st grade book report!

Since the “Comments” appear to not be working, feel free to share your thoughts by contacting them directly:

What turnip truck did this hate mongering miscreant disguised as an author fall off of?

If this weren’t so sick it would be laughable but this is coming from an institution of higher learning. I guess that since CSUF is in Crow-ange County, it may be more understandable but I hope that some checks and balances exist somewhere in that institution. Let’s thank freedom of speech for the chance to respond and I hope we don’t confuse matters even more by introducing facts.

If any latitude can be given here is that she sounds like a victim that needs to channel her anger. Otherwise, the only real statement being made here is that this person wholeheartedly represents the metaphor “Ignorance is Bliss”.

It seems like this author was mimicking the style of Jessica Valenti, in her article on Woody Allen, in The Nation, which similarly lacked any statistics, evidence or anything but innuendo and an agenda to support her claims. Why would a reporter for a school paper think she needed to do better than a professional? In the same manner, the commentators at the end of both articles had to fill in the facts the journalists ignored. I was suspicious of registering with Discus, but we need to comment in places other than this site, if we are to make any impact.

To call the author of that article/op-ed piece an uneducated, uninformed, biased idiot would be a compliment. So much less than that…

Reminds me of that Saturday night Live skit with acting face-off on issues journalists Jane Curtain and Dan Ackroid …”Jane you ignorant shut.”

It almost sounds as if Ms.Craig was molested as a child herself.
But yes, her research is VERY lacking. if she had done any, she would have found that the various banning laws were solution looking for a problem.
In every city that had the police testify before the city councils on these various ordinances, they reported no particular problem with RSOs committing addition sex crimes in the various parks under their jurisdiction.

I am still trying to wrap my head around this. So, can SOs enter State Parks, like Chino Hills? Also, what is Elfin Forest in Escondido considered? It is not a park as far as I can see. So, would we be able to go for a hike there? Maybe someone in those areas can clarify this since “we” are still on probation with an ankle bracelet and don’t want to stir up anything that might cause a violation of probation.