ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Keeping kids safe

‘In response’ letter to the editor on National City’s sex offender ordinance, for April 19, 2014

I think the point of our ordinance was missed by the April 16 editorial “Sex-offender laws lead to more crimes.”

The state has full control of residence requirements for predatory sex offenders of children. Our ordinance has nothing to do with where a person resides, but instead it addresses where they spend their time. If individuals who have proved themselves to be predatory sex offenders of children are in our communities, we want them to be with their families (if they agree), and we want them to have jobs. But we don’t want them hanging around children’s playgrounds in the park or around video arcades. That is all our ordinance addresses.

Live their lives, yes. But they do not need to be hanging around public children’s areas. Our children and their families have the right to as much protection and peace of mind that we as a society can provide for them.

Ron Morrison

National City mayor

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/19/national-city-sex-offender/

Join the discussion

  1. Hannah Grace

    Unfortunately, this man’s response if stereotypical of most people when it comes to sex offenders. They need to do the research before they start spouting off. Only then will changes be made.

  2. VA Hall

    Sir, are you aware that this man committed his offense when Carter was president, and gas was $0.86 a gallon? He has led a decent life since the 80s, and it seems like quite a waste of resources to protest his presence in your city. Likewise, it does a tremendous disservice to the children and families you purport to protect, when you prioritize banishment of people with decades-old convictions over education and prevention of actual abuse. This is not about one man, however, it is about the 106,000+ people required to register, for life, as sex offenders in California…abd their families. Please educate yourself on where most child abuse occurs (in the child’s home/close social circle), on the reoffense statistics of convicted sex offenders (<5%) and shift your energies to evidence-based, Constitutionally sound, laws which truly do protect the children and families you spoke of. ALL of them.

    • Margaret Moon

      Well said, Ms. Hall! I am curious, how is it that your comment on the original UT article is missing? I saw it referred/replied to several times but sadly could not read it. I assume this comment is the same as the one you posted there… ???

      • wonderin

        Mine was deleted too. I replied to Rob Bowman Following your logic , we should restrict anyone convicted of any sexual offence, and required to register, to be banished from any place where children might congregate such as Mac Donalds, Chucky Cheese, Water Parks, Theme Parks and on and on.
        If indeed these people are dangerous predators as you assert than let due process come into play and confine all convicted sex offenders to state institutions for the criminal insane or prison.
        Of course you can’t do that because that would be too obvious a violation of constitutional rights so you continue to support these ludicrous laws which are simply drawn from an ambiguous list of prior sex offenders without any credible evidence of risk assessment. to violate their rights and their families rights to due process of law.

      • wonderin

        Whoops! I inadvertently thought you meant her comment on this new one from the Mayor’ perspective.
        I noticed Rob Bowman’s original statement changed.
        As far as I know he would have to have moderation privileges to change it as conveniently as he did so it seems obvious who deleted my comment and why.

  3. Q

    I don’t see what makes this mayor think that people on the registry have this overwhelming need to hang around a children s playground in the park or video arcades. I suppose it’s never occurred to this mayor that someone on the registry might want to spend time with his/her child in a children s playground in a park, or at a video arcade and experience the pleasure any parent and child experiences by spending time together, watching them grow up, watching them have fun, being together.

    Of course I must point out that the mayors keen intellectual mind (sarcasm) doesn’t even consider the children of the registrant, let alone how his ill conceived baseless beliefs can impact the life of a child, registrant, or an entire family. It’s really sad/foolish/dangerous when people act on what they only think they know, without taking the time to see if what they believe is grounded in fact and indeed true. This mayor is missing the opportunity to educate the citizens of his town about the truth of presence restrictions.

    Instead he’s running around explaining his self in the local newspaper and undoubtedly feeling sorry for him self instead of doing something constructive, like looking at the facts and the reasons the state killed this practice in California; the city counsel of all cities and towns would be doing the citizens of their communities a service if they too educated themselves about the facts regarding people on the registry instead of listening to media hype. Perhaps it would be a good thing if they start getting the fact’s here.

    http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%203-21-14%20(2).pdf

    (NOTE) If anyone with a Facebook account wants to post this for me I will be grateful. You may edit this comment as long as the message I’m trying to get across (“get your facts straight, Mr Mayor”) isn’t lost.

    • none

      I posted it for you

      • Q

        Thank you so very much. Let’s see if it stay’s posted 🙂

        • Q

          I did not see the post. Oh well; I’m kind of getting used to this sort of information suppression by people from the press and the news media in general. Besides, that Shelly Stow and Women against the registry are tearing it up and giving that ill informed Rob Bowman a total information bitch throttling 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

        • Q

          Hi none:

          I thank you too! I don’t have a Facebook account because I thought I wasn’t allowed on their site because of my status as one of the lower caste non-citizens of this once great land. Since I don’t have an account I can’t see the post. But I do hope it makes some people think.

  4. Robert Curtis

    I look forward to the court’s ruling in regards to these illegal actions against citizens that have paid their debt to society.

  5. Eric Knight

    I congratulate the mayor on essentially putting out his entire defense in a public document. Such comments make Janice’s job easier and guarantees her feels will be met in a justifiably generous settlement, or if goes to trial, an even more generous judgment amount.

  6. mch

    National City huh? Well Mr. Mayor, you have much larger problems to deal with now! You say you want registered citizens to live their lives, but it’s under the conditions YOU dictate. So even if the citizen has a family and children, you really just want them to stay home, no arcade with their kids or grandkids, no beaches, no parks, no ball games, no school functions. In other words, the registered citizen is free to do what they want AT HOME and nowhere else?
    Mr. Mayor, you’re an idiot.

  7. Q

    Someone with a Facebook account needs to give “Rob Bowman” an information spanking. His comments are nothing but ignorance based speculation and conjecture based on studies done in the 90s when little was actually known about people on the registry and most of the studies themselves were nothing more than theory based speculation and much conjecture. These early studies are largely recognized as inaccurate by experts today.

    • Joe

      It is difficult to get upset about regular folks’ misconception when the ‘professionals’ are no better informed. See here.
      http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if-my-boyfriends-landlord-is-a-sex-offender-and-li-1689077.html
      (there are comments on each answer – 4 at this point)

      • Q

        Hi Joe:

        I think most people are so woefully ill informed because they get their facts from the nightly news (lame stream media) and their favorite internet news provider, and take whatever those sources say as Gospel Truth. What they are doing is in effect letting someone else tell them what to think and believe; this happens because most people aren’t willing to check the facts and see if what they are being told is true or just more sensationalistic media hype. I think the media want’s to keep the outrage the “sex offender” lie generates because it’$ in their be$t intere$t.

      • mike

        @ Joe

        What I found interesting, with all those attorney’s voicing such strong opinions in the comments and sub-comments not one mentions to her to do a simple “Megan’s list” search to see what the landlord was charged with. Obviously in their professional circle “Sex Offender” unequivocally denotes “child molester”, based on their perceived threat.

  8. none

    Could some one quote back to Rob Bowman? The study that he is referring to is only sampling 111 people.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163390.pdf
    While many other studies have samples of many hundreds to millions which are far better sample by far. I believe the study that Rob Bowmen is referring to is not strong at all and is probably in some way counterfeiting because how the study was done. Simply because there is ample of other studies with higher samples which totally contradict the recidivism rate from the ONE study that Rob Bowmen is referring to. I can tell that people pick and chose one bad study over the dozens of others just because of a self fulfilled prophecy. We need to look at better done studies especial with higher sample rates. I wish to see if this study was even peer reviewed or even accredited. Maybe some one with better resources can take a better look in to this in how the study was conducted.

  9. none

    Oh just another pointer the study is also using 251 repetitive sex offenders not just first time offenders. No wonder the study is skewed.

  10. Steve

    Thanks Joe. I followed the link and it really is amazing how UNinformed a lot of people are. I can not believe how Paula Sinclair can make such a comment about the recidivism rate of “Offenders”. Very ignorant of her.

  11. none

    Oh the study on the page that Rob Bowmen is referring to is actually the break down of repeated offenders in what type of re offence. Has absolutely nothing to do with recidivism rate in the general population. so that 50% is the type. So 5% re offence then out of that 5% is 2.5% is child molestation. Of coarse it is a portion of a study of only 251 REPEATED sex offenders. So he doesn’t actually understand the study and what it is in there in first place. Probably just glanced at it instead of reading it. But being dumb like that causes vigilantism instead of well studied out solutions.

  12. none

    mine was remove as well “were you sleeping question”..

  13. Q

    I just checked the comments again and still not there; but that Valerie Parkhurst, what a total idiot!

  14. Someone who cares

    Why would Valerie Parkhurst use her real name on a public site? If you google her name, you will see pictures in bars, getting wasted, and you will also see that she has been arrested before and has a Rap Sheet. So, these type of people’s opinions are credible? I don’t think so. Maybe, everyone can see now what type of uneducated and uninformed people give out their opinions on a topic they have probably not studied enough to sound intelligent. They should keep reading the National Enquires (where all stories are true, right) and leave the comments on something they know nothing about to the more intelligent people in this country.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.