Restrictions on Where Sex Offenders Can Reside Countywide Preserved

Join the discussion

1. Robert Curtis July 31, 2014

   This law is a violation of not just constitutional law but of spiritual law and natural law. Even a
   mother bear can be with her cups but it’s not allowed for a registrant to be in a park with their child as their child’s first line of protection? Accidents happen all the time in parks. Kids fall from trees, choke on hot-dogs and do things without thinking (they’re kids for Pete sake!). Are you sure it’s wise to disallow any parent the fundamental right of being with their child in public places? REALLY? Who is liable if a registrant’s child gets hurt and their parent wasn’t allowed the right of choice to be there? Has there been any history of registered sex offenders attacking children in parks? No? Then why the law? The registry itself is a LIVING DEATH it is Evil and it is Wrong. It started from a place of darkness, fear and loss and has grown like a cancer throughout our society incarcerating even children as young as 9 years old. Why do we have probation and parole departments? To ensure those coming out are under a grinder of accountability and therapy for years prior to coming back into society. Why are we enacting laws that by their nature are designed to segregate and do harm to these people and their families after they have paid their debt to society? Where are we in pre-1945 Germany? Hitler would be quite proud. The registered sex offender has become every politician’s new whipping boy for votes. The ideal target has finally been found. Beyond native Americans, blacks or even Japanese Americans of WWII the registered sex offender…Who dares to defend them? No clergy member, politician or patriot. Truly these people are viewed as the scourge of the Earth. America can do better than having a registry that breeds these kind of draconian laws. TRUTH

   • sérviam July 31, 2014

     Robert, you hit upon a fundamental problem — in common law, a special relationship exists between a parent and a child. If a child is significantly hurt, or commits a tort against another child, for which the parent is ultimately responsible for, it is possible for their parent to be found liable of neglect. Anytime negligence arises, you have to answer the questions of duty and foreseeability — in a special relationship, duty is presumed; so was the harm that resulted from the breach foreseeable? If it was foreseeable that so-and-so child would be harmed as a result of their parent allowing them to go play at the park unsupervised then the parent is liable.

     How can such a parent avoid guilt or liability in such an instant? The answer is simple really — don’t allow your children to play at the park!

     So a better question arises therefrom — are children’s rights being infringed upon vis-a-vis the punitive consequences (not to be confused with legislative intent) of sex offender ordinances?

2. Confused July 31, 2014

   So…do the residency restrictions apply only to those on parole or probation, or all 290 registrants? Why can’t we get a solid answer on this?

   • Janice Bellucci July 31, 2014

     The issue of whether residency restrictions apply to all registered citizens or to only those on parole is currently before the California Supreme Court. California RSOL’s position is that residency restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions for many reasons including they constitute banishment in most locations. California Attorney General Kamala Harris has argued to the Court that residency restrictions are constitutional but only apply to registered citizens while on parole (and not those on probation or beyond parole). It is unlikely that the Court will make a decision on this issue before the November 2014 election because it is a controversial issue.

     • http404 August 5, 2014

       Even A.G. Harris is arguing that it is limited to parolees. My question though, is about all of the local ordinances – which Jessica’s Law allowed – to pass even stricter local statutes, and whether, by the Attorney General’s own arguments, those local ordinances would be all registrants or just those on parole. I really hope they toss the whole thing but the fact they are even hearing the case is cause for concern as it implies they felt they might rule differently than lower courts’ opinions.

       I hope “pocket parks” are presented as evidence of how this law is abused in a punitive manner.

     • Pamela August 5, 2014

       What is the name of the case that you referenced?

3. Q August 1, 2014

   Well; I suppose this is better than nothing. Hopefully they’ll just have to repeal their residency restrictions at a later date. The fact that Attorney General Kamala Harris feels that residency restrictions are only constitutional for parolees is a sign that things are indeed changing; I’ll bet her opinion would have been quite different a few years back. I’m not planning to move to Riverside County anyway, but I do spend allot of time there, so I’m glad to know that I won’t pick up a felony if I get a flat tire near one of the former restricted areas, like a school bus stop and I can now go to functions in parks and I can even go to a library or public swimming pool (NOT! People pee in those things! Yuuk!) if I so desire. Thanks again Janice. Your doing a great job for registrants and freedom in America in general.

4. cool rso guy August 2, 2014

   The JacobWetterling Resource Center (JWRC), founded after the kidnapping of the 11 year old in 1998, states: “Because residency restrictions have been shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to
   children, and may indeed actually increase the risks to kids, JWRC does not suppor residency

   Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004

   this was posted on
   http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
   http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Just%20the%20facts%202-26-14.pdf