The Riverside County Board of Supervisors are expected to repeal Ordinance 902, the ordinance that sets rules on where sex offenders can live or visit. The board decided to appeal the ordinance on the advice of legal counsel following Appeals Court rulings on similar ordinances in nearby areas as unconstitutional.
Third District Supervisor Jeff Stone registered a “No” vote, making a strong political statement on the subject during the July 1 meeting. Full Article
Amazing; simply amazing. These people act as though they actually have a choice, at least with the presence restrictions. These people actually believe that presence and residency restrictions actually address something! If the state supreme court ruled some of these ordinances are unconstitutional even the most marginal of thinkers would realize that would make them illegal.
I’ve often pondered the question of why so many people know so little about the true nature of these laws and the registry in general, and why people are so willing to believe anything they are told to be unarguable fact. It’s pretty clear the supervisors wish to appear “tough,” yet know if they don’t repeal these ordinances they “would be legally challenged and most likely lose.” Doesn’t that mean they are in the wrong? Or does it mean the state is picking on them for no reason what so ever?
Perhaps these supervisors could still appear “tough” and actually do some good. All they would need to do is stop obsessing on a group who has throughout the years been proven to be the most least likely to be any kind of a problem and focus their laws, rhetoric and posturing on those that have historically proven to be a problem.
All this talk of replacement ordinances to “reflect state law?” The only way these people can do that is to repeal and forget about it. Then find a real problem to pursue.
A Better Path to Community Safety below in link:
http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%203-21-14%20(2).pdf
I’m not really surprised that Jeff Stone essentially went on record to state he doesn’t support the constitution that he has sworn to protect. It’s ridiculous that his chief of staff should try to explain him. He has consistently proven that he is incapable of reasonable forethought and that he wants to be “tough on crime” as opposed to smart on crime. It scares me that he’s running for state senate this fall. Hopefully his opponents will use his gross negligence against him.
Do we really need another politician in Sacramento that’s going to stand their ground and try to hold up progress out of pure stubbornness to satisfy their ego and personal agenda? Regardless of constitutionality? That’s too costly.
Unapproved
5 hours ago
Murray & Wonderin
I strongly suggest you both check out the 2014 tiering report by the California Sex Offender Management Board.
(“yup; it’s censrship”)