A crusading civil rights attorney and a registered sex offender have partnered in a legal battle that has prompted dozens of California cities to repeal or revise what the pair believe are unconstitutional ordinances restricting the activities of sex offenders. Full Article
Same Article, different publication, same publisher:
Reaction
Question: How Exactly Was Sierra Madre’s Sex Offender Ordinance Put On Legal Hold?
This info from the article should be repeated and re-posted:
“Contrary to popular belief that sex offenders are “bogeymen” lurking in the shadows and preying on children while they’re at their most vulnerable, studies and statistics prove otherwise, they say.
About 95 percent of sex crimes are committed by individuals who have never previously been convicted of a sex crime, and about 93 percent of sex offenses against children are committed in private locations by persons known to the victim, not by strangers, according to a report released this year by the California Sex Offender Management Board, a group composed of law enforcement and mental health professionals who recommend new policies and practices in the oversight and treatment of sex offenders.
Furthermore, only 1.8 percent of registered sex offenders return to prison for new sex crimes, according to a 2013 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”
They have repeated the lies often enough so let us repeat the TRUTH over and over as well!
Go ! Janice ! and Frank !
There are about 8000 sex offenses per year that result in convictions. About 100-120 of those are registered sex offenders. These statistics are consistent with similar statistics around the country and over many decades. The elected officials from Carson and from San Bernardino County support laws and procedures that are oppressive to sex offenders and exhaustive to local government to address the 100 sex offenders who commit new sex offenses. They have no interest in preventing the 7900 sex offenses committed by someone other than sex offenders. They are not interested in doing any research, they are not interested in the Constitution and they are not interested in the resources they pour into preventing 100 crimes while ignoring 7900 others.
Using the logic, as set forth by members of the Carson City council, maybe city council members should be kept out of parks too.
It’s obvioul from the article below that the potential for abuse is there. How can we take the chance? It’s just too risky.
We must protect the children from these council fiends.
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/25356605/article-Kennesaw-City-Councilman–former-mayor–arrested-on-child-molestation-charges
Also, as I have said before, IF they are really concerned about “the children”, then why not have an ordinance that is taylored just to those offenders that target children?
Why does the ordinance, as they do, have to include ANYone who has to register for ANY offense?
Same with Jessica type laws. Why the residence restrictions on an RSO whose offense has naught to do with children?
I’m not saying that such a narrow ordinance would then be right or constitutional, But if that is what they are saying (it’s to protect children), then that is the narrow type of ordinance it should be.
Although the headline is a bit misleading. It should be; Pair seeks repeal of UNJUST sex offender laws in California.
Also, when speaking to these reporters i think Janice should say something like, “Some city councils just don’t let the FACTS get in the way of their decision making”.
Another thing I liked when I heard it from one Irvince city council member, when the OC DA was on the warpath trying to get cities to pass copies of the Orange County ordinance, was that “these ordinances were a solution looking for a problem”.
Why are all registrants “predators?” Is it because people are too stupid to realize that the majority of registrants do not act in a predatory manner?
I’m personally amazed the article admitted “The Sex Offender Management Board’s report also found no evidence suggesting that sex-offender registries reduce the frequency of sex crimes.”
I think Janice has her next big target: San Bernardino county. Which is the largest county in the United States, and maybe the world by area. Going after cities and repealing ordinances and presence restrictions is great. Though in a county like San Bernardino where rules are in place at that level then its best to deal with the county and then follow up with the cities informing them of changed regulations and making sure they comply.
Bravo, to Janice and Frank as well as the reporter of this article. We can only hope that others like Janice will take up the fight in other states on our behalf. I’d love to see someone like Janice in Massachusetts!
Great progress! It raises awareness which is so important.
But instead of fighting the technicalities of CA law (a loophole easily closed) I’d love to see the fight address the punitive nature of these ‘movement’ laws and end the fight once and for all.
CA could easily pass its own restrictions on movement like IL, IN, etc. Then all of this was time,’ money and talent wasted.
Cut to the heart of the matter : sue because these laws are punitive and an ex post facto violation. Not because state law trumps local.
re. Jim Black, a retired San Bernardino police officer and former sheriff’s deputy who now coordinates the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s sex offender compliance program. – I wonder if the six figure income he pulls from knocking on people’s doors all day (on top of a police pension?) has any influence on his views?
Let’s keep in mind that the bulk of this work consists of driving around, armed and with a partner, checking on people who are NOT accused of any criminal activity (administrative ‘crimes’ at the worst), snooping with neighbors, giving lectures on this and that, collecting data, entering said data, pushing paper.
Not a bad gig for $104,671.16 per year! Could that have been mentioned in the article?
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2013/san-bernardino-county/black-james-p/