Prop. 35 belongs in scrap heap of flawed initiatives (Editorial)

California voters could not resist the chance to condemn human trafficking and sex offenders who prowl the Internet. In 2012, they approved Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, with 81.3 percent of ballots cast. The vote was as predictable as it was unfortunate.

Powerful though it was politically, the initiative is a prime example of why, with rare exceptions, criminal law should not be written by initiative promoters. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made that clear last week by striking down the Proposition 35 requirement that registered sex offenders provide law enforcement authorities with their Internet handles and email addresses. Full Editorial

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sic semper to laws based on ignorance and fear. (Sorry, didn’t; know how to say the last part in lain).

I think they had similar laws against witches in Salem in 1962.
Little difference really, as most ignorant people TODAY want to burn ANYone who has to register alive.

And the people that pushed ex post facto punishment clauses and violation of inherent constitutional rights, also belong in the scrap heap of flawed human beings.

I know we are supposed to restrain ourselves but at some point, and in response to the slander and rhetoric we are subjected to daily and the huge amount of collateral damage to our children and families, I believe this comment is appropriate…

Chief 1st Amendment Opponent Ociffer ( mispelling intended ) Chris Kelly, instead of meeting with all 50 Attornies General on the Facebook dime, should have instead spent that time and money treating his alcoholism. Is this guy ever photographed without a mixed drink in his hand? What message is this guy sending to the drunk drivers who kill and maim? I also wonder how many campus rapes were encouraged by and were a result of Facemash, predecessor of Facebook, where college women were objectified and demeaned?

Just wondering aloud, since the 1st Amendment applies to all.

This Proposition although struck down it is still being used by the Orange County DA to arrest people in OC? Many people are being charged with pimping and trafficking. The odd thing is on how they creatively define such activities. Seems if Prop. 35 was struck down they wouldn’t be able to use it.

http://orangecountyda.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=2&Entry=4598