California eases Jessica’s Law restrictions for some sex offenders

When California voters approved Jessica’s Law in 2006, the goal was simple: to keep sex offenders away from children. The sweeping measure prohibited all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks where children gather, regardless of whether their crimes involved children.

The law left large swaths of neighborhoods off-limits to these parolees, creating consequences that not everyone expected. Sex offenders were pushed into industrial areas, homeless camps and other remote locations. In Harbor Gateway, officials even built pocket parks to help make larger portions of the community fall under the Jessica’s Law restrictions. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

what do you wanna bet the PO’s are gonna come up with some asinine excuse why we don’t qualify?

“NEXUS” being that we’re SO’s

I wonder if being on parole is better than staying there through the end of the sentence. Although incarceration is living hell, I’m not sure that the conditions of release and parole aren’t a greater burden. If that time after parole eligibility and end of actual sentence can be useful and productive, especially with regard to counseling and job prep, it may be worth it. I know this statement will be controversial, however after a look at the conditions of release and supervision, it may do some better to avoid the entire parole loop.

My loved one, who’s alleged crime was against a 21 year old, has been told by his P.O. that because of changes to this law, both residency and presence restrictions will not apply to him. As stated in this article, he will still be required to wear a GPS monitor. My question is why monitor someone that doesn’t have residency and presence restrictions? And Janice & Co., once the dust settles with this tiered registry issue, can we get the wheels in motion to challenge Jessica’s Law???

AJ – This was an out of state conviction, with a sentence that required registration but lacked the GPS requirement (which the state of conviction doesn’t require). His Interstate Compact transferred his post-prison supervision to Calif. Hence, he’s subject to California laws, so I guess you could say it was court ordered indirectly. Due to the Supreme Court case in San Diego, residency and most presence restrictions were lifted. Establishments who primarily serve alcohol are off limits, so I guess that combined with the 50 mile restriction justifies the GPS anklet. While our family is new to this mess, already we see the discomfort and humiliation it will cause for someone who has already paid his dues by being wrongly incarcerated. These laws are so draconian……