Orange County’s longstanding effort to ban sex offenders from parks and beaches has been stymied again. Concerns from legislators that the proposal by Assemblyman William “Bill” Brough, R-Dana Point, might conflict with a recent state Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state ban on where sex offenders can live prompted him to withdraw it from consideration for this legislative session.
Brough said he plans to introduce a new version next year. Full Article
Related
OK, so the guy didn’t learn a thing and just wants to circumvent the courts…good to know.
I emailed the writer of that article the following message along with all the reports I collected maybe they’ll read them.
Adding more restrictions and regulations on ex-sex offenders is completely counterproductive since it further destabilizes their lifes and makes it more difficult to reintergrate into society which increases the risk for reoffense. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to track and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abducters/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences people endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders for such long periods of time.
Here are some facts from the leading authorities on the subject of sex offender legislation.
Not mentioned in the story was the fact that Brough’s office was heavily targetted with letters from CA RSOL members and other citizens. As I stated in another thread, this was the PRIMARY reason Brough pulled the bill. The plain fact is they didn’t even mention the Constitution in reasons why this bill is not considered passable is telling. Brough’s staff were totally flummoxed with the correspondence that we pummeled them with, and they had no ready answers.
I will be blunt: Brough is not looking to see how this is “constitutional.” He will look at ANYTHING to get this bill passed through non-transparent means, so we must still be diligent. I honestly think he thought this bill, just because it had tremendous support by the sheeple/public, would be a song and dance to pass. (Remember, Prop 35 was a sneak attack that attempted to make a sex offender law; the Huns will always be at the gate.)
At the very least we may have stopped a political career from taking off on the backs of registrants.
Poorly written article ….or intentionally misleading? The writer blames Democrats for stopping the Bill and mentions CSOMB as if it were a Democrat-created offender-coddling agency. The writer is clearly providing cover for Brough’s unworkable bill. Welcome to O.C.! No critical thinking skills required!
WOW…they’re FINALLY starting to listen to the California Sex Offender Management Board!!! Someone pinch me…I must be dreaming.
If people post comments at the article’s location they may be read by people who do not follow CA RSOL. Otherwise, we may just be talking among ourselves.
I think the article was pretty straight forward. Chairman Quirk’s staff looked at the bill, the recent Supreme Court cases and the changing dynamics on the Supreme Court and concluded that passing the bill would have pretty much forced cities who have had these laws to either re-enact them or look like they are supporting RSOs. Then these cities are destined to lose again and again. Why not just stop the stupidity and follow the law?
The key to the Supreme Court’s thinking about all this has to do with the phrase “blanket restriction”. They don’t mind cases-by-case restrictions when circumstances warrant it, but the laws that diminish liberty interests or privacy rights as blanket restrictions is unconstitutional. I think there are many restrictions on RSOs that could fall under this category. We only need to make the case.
I’m not sure why Quirk would have a different logic for SB 267 than he has for AB 201, but I think we are done for now.
Quirk did not and will not comment upon SB 267 because it is a Senate bill and he is a member of the Assembly. Quirk is in fact Chairman of the Public Safety Committee before which AB 201 was headed.
Many of us mobilized and wrote/called and drove or flew to Sacramento in opposition to AB201 and SB267. AB201 is dead, now we must concentrate on SB267. I am suggesting that anyone who lives in or near Sacramento attend the Senate Public Safety Committee meeting at the State Capitol on May 12 to show your opposition to this bill and your support to Janice and CARSOL. You may have the opportunity to line up, approach a microphone, and state that you oppose this bill but no identifying info is collected. This is a chance for those of you in that area to join in and stand up to be counted! Please stand behind Janice and support your rights!!