Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to make the sex offender residency restrictions in voter-approved Jessica’s Law more workable, while still keeping the integrity of the law intact. Senate Bill 54 was designed to clarify any confusion caused by In Re Taylor, the recent decision of the California Supreme Court regarding the California Department of Corrections’ enforcement of sex offenders in San Diego County. Full Commentary
Related
Janice’s Journal: Senate Bill 54 – Is the Battle Over? Maybe, Maybe Not
Well Sharon , you may mean well but this bill like many others are not necessary . I’m sure most sex offenders would support a bill that truly protects the children. When making laws in the future lawmakers must consider that we have already paid our debt to society so stop making laws that are retroactive and I are infringing on what little rights we still have .
Ms. Runner’s integrity have been pushed into a corner and she is not smart enough to stop her rant. Actually, I hope she keeps flapping.
I would gladly give $200 to sponsor an expanded version of the “Intolerant Jackass Act” proposition.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/23/the_intolerant_jackass_act_a_brilliant_response_to_that_kill_the_gays_bill.html
LOL! Great comments follow Sen. Runner’s own article! And Sen. Runner is lying again: the Dems did NOT kill her Bill – in fact, she was given the opportunity to revise her Bill and return it to the Committee for a second hearing. It is she who FAILED to return it to Committee in a timely manner, not the Democrats.
I doubt she could return it to committee because there wasn’t anyway to change it that would pass muster. It’s a unworkable bill no matter how norrowed or tailored it is.
Strange; I can’t access this commentary from this site or the web. Oh well; I don’t want to hear her drivel anyway. 🙂
If, as George Runner said on KFIs John & Ken show shortly after the San Diego decision, there is/was nothing magical (in protecting kids) about the 2000 foot restriction, AND that the ONLY reason they picked it was that it stood up to court challenges in other states,
then HOW is it going to be effective in Sharon Runner’s “more workable” bill, even if you just limit it to level III and/or SVP offenders?
If there is no magic to it, how would it then magically change to having a the RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP to protecting children that it does not now have?