Editorial: New residency restrictions help officers keep better tabs on high risk sex

Admin

The numbers are alarming. California voters thought they had locked down all sex offenders in the state, preventing them from living near where children congregated. But a change in policy spurred by a court decision has dropped that number under the state’s residency restriction from 100 percent to 24 percent. Full Article

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

Hey Sharon!!!!! READ!!!!!!!!

0
Reply

“The California Sex Offender Management Board, made up of district attorneys, counselors, judges, probation officers, police chiefs and others directly involved in the issue, have long advocated a similar approach. It’s one that we agree with.”

Anyone notice a trend in all the people who have a say in what gets written up for proposals? No defense lawyers, public defenders, civil rights groups or anyone else who is looking out for fairness. While the new restrictions may help law enforcement, do they do anything to help those affected by them? When will there be a two sided or multi sided conversation on these topics? I don’t care what makes someone’s job easier, I do care if public servants are wasting resources and time not fixing the real problems by crap like all the regulations, laws, and codes on the books.

0
Reply

I actually think ol Sharon is trying to get little kids molested! How could it be anything else? That is unless she is so stupid that she disregards the advice of district attorneys, counselors, judges, probation officers, police chiefs and others directly involved in the issue to continue her grudge mission. I suspect Sharon may have been molested at some time in the past or harbors a secret attraction to pre pubescent little boys. It’s the axiom of those that scream the loudest are usually the ones that need to be watched.

0
View Replies (2)

I would just like to know how to figure out what risk assessment have, who can tell me and whether or not I am restricted. I don’t believe they are enforcing the restriction in Riverside area, but can’t get a straight answer from the Sheriffs department. How can anyone figure this out when it keeps changing?

0