On Feb. 7th, Fullerton City Council unanimously repealed an unconstitutional ordinance.
The city ordinance, No. 3149, made it a misdemeanor for sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of daycares, schools and parks. The state law the city now defers to will allow any sex offender not on parole or specifically prohibited by the court to live anywhere they wish.
While the repealing of the ordinance is constitutional, it still puts children in more danger. Full Article
No.
1. Not all sex offenses involve children.
2. Not all sex offenses involving children are the same. For example two sixteen year olds having sex in California is illegal and could result in one or both participants having to register. Neither likely is a danger to others just because they had sex. Enforcing living restrictions in this example does nothing beneficial.
3. Instead of coming up with utter nonsense after the fact how about working on resolving the problem by stopping it from becoming a problem before it becomes one? The fewer sex offenses committed the less need for widespread focus on dealing with their aftermath. Time after time people declare that no more victims is the ultimate goal. Well its been the right time to follow through on the goal for decades, perhaps even longer. The problem is not enough regulation and restrictions and monitoring and supervision, it is not doing enough to insure people do not get within thinking range of considering doing things that might lead them years later to be at risk for committing an offense or being a victim of an offense.
They are repeating the claim of “children being in danger” audaciously enough for everyone to believe that we need more tough laws to pass in order to make the world safe and to keep children safe. These people think that they will never commit a crime in their lifetime, and don’t care to realize these laws will effect literally everyone even especially politicians that want tough sex offender registry laws to pass. For example, if Chris Smith gets caught doing a crime related to a sex offense would he be required to be on the registry, and if he ever travels overseas as a registrant, would he have to comply to the very bill (IML) that he deliberately presented to the congress and that got passed?
Wow! I didn’t know a journalism student could so easily buy into the stranger danger and fear mongering political garbage!
How sad. I hope her professor fails her for doing no research before publishing such trash.