California’s sex offender laws are blanket policies that may not properly capture all of the nuances needed in various communities. While the state has laws that restrict where sex offenders can live, it is clear that communities know best where local children are most vulnerable and it is critical that local authorities have the necessary tools to protect them.
Jessica’s Law already prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, but it does not restrict them from spending time in parks, community centers or other places where children may gather. Local jurisdictions need the authority to pass their own laws tailored to their individual community’s concerns. Full Commentary
State Sen. Connie M. Leyva, D-Chino, represents the 20th Senate District. Assemblyman Marc Steinorth, R-Rancho Cucamonga, represents the 40th Assembly District. The are the Co-Authors of SB 267
Related
California RSOL to lobby in Sacramento April 13/14
And there it is.
Somewhere behind every gentle breeze, a raging storm grows.
The sheeple will read “protect children” and forget anything else said before or after…
It will never stop unless we get registration as a whole overturned. This is reality and even though the small victories are great it will not end without overturning registration as a whole. So untill organizations are willing to challenge sex offender registration and notification laws we can just expect it to get worse and worse. I hate to be pessimistic but that’s reality.
Not even going to bother reading the rest of the article after the first several paragraphs because this is just ANOTHER DO GOODER FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR CAREER, that is ignorant of the actual facts about people on the registry, calling for the state to sanction the removal of our rights by individual cities (what we have been fighting). Here is another kook who doesn’t know what she is talking about in rearguards to people forced to register.
She is asking for the state to allow individual cities to create and enforce presence restrictions; she calls them “safety zones.”
Let’s be honest here. The “spirit of SB 267” is not to empower local authorities to keep kids safe, it is to empower local authorities to oppress registrants beyond the scope of the current state law and to exploit those same registrants for political gain. If they truly wanted to keep kids safe, they would keep them away from family, clergy, family friends and relatives, etc…the ones who commit over 90% of all sex crimes against children. “Stranger Danger” is a myth!
More alarmist dribble from a skewed and prejudiced source that apparently thinks that mom & pop administration of complicated criminal justice matters is best handled in the sandbox by constitutional midgets – and that’ being kind…
Well that’s one Democrat we know not to vote for and tell all our friends and family members not to vote her either
The co-authors of lame267 need to honor their oath of public service and protect defend the Constitution …furthermore ..those derelict of duty failures need a Robert. Kennedy law onto them as well …..during your breaks….during your lunch..take the time to read the Constitution ………….just as Mr. Kennedy told the sheriff and district attorney of Kern county california .
I say screw it all… If you’re on parole/probation you got your restrictions… when you are off parole/probation its over… and this is how I feel about the registration, once you are done you are off it
Since these local city governments have staff psychologists, criminal justice professionals, specialized facilities and resources, and the money to rehabilitate “serious” offenders, they should reimburse the State for all prosecution, incarceration and rehabilitation costs for every registrant living in their jurisdictions and those who run afoul of their municipal restrictions.
Then they can show the CDCR how it is done and properly administer justice. They should write this into their code as well. It might just then start to dawn on them the enormity and complexity of this problem and MAYBE this will be a spark in some long dormant minds. Leave the big jobs to the big players and focus on civic administration and quality of life statutes such as graffiti abatement and overnight parking restrictions – something they can handle with the resources (and brain power) currently at hand.
Unconstitutional. Unnecessary. Tries to “solve” a problem that does not exist. Needlessly disrupts the lives of people who are struggling to get over the past and put together a better present and future.
Politicians like this try to turn the populace into “infants for life”—-in permanent need of so-called ‘protection’. Here is my attitude: when white male politicians claim they are trying to protect you or your family, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.
What’s interesting is how the government has so much power over what is taught about government in our public schools.
It’s no wonder most of us are duped into trusting it and it’s leaders.
This is no more than re-election politics and preying, no, political predators, preying on the innocent childlike minds of the ignorant voting public. Sure, let the locals take care of it, but let the locals pay for it too! Local governments are totally dependent on the state and federal teats they suck dry, forcing taxpayers to fork over some new “fee”.
All of Kalifornia is so screwed up, from the high speed rail from Fresno to Madera (30 miles) to the state created water shortage. Soon there will be no more of anything for anybody. Perhaps the impending economic disaster would be in our favor? This stupid state can’t even get the court ordered Megan’s list updates right. That’s class action suit time or just shut the damn thing down.
In the comment section of the article I kept posting (3x) the facts of them matter and how the Runners lied and the court finding…in short the FACTS and EVIDENCE re these residency and presence restriction….and “they” kept deleting the post.
Last time I started off by saying if the post was deleted, I wanted to know why.
They didn’t tell me
So I trimmed it all down to this. Lets see if it lasts:
A few days after the court ruling George Runner, the co-sponsor of Prop. 83/Jessica’s Law, was on KFI’s John and Ken show where he admitted that “THERE WAS NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT 2000 ft.” .
He further admitted that the ONLY reason that they selected 2000 ft. was that that was the number that passed legal challenges in other states.
The ONLY reason?
But, George, you and told us that 2000 feet was what was NEEDED to protect our children.
That our children would be SAFE, from sexual assault, if no RSOs lived within 2000 ft of a school or park.
Now you tell us that it was just a made up number?
So that must mean that “children were safer because of it” was made up too.
NOW they want us to buy into this new plan, based on the old?
Well, Fool me once….
So in theory, if this passes, we would no longer be permitted to travel to beaches parks or anywhere where children gather. Add to that the international travel ban. Doesn’t that truly make us prisoners again? I believe lawmakers will be the one’s that end the registry.
The thing is, once these politicians fail to get this dishonest and ruinous measure through the legislature they will repackage it as an initiative for the vote of the people. This has always worked for them – viz Proposition 83 and the more recent sex trafficking measure (which didn’t limit itself to sex trafficking.) Yes, we see that an increasing number of people are seeing through these vicious laws, but I wouldn’t hold my breath until a majority finally votes against such a measure.
The law would, of course, start a rapid race to the bottom, in which municipalities compete to have the “toughest” laws in their vicinity.