California Voters?

Question

Are you going to vote for Prop 83.

Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:
Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. Prohibits residence near schools and parks. Requires Global Positioning System monitoring of registered sex offenders.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/prop/83/

Answer 1

I'm all for it, those pyschos need at the very least to be kept track of if not put to death for their crimes agianst children. They make me sick.

Answer 2

This law will require tens of thousands of California registered sex offenders (and their families) who live within 2,000 feet of a school or park to move. That is only one provision, but it seems to be the most controversiaMF The rest of the initiative, except for the GPS requirements, has drawn little attention. The initiative would also allow muncipalities to add more areas that are off timits.

However, as the initiative is currently written, all sex offenders will have to move, not just child molesters, but skinny dippers, Romeo and Juliet romancers and prostitutes, among others.

All this without an iota of evidence that exclusionary zones do anything to keep children safe. Do you really think if a child molester wants to molest that they can't get in their car and find a child? Do you really believe that sex offenders are hanging out in schools and parks looking for the next child to grab? Of course not! Statistics show that the greatest majority (90%+) of child molestation is committed in the home by a trusted adult: father, step father, uncle, older brother, older sister, family friend, coach, etc. So while you're worrying about stranger danger and not noticing, a trusted family friend or relative could be harming your child. The statistics don't lie, and they are much more at risk of someone they know than someone they don't!

Senator George Runner in a newspaper article last year told the reporter that he included the 2,000 foot requirement because Iowa had a similar provision, not because research showed it a prudent move. And do you know what? The Iowa County Attorneys Association is pressuring the Iowa State Legislature to get rid of that provision, because so many sex offenders have gone underground. Many are homeless; Many families have been split up, and it has caused chaos and increased law enforcement responsibilities without providing a safer environment.

The California Coalition on Sex Offending has also come out against the initiative, because it would make communities more dangerous. Studies have shown that when former sex offenders have stable lives and counseling that they are less likely to re-offend. This will drive them away and the chances are some will be more likely to re-offend.

Also Georgia has passed similar laws, although the list of areas where sex offenders and their families can't live is a mile long. It includes the 150,000+ school bus stops in the state, as well as schools, parks, day cares, churches, etc. etc etc. It is so restrictive that sex offenders and their families have nowhere to live in that state. Two civil rights organizations have filed a lawsuit in federal court.

So carry this to its logical conclusion: if all states become notorious witch hunters as Georgia, there will nowhere for registered sex offenders and their families to live.

Would someone care to explain to me why that can possibly be considered constitutional? How can one goal (to keep the public safe) utterly annihilate the privacy and constitutional rights of former sex offenders (and their families) without the constitution being violated? And if it succeeds, one can bet that other classes of "hated" people who soon find themselves banned from the U.S.

It's a very slippery slope and a very dangerous line of thinking!

Answer 3

I'm not sure. I'm against public disclosure of criminal records and criminal's addresses if they've paid their dues to society. No, I doubt I will. It's too intrusive and offends me. Rather than panic over sex offenders we should try to understand why and how it happens, change the way we deal with them when they are convicted, perhaps increase sentence time, or see if therapy might work, understand the effects of the multi-billion dollar porn industry on people at risk, and completely revamp our thinking. The police are too powerful already. Society must shoulder some responsibility and put up monies and do some hard rethinking of the issues. I'd rather vote for something along those lines.

Answer 4

I'll have to read the measure. With California, you have to be careful. Our CA measures always have other crap riding on it, and when supporters promote the issue, they don't tell you about all the other BS that the voters will be voting for. Hell, for I know, they may try to give $1,000 to each illegal entering California and a voucher for a 3-night stay at the Hilton.

But if that is the gist of the measure, I'm all for it.

Answer 5

As much as I hate that kind of crime, I think it's going overboard. The penalties are usually pretty harsh, as they should be, and I believe they should be stiff.

But, once someone has paid the price of their crime, I don't think they should have to spend the rest of their life as an outcast....I truly believe that it's best to have the OPPORTUNITY to put that stuff behind you, and live a good life.

Of course, some will commit crimes after their release, and they should be locked up, and throw away the key....I just don't think it's right for rehabilitated people to suffer forever because of a few bad apples.

Answer 6

You can get away with rape if you are son of a State Senator, and never become a registered sex offender.

Personally, I think it's dangerous for government to GPS anyone, especially when they operate like this. I like women my age, but I'd get convicted before a guilty Senator's Son.

So who will be wearin it?

Answer 7

Yes.

Answer 8

Sounds like it won't work, but will make people FEEL safer.

Answer 9

hell yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i dont care if it costs me taxes. these sick bastards need to be monitered.