California Sex Offenders Now Required to Wear a GPS for life. Is This Right?

Question

California's Proposition 83, which passed by a margin of 70 percent to 30 percent, requires convicted felony sex offenders to be monitored by GPS for life.
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop83/analysis83.html

Bill O'Reilly wont stop touting this idea. But Iam flat-out against this.

I think felony sex offenders belong in prison. A GPS is not a physical crime-stopping barrier, It wont prevent crime especially since they use "passive" tracking, which produces reports about where offenders have been, not where they are.

There are plenty of petty drug offenders in our jails. Why dont we let them out and put the rapists back in instead of tagging them like sheep to walk among us?

I understand why California voters passed this, they want action. But doesnt this go to far without really solving the problem?

Is a GPS a good alternative to incarceration?

"Zurvan".....BINGO

Answer 1

The first few posters don't have a clue as to what they're talking about - strictly speaking from the emotions rather than from logic. Because California has been registering sex offenders since 1947 and Megan's List goes back to 1944, the felony sex offenders who did molest children did their offenses WAY back (like 40 years ago) and we don't think it proper to put someone in state prison for life for child molesting (25 years, but not life). And since California has something like 107 different offenses that qualify someone for a sex offender in this state, many of these are felony sex offenders, but the majority are not child molesters.

I wonder when society is going to realize that a sex offender is an offender but not necessarily a child molester or child rapist.

Also some of you stated that they should clear out the petty thieves and place the sex offenders back into prison. Ever hear of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Ex post facto? Do these concepts ring a bell with anyone? Once you have paid the consequences at the time of sentencing, the government cannot re-arrest you to pay additional consequences for the same offense.

I seriously doubt if the GPS requirement will go through. The state currently has 1,000 high risk sex offendes on GPS. This initiative is talking about placing 80,000 anklets on felony sex offenders. The cost is astronomical and seriously limited technologically. The California Department of Corrections has a hard enough time handling the 1,000. Multiply that by 80 and it's nearly impossible.

Two other considerations - the state has not had an epidemic of sexual offending by strangers, never has. Most of these stranger danger cases have happened in other states and opportunistic politicians (Sharon and George Runner, sponsors of 83) have taken advantage of the public hysteria. We do have interfamilial child sex abuse cases, as do all states. Yet GPS will not work within homes. Expensive and useless technology.

The other consideration - the politicians who were up for reelection wanted 83, the public wants it, but the experts who deal with the problem day in and day out (parole agents, the California Coalition on Sex Offending, CALCASA (84 sexual assault advocacy centers), and many, many others thought it was a red herring.

It's hardly a liberal judge thing letting people out of prison. If anything, California is a punitive state when it comes to criminal justice system. But our prisons are extremely overcrowded. We just went on a prison building spree to build spaces for 100,000 prisoners in the past 20 years; we now have 173,000 in state prison alone. The feds have threatened to take it over. This propsotion will just add to the problem and may be the tipping point to a federal take over.

You reap what you sow. California has been in a get tough on crime for a long time, but the taxpayers don't want to pay the bill. something's got to give.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

You raise a good question. I don't believe that ANYONE should have to wear a GPS, register on any list, report to a probation officer, etc...
Why? Well, the answer is simple... Once a person serves his/her time, that should be "it". The fact of the matter is that if certain criminals are still seen as being a risk then there should be some major reform with respect to the sentencing guidelines.

But in my opinion there should also be a great deal of reform with regards to exactly what constitutes a sex crime. There are people who are being imprisoned for having sexual relations with people who are not much younger than they are. The age of eighteen years should not automatically deem someone as being a sex offender. For example, if a young boy who is dating a 16 year old girl turns 18, should that boy then be considered as committing a crime simply because he is now 18 years old? I think not.

Answer 4

The government is really dumb. The whole judical system is so messed up it isn't funny. The put these sex offenders that commited rape go off on these tracking devices so then they have another rape so they can make money off the court case. Also, the government we should know by now is not looking for best intrust in citizens. They would lock up a 18 year old boy for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend even though they are born a day apart. The would charge him with rape just because the courts so stupid, it happened to me. I think that maybe people need to stop electing theses stupid political figures that screw everyone over for there shitts and giggles. These congressman don't care if someone get raped. If there is no room in prisons let the drug dealers, robers, and fraud take the GPS and stop charging rape on men over the age of 18 that are having sex with their girlfiends that maybe younger then them because it is not rape it is ******** having sex with a minor

Answer 5

If we had killed all of those sex offenders in the first place, kids wouldn't have been molested and raped and some wouldn't have turned into sex offenders themselves, because of what happened to them in the 2nd place. There would have been a smaller number of sex offenders today. And what about the repeatly sex offenders? What the hell happend to 3 strikes?

Answer 6

Yeah but, Not all convictions for felony sex offenders result in a sentence of Life in prison... So for those who get realeased eventually , I think getting every tool to keep the public safe should be used...Including but not limited to...GPS

Answer 7

I also think that felony sex offenders belong in prison. But the reality is, there are soft-on-crime liberal lawyers, especially in California, who have a lot of influence in getting these people freed.

There are simply too many loopholes, too many pansy-assed judges, and too many liberal politicians who don't want these offenders in jail. So maybe the GPS idea is the public's next recourse.

.

Answer 8

Soon enough people will be having to wear this GPS system for even the most minor crime.

Answer 9

I think the sex offender shoud be locked up in a room with the victim's family. They get baseball bats of course.

Answer 10

As a victim of a sex offenders problems...yes they deserve whatever they get...no child deserves to be violated by any man(so-called man ne way)