|
California State 2006 -Proposition 83 Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions, and Monitoring. |
Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!
Official Summary, Pros and Cons
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. Fiscal Impact:
Net state operating costs within ten years of up to a couple hundred million
dollars annually; potential one-time state construction costs up to several
hundred million dollars; unknown net fiscal impact on local governments.
Proposition 83 Summary
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
Proposition 83 Analysis
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
Proposition 83 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
A YES vote on this measure means: Some sex offenders would serve longer
prison and parole terms. Sex offenders released from prison would be
monitored with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices while on parole and
for life after discharge from state supervision. Registered sex offenders
would not be allowed to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or park. More
sex offenders would be eligible for commitment by the courts to state mental
health facilities for treatment under the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP)
program.
A NO vote on this measure means: Current sentencing and residency laws
regarding sex offenders stay in effect. State and local agencies would
continue to have authority to monitor sex offenders with GPS devices while
on parole and probation. Requirements for placement of sex offenders into
the SVP program would not change.
|
Current Programs
|
Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."
Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 83
Senator George Runner
Assemblymember Sharon Runner
California Republican Party
(Click Vote 2006 and then CRP Voter Guide)
Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 83
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Friends Committee on Legislation
Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports
'Jessica's Law' limits raise host of questions
Legal scholars expect challenges if voters pass proposition placing restrictions on where sex offenders are allowed to live
Contra Costa Times, by John Simerman
October 16, 2006
The Predator Next Door
California Connected
Streaming Video Interviews, Produced by Coll Metcalfe
Offending the law
L.A. Times, Opinion
October 2, 2006
Editorial: No on Proposition 83
It provides a false sense of security
Sac Bee Editorial
September 19, 2006
Another View: Yes on 83
Make California's Communities Safer
Sac Bee, by Jan Scully
October 4, 2006
League of Women Voter's In Depth Analysis
Statement in Opposition to Proposition 83
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice , by Carleen Arlidge, President CACJ
Proposition 83's Protections Good
Yes on 83
Don't sign Jessica's Law - Political Scam Targets Mentally Ill Prisoners, Families
American Chronicle, Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
January 31, 2006
Visitor's Comment List
Visitor Name: Rachel Morris
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Ventura - Ventura
For me, 83 is one of the most difficult propositions to take a position on. Well I know that our children are not properly protected from sexual abuse. And this type of diseased behavior is passed from one generation to the next.
"Perhaps the biggest misconception is that child sexual abuse is not common. In fact, the CDC study, which involved more than 17,000 adults, found that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys have been victims of abuse by the time they reach the age of consent, and that the effects are long-standing."
-Sun-Sentenial.com
However, I also know that the prison system is a for-profit industry. That we are loosing our civil rights at an alarming rate. The Bill of Rights has been denuded, torture is approved, arrest with out due process, and on and on.
"Correctional officials see danger in prison overcrowding. Others see opportunity. The nearly two million Americans behind bars—the majority of them nonviolent offenders—mean jobs for depressed regions and windfalls for profiteers"
-The Atlantic Online
So here's the part that's got me worried. from page 136 of the official guide:
"(b) Every inmate who has been convicted for any felony violation of a “registerable sex offense” described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290 or any attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses and who is committed to prison and released on parole pursuant to Section 3000 or 3000.1 shall be monitored by a global positioning system for life."
I see vulnerability for abuse here too. I'd love to hear what other UU's think on this one.
Peace and Health,
-Rachel
Visitor Name: Brad Abrams
Congregation: Non UU
VOTE "NO" ON PROP!
Proposition 83 has its own supporters saying that they know it has many flaws in it and that it would be unconstitutional if made retroactive. Why would we want to pass a law that will be plagued with so many problems? California law already prohibits convicted child molesters released from prison to live within 1300 or 1400 feet of a school. All those deemed Sexuall Violent Predators have to wear GPS tracking devices.
Here is what will happen if we do not pass this proposition....Nothing, all of our current laws still stay in place.
For those of you not aware, Governor Schwarzenegger on September 20, 2006 sign two new sex offender bills into law. Both bills are identical in nature to Prop 83 but they do not have the controversial zoning restrictions (SB1128). The other bill requires mandatory GPS monitoring of certain released sex offenders. Both of these bills are now the law.
The other thing we should consider, that no one really has, is the ramifications to the families of these registered sex offenders. These people will be uprooted from their homes, jobs and possibly family. Thousands of these people are married and have children they are raising and caring for. The supporters have taken the focus away from those that do pose a threat to our communities and they want us to focus in on all 90,000 registered sex offenders. Police will lose sight of those that are a threat.
The State of Iowa, two years ago, was the very first state to implement a zoning restriction for convicted sex offenders. There law was made retroactive. As of today, crime victim support groups, the District Attorneys Association and numerous law enforcement official are trying to have the law repealed. It has created more harm than good. Its a feel good law that has a knee jerk reaction when you tell the public its a law aimed against child molesters....its not. It's aimed at everyone that has to register as a sex offender.
We can not allow these people to get away with trying to get a proposition passed that will banish people from society. Not every registered sex offender is a child molester. What ever happend to giving people a second chance after making a mistake. Lets remember what the Bible says in Romans 2:1-4
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Thank you and God Bless
Visitor Name: Stephanie Gooding
Congregation: UU Outside of California
This is a great website that tells you everything you want to know about Jessica's Law. It has caused terrible problems in other states
http://www.1union1.com/Jessicaslaw...Noway.htm
Here you can view a short video documentary about it that appeared on TV, Calfornia Connected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejYvfMK1HM8&search=California%20kids%20propositions%2085%2090
It's a campaign paid for gps devices and a politician running for office supported by the prison guards designed to keep the prisons stocked with fresh humans. It will do nothing to protect children as 90% of child molestations occur within families/friends. It will take a mobilization the size of Iraq to enforce such a law and the hundreds of millions of dollars that could be invested in the prevention of mental illness at the core of this problem would be going toward more of a police state.
Recidivism for child molesters is less than 5% according to the Bureau of Justice, when the refer to "sex offenders" they are talking about kids who were arrested for peeing outside, streaking, and they propose to lump all of these people into one category.
The CCPOA who donated to it originally has now come out against it, crime victims groups have come out against it too. Most of the major media have urged a "NO" vote.
Stephanie Gooding
Visitor Name: Fred Lopez
Congregation: Non UU
Let's not forget who else is against proposition 83. The California Coalition Against Sexual Abuse and The National Alliance to End Sexaul Violence are both against residency restrictions. Both of these organizations help crime victims.
Kidnappings and murders of innocent children, while both horrific and tragic, are not things that happen everyday. The unfortunate thing is that when it does happen it gets a lot of media attention. Less than 50 children per year are abducted and murdered by a mentally ill person. While the last couple of high profile cases on television involved a convicted sex offender that isn't always the case. The death of an innocent child is always terrible, but lets stop and think about just how many young children a drunk driver kills? Over 2000 children per year are killed in drunk driver related accidents. Yes, slightly different circumstances, but the death of one child should not be any different than the death of another.
Domestic Violence, now here's an interesting one. I just found out that over 75 children per year are killed at home by a parent after suffering years of abuse. Social Workers being called in all the time to have the child looked at. Taken from their home and then giving the abused child back to their parents who end up murdering them.
Proposition 83 will do nothing to protect our children. All of the small cities around major metropolitain areas will be the dumping grounds for sex offenders. Those small cities are not adequately equipt to monitor thousands of offenders. Let's not forget we have 90,000 plus with an estimated 8,000 more being released from prison every year. The children in those cities will now be in danger because we are going to have offenders, very upset and distraught over the fact that they are being exiled from their homes and family, thank you Brad for that interesting fact.
Our politicians should be focusing more on treatment programs instead of banishment programs. If treatment centers work for alchoholics and drug users then they will work for sex offenders. While in prison a good book that the state should provide a convicted sex offender is "Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at A Time" by Stephen Arterburn and New Life Ministries.
Let's not get caught up in the hysteria. You have the tools and resources to get answers. We should also take a leson from Iowa. They are having nightmares out there now because of it. Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association, says his state's criminal prosecutors are calling for the repeal of a similar law because it is doing more harm than good. "It gives you the impression of providing safety. But when you look at the evidence, it's really not going to provide the protection that people would like." Read the Sacramento Bee article with an interview of Corwin Ritchie from Iowa. http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/68966.html
Let's be smart and vote NO on this horid proposition. Lets fix the so called problem with treatment not banishment.
UU Legislative Ministry
717 K St # 514
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 441-0018
admin@uulmca.org