A critic of Prop. 83
| Dan Weintraub has throw his hat into the small ring of critics of Jessica's Law, aka Proposition 83 on the November ballot. Are there better ideas? Well, California already has a residency ban that applies to sex offenders convicted of crimes against children, and even uses GPS tracking in selected cases. Doing more to keep truly dangerous sex offenders behind bars -- where they don't need to be monitored with GPS -- would be better. And educating parents to be mindful of the people with whom they leave their children would probably be the most effective deterrent of all. |
posted by Shane Goldmacher at 10:13 AM
Comments on "A critic of Prop. 83"
-
Anonymous said ... (10:48 AM) :
post a commentAny professional who works in the field of sexual offences knows that 93% of child molestations occur within families--a sad but true fact. The recitivism rate of sexual offenders generally is 3.5%, so intervention and counselling are very productive, cost effective, and appropriate. In extreme cases where a sexually violent predator or serial killer is at work, the facts of the case are very troubling, and current laws deal with forcable rape and murder quite harshly--and rightfully so. But unfortunately the American public impression of sex crimes is stuck on the images of the one case in a thousand--the Jessica's. People die in auto accidents every day. The photographs of the worst of these crashes are enough to make you puke! But we don't outlaw automobiles, because millions of drivers use cars for safe, expedient transportation. Our society was based on rights of the individuals, balanced against the safety of the public. We allow private ownership of firearms, despite the fact that they are occasionally used to kill people. We could look at grotesque photographs of gunshot victims and simply outlaw guns; but we do not. Because it's a balancing act. This country is the only industialized nation to practice capital punishment. The rest of the developed world thinks we're out of our minds, and will not extradite criminals to our jurisdiction if they face the death penalty. "A bullet to the head?" Wow, that's murder, and the last time I looked murder was worse than touching your neice above her knees! And that is what most of these molestation cases are all about. Any professional knows this. Amateurs think otherwise; and amateurs wrote this idiotic proposition that our legislature repeatedly refused to enact because it's just plain crazy...mean, illogical, and crazy. Unfortunately, the U.S. does mean, illogical, and crazy better than just about anybody. What is not so well publicized is that proposition 83 would also amend several sections of California's Penal Code, including changing section 667.5 to treat nonviolent sodomy and "lewd and lascivious acts" as if they were violent felonies, imposing longer prison sentences and prohibiting probation. The terms " lewd" and "lascivious" are vaguely defined, so it is possible that engaging in consensual acts in bathroom stalls, mooning a train, or making a rude hand gesture seen by a child could land people in prison. For the enhancement of prison terms for some acts, the words "by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person" are deleted from the code. As noted by the rebuttal to the argument in favor of 83, Iowa in 2001 enacted legislation similar to Proposition 83, and now the Iowa County Attorneys Association (ICAA) advocates its repeal because it has been ineffective, has created a drain on law enforcement resources, and has inflicted excessively high costs on taxpayers. If Proposition 83 is passed, a 19-year old boy who has consensual sex with a 17-year old girl would be subject to lifetime GPS monitoring, even though he is not really a threat to children. Clearly we can deplore and seek to deter such acts without treating such offenders as though they had committed violent and forceful rape. The ICAA statement refers to research showing that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and a reduction of sexual crimes against children. Moreover, Proposition 83 would not protect the children who are harmed by family members. And statistics show that most sexual crimes against children are committed by relatives or acquaintances with a prior relationship and access to the child.