TWENTY QUESTIONS ABOUT JESSICA’S LAW Tom Tobin CCOSO
In search of the truth about Jessica’s Law
for those who care to look a little deeper….
Each of the following twenty clusters of questions is meant to call attention to some of the problems with the changes that would be brought about by Jessica’s Law, should it pass. Informed voters and opinion makers are invited to ponder these concerns and even bring them to the proponents of Jessica’s Law for a convincing response.
1. Where did the huge collection of hundreds of changes to state law that make up the Jessica’s Law ballot initiative originally come from? Were almost all of them bills that had been introduced but failed to pass in the California legislature? Why, if they were such wonderful and well-crafted policy that no one could object to them except advocates for sex offenders, did all of those bills that have been collected and combined into this initiative not pass in the California legislature when they were originally introduced? What did the careful examination of those bills conducted by all of the experienced staff members whose job it is to conduct the analysis of proposed legislation actually reveal? 2. If this initiative is really a bad public policy, why have so few public figures and politicians taken a public stand against it? What are the political consequences of taking a stand against Jessica’s Law? Could elected officials and others be afraid that their political competitors and opponents will use their “Opposed” position for ever and ever to claim they are soft on crime, easy on sex offenders, indifferent to molested children and raped women and so on, thereby severely damaging their political careers? Is there a partisan political motive for having this initiative on the ballot in a significant general election?
3. How many voters will have actually read all 35 pages of this law or even understood its main components and their consequences before they vote? Is putting on the ballot such a huge and complicated bill that would make hundreds of changes to California law truly a responsible way to make public policy on such an important matter? Have the changes that would be created by this proposition been carefully thought out and analyzed by those with the expertise to do so?
4. Why has the Governor prohibited state employees, especially those in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who have many years of experience working with and managing sex offenders, from talking openly about what they see as the consequences of Jessica’s Law? What would they say if they could talk freely? Why is the Governor afraid to let them do so?
5. Is being in favor of protecting children and women and being against sex offending a good reason to vote for this initiative? Is it really as clear-cut as the following statement suggests: “It seems like a pretty simple choice: Side with California families and law enforcement and work to protect children from sexually motivated crimes, or side with sex offenders”? Is it true that anyone opposed to Jessica’s Law must not really care about children and women and men who are the victims of sexual assault and must not care about stopping sexual offending and must want to be soft on sex offenders? Are the proponents suggesting that citizens should vote YES only because they are against sexual assault and think children and other potential victims should be protected? Is that really a sufficient reason to vote YES? Are the issues really that simple? Is this sort of argument the best that supporters have to offer?
6. If, after being enacted in a voter initiative, any one of the hundreds of complicated changes to current California laws that would be created by Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) turns out to be a bad idea that makes matters worse, what would it take to make another change to solve the problems that have been created and are then clearly recognized? Could the legislature do that? Do it easily? Would they be willing to do so? What does political history suggest about the willingness of elected officials to do anything that might appear to soften laws related to criminal behavior?
7. How much will this initiative ultimately cost taxpayers? Would this be money wisely spent? Does the governor really mean it when he proclaims that the cost does not matter? Do those who work to prevent sexual assault agree that this is the very best use of all those hundreds of millions of state tax dollars? Does the California Legislative Analyst’s Office Report address all of the potential costs? The report readily acknowledges that many cost areas are impossible to estimate. What, for example, will be the costs associated with the dislocation and relocation of tens of thousands of currently stable Registrants who, along with their families, would lose jobs, homes and communities. What will the real total be? And what will be the direct cost to every local community?
8. District Attorneys and Prosecutors are not usually seen as soft on crime and easy on sex offenders. Then why would the Iowa District Attorney’s Association issue a formal public statement saying that the 2000 foot residency restriction and many of the other components of Iowa’s version of Jessica’s Law – which they previously supported – have turned out to be a very bad idea that should be undone? And why, even after the huge problems have appeared, is the Iowa legislature unwilling to follow the recommendation of the state’s District Attorneys?
9. Some of the statements supporting Jessica’s Law claim that sex offenders have the highest re-offense rate of all criminals and that they are all unable to be successfully rehabilitated. Are these claims true? What, for example, is the accuracy of the following statement from the “Findings and Declarations” Introductory Section of Proposition 83:
(b) Sex offenders have very high recidivism rates. According to a 1998 report by the U.S. Department of Justice, sex offenders are the least likely to be cured and the most likely to reoffend, and they prey on the most innocent members of our society…. Sex offenders have a dramatically higher recidivism rate for their crimes than any other type of violent felon. were arrested
Why does the proposition cite a 1998 US Department of Justice Study rather than the 2003 US Department of Justice Study? The 2003 Report states, among other findings, that of almost 10,000 sex offenders released from prison in 15 selected states (including California), only 5.3% were rearrested for a sex crime within three years. And although 43% were arrested for a new crime (of any sort), this is considerably lower than the 68% of other types of offenders being arrested for some other crime within three years. No sexual offense or re-offense is acceptable, but the facts are that sex offenders do not have “very high recidivism rates” and are not “the most likely to reoffend.” Why do proponents of Jessica’s Law provide such misleading information? Is it really beneficial to society to generate and perpetuate unjustified fear?
10. Has a 2000 foot residency restriction, as would be created in Jessica’s Law, been tried in any other states? What were the consequences? What has been the experience of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in trying to locate its paroled High Risk child molesters more than one half mile from a school as required by AB113, passed in 2005? One of the easily overlooked provisions of Jessica’s Law is the empowerment of individual local communities to restrict and exclude sex offenders as they choose. Has this empowerment of local communities to create prohibitions - over and above the residency restrictions specifically contained in state laws - been tried in other states? What were the consequences?
11. According to the California Attorney General’s Megan’s Law website as well as the Ballot Argument that will appear in favor of Proposition 83, there are approximately 85,000 registered sex offenders in California. There are about 8,000 new convictions each year. Is 50,000 a reasonable estimate for how many of these sex offenders live in California urban areas – areas where there will be virtually no unrestricted locations where they can live? Is 50,000 a reasonable estimate for how many of these sex offenders will need to relocate if this law is passed? Where will they go? Where is “somewhere else”? And why should we care - that’s their problem, isn’t it? After all, who could object to the slogan: keep sexual predators away from schools and parks where our vulnerable children study and play? On the other hand, who would agree that it is good public policy to move all sex offenders away from all urban areas (where they can receive services, specialized treatment and where they have families, jobs, places to live and support networks and where they are known to law enforcement) and force them to go to the rural parts of the state where they are not likely to have any of the above, especially housing? In reality, based on what happened in other states – approximately half of the currently registered sex offenders are likely to “disappear” and stop registering and go underground. While such a response cannot be condoned, neither does it seem to be able to be stopped. Will the ensuing situation make California more safe or less safe?
12. Specifically where in California would sex offenders be unable to live if they could not reside within 2000 feet of a school or park? For example, where could they live in San Diego, in San Jose, in Los Angeles, in San Francisco and in every other large or small urban area? Can the proponents of Jessica’s Law provide such an analysis of the effects of their initiative? Have they offered any solutions for the problems that would be created? Are there available maps with “2000 foot” circles that help answer this question? What do they show? Is banishment acceptable under the United States Constitution?
13. How many sex offenses really occur because an offender was living near a school or a park? How many sex offenses will be stopped by making sure known sex offenders live over 2000 feet away? Would that sort of residency restriction stop them from traveling to a school or park if they wished to do so? How many of the already known and reported sex offenses over, say, the past year took place because an offender lived within 2000 feet of a school or park and would not have happened if the offender had lived elsewhere? Is there any research that shows that sexually offending has any relationship to whether the offender was living near a school or park? Do the few studies that have been done on sex offender residency related to offending actually show that there is no relationship whatsoever?
14. Which sex offender poses a higher risk: Offender A who has a steady job, lives with extended family in a stable housing situation, has regular life patterns, has some friends and healthy social activities, registers as required and is known to local police and is in a specialized sex offender treatment program OR Offender B who is homeless and transient, has lost his job, has had to leave his family residence and his family behind, is isolated and lonely and hopeless, has no social support system, has decided to stop registering and go underground and feels he has nothing left to lose? Will this initiative result in more or fewer at-risk sex offenders?
15. How many individuals and families, including children, who are currently living with or supported by registered sex offenders will be forced to relocate, be made homeless, be forced into poverty, have their family structure destroyed or be otherwise negatively impacted as a result of the relocations and job losses resulting from the residency restrictions of Jessica’s Law?
16. What will happen when local governments begin to act on the authority the initiative gives them and enact their own ordinances that are even more restrictive than 2000 feet about where 290 sex offender registrants can live? Which local elected officials could resist pressures to wall out the exodus of sex offenders from other communities who had already enacted such restrictions? Once the snowball gathers momentum, won’t each municipality feel politically driven to enact a restriction that will protect them from the anticipated flood of sex offenders who have been displaced from neighboring communities where such an ordinance has already been enacted? Has this already happened anywhere in the United States and what was the outcome?
17. Sexual assault is often devastating to its victims and preventing sexual assault is a commendable goal. Research shows that in 90% of sexual offenses the victim already knew and had some relationship with the offender. Yet Jessica’s Law seems to focus its efforts on “stranger danger.” What impact will this law have on preventing any sex offenses of the more typical kind – where the offender is already in the victim’s life in some way? And, since only a little over 10% of sex offenses are accounted for by individuals who were previously convicted of a sex offense vs. individuals who were never previously convicted (and so who are not identified and who would, therefore, not be affected by this law) is it a good strategy to attempt to prevent sex offending by directing huge, disruptive, questionably effective and extremely expensive efforts at known offenders rather than having a more balanced effort aimed at preventing a wider range of sexual offending?
18. Is it true that all sex offenders are the same and are equally dangerous to public safety or is that one of the incorrect beliefs and myths about sex offenders upon which this initiative rests? Is it accurate to think of all – or even very many – of the registered sex offenders as “sexually violent predators” who snatch stranger children from schoolyards and parks? What other types of sex offender could there possibly be? Would a residency restriction or a GPS anklet actually reduce the risk of other types – or end up actually increasing it? Is it true that very expensive management devices, such as Global Positioning Monitoring (GPS) are needed for every sex offender in order to prevent a re-offense? Of what benefit would it be to use GPS on a very ill or elderly offender who has posed no evident risk for many years? How would GPS reduce the risk for an individual whose offense was against someone living in the same house? Is it thoughtful policy based on solid information to require GPS for every offender no matter what the cost or is it just “feel good” political sloganeering? Senate Bill 1178 requires electronic monitoring for all sex offender parolees and probationers unless a court or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determines that it is not needed in a particular case. Isn’t allowing some flexibility of this sort a more rational approach to policy making?
19. Sexual offending is already one of the most underreported crimes. Will increasing the penalties, sentences and control measures on all sex offenders make it more or less likely that victims will come forward and more or less likely that offenders will reach a plea bargain settlement rather than demand a full jury trial – a trial that can re-traumatize the victim and too often results in a failure to convict? Are the changes made by Jessica’s Law which restrict the options in prosecution strategies likely to actually result in a decrease in convictions for sexual offenses? What has happened in other states where this type of law has been passed?
20. Why has the case against Jessica’s Law as flawed public policy not been more visible? Who has stepped forward to carry the message that this would be a colossal public policy mistake for California? Where can more information be found? Why has the California League of Women Voters not supported this initiative in its highly-respected recommendations? Why has the Sacramento Bee strongly opposed it? Why has a major advocacy organization for victims of sexual assault, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) decided, after careful thought, to take the remarkably courageous position of opposing it?" Why does the California Coalition On Sexual Offending, the state association of professionals who manage, supervise, evaluate and treat sex offenders oppose it? Why did the Sebastopol City Council issue a formal statement in opposition? Why have some of the initial major supporters of this initiative changed their minds – but not been willing to publicly say so? And, finally, how much money do the proponents of this initiative have to spend? How much do those who oppose it have to spend?
BONUS QUESTION: Who said: "America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life."
ONLY SELECTED KEY REFERENCES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SEE: http://www.ccoso.org/
Analysis of the various bills which make up the bulk of Jessica’s Law can be found, with patience, at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ Search for the various Analyses of SB 588 and AB 231. Residency restrictions was not part of these bills and so has not had an analysis.
Analysis of the various bills which make up the bulk of Jessica’s Law can be found, with patience, at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ Search for the various Analyses of SB 588 and AB 231. Residency restrictions was not part of these bills and so has not had an analysis.
California initiative acts require amendments to their provisions to be approved by2/3 of the membership of both houses of the Legislature.
The fiscal analysis conducted by the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office can be found at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/83_11_2006.pdf
Iowa County Attorneys Association. “Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa.” Found at: http://ccoso.org/iowaAttorneystatement.pdf
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice in 2003. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf
“The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review”. Available at: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/06/08/06-008.pdf
Approximately 85,000 and growing according to: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
The Sacramento Bee cites a survey showing that 7 out of 10 sex offenders in Sacramento County would be forced to relocate.
For example, see the maps at the end of: ”Controlling Sex Offender Reentry: Jessica’s Law Measures in California.” Found at:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/workingpapers/JPeckenpaugh_06.pdf
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/workingpapers/JPeckenpaugh_06.pdf
See Report at: http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
No comments:
Post a Comment