The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

The measures, signed seven weeks before voters will decide on a ballot initiative offering similar provisions, also require that sex offenders deemed high-risk by authorities wear electronic tracking devices while on parole.

Backers said the new laws give California the nation's toughest restrictions on sex offenders, a category of felons facing an expanding national crackdown spawned by several high-profile crimes.

of their own molestations and the need for tougher punishment.

The Alquist bill, which cleared the Legislature without a single "no" vote, was put forth by Democrats after Republicans failed to win passage of their version. Frustrated, two GOP legislators launched a bid to qualify their version for the November ballot, resulting in Proposition 83, dubbed "Jessica's Law" by proponents.

The initiative differs from the bills in two major respects, involving electronic tracking of ex-offenders and limits on where they may live. Under Proposition 83, all registered sex offenders would be required to undergo electronic monitoring for life, regardless of their offense or the likelihood that they will offend again. Under SB 1178 by state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), signed by the governor, high-risk felons would be tracked with electronic devices while on parole.

The ballot measure also imposes a residency restriction, prohibiting ex-offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks, or additional locations identified by local governments. The legislation bans loitering around schools, parks or other locations where vulnerable populations congregate, but does not limit where ex-offenders may live.

Some experts say the new laws make Proposition 83 unnecessary, because it mirrors many of the tougher sentencing aspects of the legislation. Critics also contend that the loitering ban contained in legislation would be more effective than simply limiting where ex-offenders may live.

"The bills the governor is signing give California virtually every positive thing that could come out of Jessica's Law," said Robert Coombs of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a statewide network of rape crisis centers. "These bills do not take sex crime lightly, but they do the job in a more thoughtful way than Jessica's Law."

Schwarzenegger, however, said the state still needs Proposition 83, and state Sen. Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno), a coauthor of one bill signed by the governor, agreed. Poochigian said the ballot measure is tougher in one respect, allowing designation of an offender as a sexually violent predator after one victim, instead of two.

Among those on hand for the ceremony outside the Capitol were the parents of Courtney Sconce, a 12-year-old Rancho Cordova girl abducted, raped and killed in 2000. Mark and Cindy Sconce wore buttons showing their daughter's face and held hands throughout the event.

Afterward, Mark Sconce called the bill-signing "one brick in the wall needed to keep our children safe." Cindy Sconce said it was unclear whether the new laws might have saved her daughter's life had they been on the books six years ago. But she hoped they would save other children.

"You can't go back and say, 'What if,' " Cindy Sconce said. "But the person who took Courtney was involved in child pornography, so this law [the Alquist bill] might have taken care of him before he got to the point of harming someone."

Cracking down on sex offenders has become a national trend. A federal study showed a 79% decline in sexual assaults against children ages 12 to 17 between 1993 and 2003.

The number of arrests for sex crimes against children in California also has declined somewhat during this decade, despite population growth of 6%, state statistics show.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-offender21sep21,1,1294703.story?coll
=la-headlines-california

=========================================================
Sacramento Bee

"Moreover, the proposition requires not just the monitoring of child molesters, but of all felony sex offenders released from prison. Opponents note correctly that this would mean monitoring at a high cost tens of thousands of ex-prisoners who don't pose any serious risk, leaving fewer resources available for high risk offenders who need to be watched. The Legislative Analyst's Office pegs the cost of such monitoring at "about $100 million annually after 10 years" and growing substantially after that. The initiative is not clear about who would pay the extra hundreds of millions of dollars -- the state, which has a deficit, or the financially strapped local governments."

Editorial: No on Proposition 83

It provides a false sense of security
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Sex offenders who prey on children are every parent's nightmare, and understandably so. Unfortunately, the fear they evoke makes them the bogeyman of choice for pandering politicians. What better targets for candidates in search of an easy issue to demagogue?

Proposition 83 is a case in point. Despite Proposition 83's title -- the Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring Initiative Statute -- it would do nothing to protect children.

Among other things, the proposition would increase sentences, require lifelong monitoring for some offenders and further restrict where registered sex offenders could live.

If approved, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars -- money that would be better spent on child care programs, expanding health care for poor families or improving educational opportunities.

Extremely dangerous sexual predators, including repeat rapists and criminals who sexually assault children 14 years and younger, already face sentences of 15 or 25 years to life in prison. Longer sentences for less dangerous offenders -- possessors of child pornography, for example -- will only further crowd already overcrowded prisons and drive up out-of-control prison costs.

The initiative imposes lifelong monitoring for registered felony sex offenders by requiring the use of global positioning systems, or GPS. In the Proposition 83 campaign, supporters invoke the name of Jessica Lunsford, the 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, assaulted and buried alive by a registered sex offender. But nothing in this initiative would prevent those intent upon harming children from removing their GPS devices and committing crimes.

Moreover, the proposition requires not just the monitoring of child molesters, but of all felony sex offenders released from prison. Opponents note correctly that this would mean monitoring at a high cost tens of thousands of ex-prisoners who don't pose any serious risk, leaving fewer resources available for high risk offenders who need to be watched. The Legislative Analyst's Office pegs the cost of such monitoring at "about $100 million annually after 10 years" and growing substantially after that. The initiative is not clear about who would pay the extra hundreds of millions of dollars -- the state, which has a deficit, or the financially strapped local governments.

Finally, the measure mandates tougher restrictions on where all registered sex offenders may live. Currently, a small percentage, mostly those who have committed crimes against children, cannot reside within 1,320 feet of a school. This initiative would expand it to all registered sex offenders, add parks to the restriction and expand the radius to 2,000 feet.

In other states, such laws have backfired, pushing sex offenders into sparsely populated rural and suburban neighborhoods where law enforcement is thin and where counseling, psychiatric and other social services that many mentally disordered offenders need are in short supply or nonexistent. The same is likely to happen in California.

Proposition 83 is, in short, costly and counterproductive. Sadly, politicians who know better are afraid to tell voters the truth. Voters should see through this deception and vote No on Proposition 83.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/25347.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------