|Free at last.|
Thanks to the State Supreme Court, taking your child to a neighborhood park may be taking the child to a legalized hangout for pedophiles. While most sex offenders need to stay away from parks and other locations child attend, the highest court in California said that protection of sex offenders rights are more important than the safety of our children.
The measure, known as Jessica’s Law, was struck down by the state’s high court on Monday.
In their decision, however, the court ruled that state prison officials could impose tougher residency restrictions case-by-case on individual ex-offenders, depending on their circumstances and the dangers they might pose to children.
Will pedophiles be at the gates of an elementary school? The State Supreme Court says, “sure, why not”?
Mod: The Los Angeles Times is chill with it, though. Here is their unfortunate assessment (link):
A welcome decision limiting residency rules of Jessica's Law - The problem with California's version of Jessica's Law — one of the problems, anyway — is that it so severely undermines the ability of a sex offender to return safely and responsibly to society that it may well make the person more dangerous rather than less. The measure's blanket ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of a park or school pushes many parolees out of cities and suburbs altogether, keeping them away from drug and alcohol treatment, counseling, even their parole officers.
The California Supreme Court on Monday struck down those residency provisions of the 2006 initiative, also known as Proposition 83, at least as they were applied in San Diego County (the ruling is likely to change practices statewide). The justices found not only that the rules increased homelessness and hindered access to treatment programs, but also that there was no rational relationship between the restrictions and the state's goal of protecting children from sexual predators. In a companion ruling, the court found that officials could continue to restrict the residence of paroled sex offenders on a case-by-case basis, as was done before the ballot measure.
Mod: Apparently The Times believes that it has developed a business model where it no longer needs readers to survive. So you know just how bad this decision really is, here is the most recent National Institute for Justice study (2012 - link), a nationwide study on recidivist sex offenders. It shows a 5% recidivism rate after five years, 10% after 10 years. How do you feel about those odds?
In Los Angeles Nobody Votes, And Why Should They?
Mod: We are now fast approaching a time when the only people who will bother to vote are the candidates themselves, meaning that most every election will soon end up in a tie. Tuesday's voter turnout in Los Angeles was a dismal 8.6%. The following comes from CA RSOL's favorite newspaper, The Los Angeles Times (link):
L.A. dismal voter turnout: 8.6% as ballot count continues - Tuesday's municipal elections marked another dismal election day for voter turnout in Los Angeles.
As of Wednesday morning, turnout was 8.6%, according to numbers from the City Clerk's office. That number will rise as more absentee and provisional ballots are counted. So far, 157,577 ballots have been counted, and 43,814 remain uncounted.
Mod: So why then should people vote? If those running for office cannot inspire any enthusiasm whatsoever for their candidacies, and only say the kinds of safe and meaningless things their handlers want them to, then why should anyone bother to set aside valuable time to give them their vote? Besides, many will take money from anyone and only represent the special interests that pay them. Why sanction that sort of behavior.
There is a lot of guilt tripping the citizenry over their lack of any desire to cast a ballot, especially in local elections. But is it really the voters' fault? Perhaps if candidates actually said something that rose above the usual bromides, cliches and BS that typifies most political campaigns these days, then maybe more people would want to vote. Actual leadership might help. As it is there just isn't that much reason to bother. Elections in Los Angeles are going out of business because people don't think they matter. It is not an illogical conclusion.