Thursday, March 5, 2015

California Hates Kids: State Sex Offender Restrictions Ruled Unconstitutional - Can Visit Parks and Schools

Free at last.
Mod: There once was a true civil rights movement in this country. Great things were done, and the legacy of the legendary leaders from that time still lives with us today. However, and what really is a sad and grotesque twist on something that did deserve a better fate, the Supreme Court of the State of California has now unanimously overturned voter approved Jessica's Law and granted special protections and restored rights to convicted sex offenders. Political correctness on steroids. Apparently pedophiles are now to be seen as victims of discrimination, just like any other oppressed minority yearning to be free. Here is the California Political Review's take on it (link):

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.

sierramadretattler.blogspot,com

57 comments:

  1. If the convicted sex offenders in town are going to be roaming free could you at least post pictures of A West and the guy in the kilt so we know who to look for?

    ReplyDelete
  2. CA Supreme Court to sex crime victims: Who gives a damn about you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's moronic. This country was founded on the principle that every person has certain rights. Even bad people. Even prisoners of war. It doesn't matter if it was a voter-enacted ballot, the law was unconstitutional. A better law could be written if needed.

      Delete
    2. So you are saying the Founding Fathers were keenly concerned about the rights of child molesters?

      Delete
    3. All people have rights universal rights. Even A-holes.

      Delete
    4. Ah yes. The consequences free world of the preternaturally politically correct.

      Delete
    5. 7:56 that's a copout response. The constitution is designed not just to protect the citizenry from overreaching government but also from itself. The Jessica's Law was well intended but poorly written.

      Delete
    6. Putting baby rapers in prison for life accomplishes that.

      Delete
    7. Another reason CA should allow concealed carry.

      Delete
    8. It would decrease law enforcement costs.

      Delete
    9. Our founding fathers did not envision a world where there would be people molesting babies. If someone was caught boing the unthinkable, they would be in jail forever, not living in a community.

      Delete
  3. There is a another reason not to vote. The California Supreme Court overturns voter enacted ballot initiatives any time it likes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hopefully this is appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How long before all pedophilia will be legalized?.."political correctness"...".social justice, which is another term for Marxism" is rapidly destroying this country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So there is another thing real estate agents can add to their description of homes for sale. Large lots is of course an important one. Now they can add "school views" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Better to send pedophiles to jail for life. Then you don't need to worry about where they are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Too bad this didn't happen a couple of months ago. The UTP could have run some of our local RS0s for school board seats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly couldn't have done any worse.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, do we have the right to defend ourselves against these predators for violating our rights?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean like a preemptive attack? ask George Bush how that worked out

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't say preemptive. The crimes have already happened.

      Delete
    3. 7:55, please cut back on the caffeine. You're scaring me.

      Delete
    4. if you are a tax paying citizen YOU have no rights!

      Delete
    5. Tax payers exist to pay for sex offender rights. It's the California way.

      Delete
  11. All you fascists should move away from California.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we take our kids with us?

      Delete
    2. Huh. Parents are fascists? Cute. And child molesters are liberals?

      Delete
    3. Love it. Because I don't want convicted sex predators at parks and schools where kids are I'm a fascist?
      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
      Gawd, you're stupid.

      Delete
    4. We'll move away. As long as you put up a fence to keep all the sex predators in CA.

      Delete
    5. Now that isn't nice. They're not sexual predators, they're freedom fighters! At least in their own minds.

      Delete
    6. Let's let them fight for freedom on their own island colony. Is Devil's Island still available?

      Delete
  12. Let's see, in the last two days the Tattler has gotten child molesters, the teachers union and the Pasadena Politics Facebook page angry.

    Quite a roll!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll say, the Pasadena Politics page has basically written him off because they feel he doesn't understand certain political/legal guidelines and blasts the candidates unfairly as a result

      Delete
    2. Did Pat sign the UTP paperwork? Haven't seen that addessed yet.

      Delete
    3. He would have had to. The UTP doesn't endorse anyone unless they have first signed away their souls. They keep their dogs on a short chain.

      Delete
    4. Thanks. I can understand why they would be sensitive about that. Smacks of a sell out.

      Delete
    5. You must sign zee papers!

      Delete
    6. They know exactly how badly Patrick compromised himeself. They protesteth too much. Without the union's backing he would just be another loudmouth on facebook. Oh wait, he is!

      Delete
  13. Did anyone read the opinion? The plaintiff in the case had a 25 sex crime against an adult woman. It had nothing to do with kids, yet he was ordered away from parks and schools in order to protect kids. Secondly, San Diego had very few places where any offender could lawfully live, especially in treatment centers, to the extent that parolees were told to sleep in the parking lot behind the parole office. So the effect was a bunch of transient sex offenders sleeping on the streets. Common sense would dictate that the law made the situation more dangerous while failing to serve its designed purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the attack was on a woman makes this better for you? You're scary!

      Delete
    2. a crime against an adult 25 years ago makes someone such an unreasonable threat to kids today that its best for public safety that they sleep out on the street. Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
    3. But we are not really talking about one case. We are talking about the easiest one for CA RSOL to win. It is the foot in the door case. The one that will set a precedent so all the even creepier cases can be won. Please respect this board enough to post actual truth. It is offensive for you to do otherwise.

      Delete
    4. all the opinion held is that each situation should be resolved on a case by case basis so it does not apply to those who have never demonstrated any threat to kids. that's what the problem is with the Sierra Madre ordinance. all sex offenders are grouped in, not just the pedophiles.

      Delete
    5. It is deeply troubling that you can make a distinction between sex crimes against women and sex crimes against children. Isn't all such evil the same? Or do they teach someting different in law school.

      Delete
    6. Here's a hint: Don't commit sex crimes! Then you can live near parks & schools!

      Delete
    7. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

      Delete
    8. By 11:40's twisted reasoning, if a criminal violently raped a woman he's entitled to live near a school?

      Puke.

      Delete
    9. when the purpose of a law is to severely restrict the liberty rights of a person in order to protect kids, in a just rational society, that person must have demonstrated in some way to be a threat to kids. Under the law, the evil is not the same. It distinguishes amongst crimes against victims, under 10, under 14, under 16 and under 18 with differing penalties, as well for those over 17 and over 65.

      Delete
    10. While I am sure that means something to lawyers and judges, out on the street where these crimes are committed it is irrelevant.

      Delete
    11. 12:42, you are a real work. May Karma strike you early and often.

      Delete
    12. so you prefer to have paroled sex offenders living out on the street because they can't live anywhere else in compliance with the law. you also seem to discount the fact that well over 90% of all sex crimes occur indoors by someone known to the victim. these laws do nothing to protect against that.

      Delete
    13. I would prefer that sex offenders be locked up for life. It solves a lot of problems. I don't think society owes them anything more than that.

      Delete
    14. "so you prefer to have paroled sex offenders living out on the street because they can't live anywhere else in compliance with the law."

      If they're not in prison, then yes. Or maybe Mexico, away from the beaches.

      Delete
  14. Planning Commission. 20 minutes. Resolution passed. Good job commissioners.

    Next it goes to city council

    ReplyDelete
  15. As regitered sex offender myself i find the laws appropriate to a certain degree. However its been proen that the ones that mke the national or local news are ones that havve never been caught before. and somehow what evik crap they did makes it okay for everyone else to Suffer?

    Why not make murderers register after they get out>
    Or drug dealers
    or those that beat up people?
    Or those that break into peoples homes using violence

    They are just a danger to society as most sex offenders. my offense happend when i was 16 by the way.

    ReplyDelete