I will admit that I'm occasionally a bit of a policy wonk. Not always, but you know, I have a degree in the whole “policy field” and I sometimes like to talk policy (or write as the case may be). One policy that I know reeks of fear-based politics with little to show in return: Jessica's Law. Sure, it won easily, and even Phil Angelides endorsed it.  Really, only a very select few spoke out against it. Fear is a bad poliy basis, and there seemed to be little reason for this law other than FEAR. Sen. Jackie Speier's bill had already passed and provided most of the protections of Prop 83. And the provisions that it lacked were just plain bad policy.

 But, at this point, the law is on the books. There's still some question about its constitutionality, with the latest court wranglings seeing the law enforced on 850 sex offenders. But, as the AP points out, many have found a loophole: the “transient exemption.” AKA being homeless. If a sex offender is homeless, well it's hard to prohibit them from living under a bridge. And as I pointed out in the past, the 2000-foot rule (away from schools, parks, etc.) will keep people away from services they need, and from basically all metropolitan areas. So, you want to live in San Francisco? Sorry, but you're always within 2000 feet of one of those places, so, go try Yreka.

So, into this fray steps SD-03 candidate Joe Alioto-Veronese. He's raising a resolution at today's Police Commission hearing for stronger enforcement of Jessica's Law. He apparently doesn't want to charge all offenders with crimes, he just wants to know where these people are. The problem is that once you know where they are, the city/state is obliged to remove them from their location if it violates the law. Sure, we could just be lax on the enforcement part, I suppose, but that seems a strange study in contrasts. Furthermore, the resolution wants to a) find all these homeless people and demands that they respond or b) face jail time for parole violation if they don't respond.

This, at best, puts a bit of lipstick on a pig. It doesn't substantively address any of the problems that were recently raised, and it punishes the homeless. Mr. Alioto-Veronese recognizes the deficiencies of Jessica's Law, but when I asked him whether he supports the 2000-foot rule, all I got was that he supports “protecting our children from sexuasl predators.” 

UPDATE: One more thing. I should point out this map (PDF) from the California Senate. Take a look at San Francisco. Or LA, too. What do you see? The only places that offenders would be allowed to live in SF would be primarily minority areas concentrated in the Southeast of the City. Just one more reason why this law was wrong in the first place, and is still wrong.

UPDATE 2: Apparently, it seems that some are trying to take some sort of moral high ground, that they are more true defenders of children. But, I'll not yield that to anybody. I believe we must protect children, but we must do it sensibly. We must do it in a manner that actually works. I'll also point out that we require less of released murderers than we do of  “sex offenders” (an overly broad category by the way). Prop 83 was bad policy when it passed, and it still is. (Oh, and btw, SF was the only county to reject Prop 83) More from the Chronicle:

But despite its visceral appeal, Prop. 83 is a terrible initiative that does not stand up to close scrutiny. One of its most obvious flaws is the ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. What this will mean is that most urban areas in California will be placed off limits to sex offenders. They will instead be forced into living in rural areas — an unfair burden to those communities and a barrier for those ex-offenders who are making an effort to find employment and straighten out their lives. In addition, understaffed law enforcement and social service agencies in remote parts of the state might not have the resources to adequately monitor these individuals. Public safety may be endangered rather than enhanced.

***
Ideas that are presented as “tough on crime” are not necessarily the most effective against crime — especially when resources are limited. Vote no on 83.

Resolution over the flip

RESOLUTION REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION TO IDENTIFY CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER LOCATIONS

 

 

Whereas the San Francisco Police Commission and the San Francisco Police Department are 100% committed to maintaining the safety of all children and families in our City; and,

 

Whereas Jessica’s law (Penal Code 3000.07 et. seq- named in honor of Jessica Lunsford)  was enacted in 2006 to protect California Children from child predators.  Jessica’s law requires certain registered sex offenders to report to law enforcement agencies their address of residence;

 

Whereas, knowing the exact address of residence and location of parolees subject to such registration is in the interest of protecting California children and further assists the San Francisco Police Department to this end;

 

Whereas, California Penal Code Section 3003(e)(1)(J) requires that the California Department of Corrections report to local law enforcement agencies certain identifying information of sex offender registrants including their (1) exact address of residence, and (2) A geographic coordinate for the parolee's residence.

 

Whereas, the California Department of Corrections issued policy 07-48 notifying parolees unable to secure housing compliant with prop 83 to declare transience in order to avoid incarceration.

 

Whereas, according to a recent report by the California Attorney General, up to 166 parolees have newly registered as transient or homeless.

 

Whereas the public deserves to know the true locations these offenders; and not knowing  such information poses a danger to the children of San Francisco;

 

Be it therefore resolved, that the San Francisco Police Commission shall issue a letter to the California Department of Correction condemning policy 07-48, as it relates to registering as transient or homeless; requesting that they comply with California Penal Code Section 3003.

 

Be it therefore resolved that the San Francisco Police Commission request the Chief of Police of San Francisco Police Department take immediate action to prevent and reverse the trend of sex offenders registering as “homeless” by:

 (1) No later that November 25, 2007, or within one week of the passage of this resolution (whichever is later), the Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department shall send a letter to all registrants notifying them that it is the Policy of the San Francisco Police Department to comply the registration components of Jessica’s law.  The letter shall give registrants one month to register their correct address.  For all registrants listed as “transient” notification shall be sent to their prior address.

(2) After one month following the dispatch of such letter, the San Francisco Police Department shall verify the “transient” status of all registered offenders residing in the City and County of San Francisco, by investigating the residential address and taking appropriate law enforcement action, including taking that person into custody in violation of parole conditions if transience is not confirmed;

 

Be it finally resolved that the Chief of Police and any staff directly involved in this important effort report the result back to the Police Commission during the weekly Chief’s report to the Police Commission.

Cross-posted California Majority Report.

In 2005, Genarlow Wilson was sentenced to ten years in prison by a Georgia jury for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. Wilson was only 17 when this “crime” was committed. Last week, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the case, deciding in a 4-3 decision that the conviction “constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”

It would be easy for those of us in blue state California to look at this case from afar and see yet another miscarariage of Southern justice, but that would be a mistake. There is a lesson here for California, and it’s a lesson we’ll almost certainly ignore.

Before his conviction, Wilson was repeatedly offered plea deals that might have allowed him to avoid prison, but he refused because a plea would have forced him to register as a sex offender. “It might’ve been lesser time, but then again, I would have nowhere to go because I would have no home,” Wilson explained. “I wouldn’t be able to stay with my mother because I have a little sister. You know, when you’re a sex offender you can’t be around kids. Basically, I can’t even have kids myself, you know, so what is the point of life?”

Wilson, an Ivy League-recruited honor student who was homecoming king and one of his school’s best track and football athletes, lost two years of his life because of an inflexible sex offender registry that didn’t see many differences between sex crimes. Under Georgia law, Wilson was guilty of “aggravated child molestation.” No room for explanation. No room for context. Certainly no room for sympathy. So on the registry he goes.

To see why this matters to California, continue over the flip…

California isn’t all that different. To be registered as a sex offender in California is to be branded an undesirable for life. Our state’s Megan’s Law database includes many sex offenders of the Genarlow Wilson variety. People convicted of public urination, nude sunbathing, and mooning have had their names tarnished for life by being included in the same database as serial rapists and violent child molesters. And under last year’s unworkable Proposition 83, sex offenders were barred from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. As the San Francisco Chronicle explained:

“Prop. 83 is a terrible initiative that does not stand up to close scrutiny. One of its most obvious flaws is the ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. What this will mean is that most urban areas in California will be placed off limits to sex offenders. They will instead be forced into living in rural areas — an unfair burden to those communities and a barrier for those ex-offenders who are making an effort to find employment and straighten out their lives. In addition, understaffed law enforcement and social service agencies in remote parts of the state might not have the resources to adequately monitor these individuals. Public safety may be endangered rather than enhanced.”

Under Prop 83, which passed by an overwhelming 70.5-29.5 margin, the sex offenders with a high likelihood of repeat offense are now barred from the cities most capable of dealing with them, while everyday folks who make the stupid decision to piss on a tree one day are forced to go along for the ride. Oh, and regardless of their offense, they’re all forced to wear ankle monitoring bracelets for life — on the public dime of course.

Why is the California electorate so afraid of drunken frat boys who moon their chancellor? Because voters in California all too frequently reflexively support anything labeled “tough on crime,” even if it actually puts us at greater risk. Because any crime bill cravenly claimed to be for the children is like a scalding iron that none of the state’s more sensible politicians want to touch. Because anyone who dares approach public safety with an air of rationality is branded “pro-criminal” by those who would rather posture than make us safer. And because some of our state’s most powerful lobbying groups directly benefit from keeping more people in prison and under close scrutiny.

And there’s no reason to think any of this will change. It will always be easier to score cheap political points through scare tactics and code words than to actually work on the thankless task of creating real solutions to our crime problems, and the victims of the system are too disparate, too disorganized, and frequently too poor to have a voice at all.

So while we celebrate Genarlow Wilson’s release, and as we scorn the flaws of his state’s justice system, let’s not forget that California — us, the voters — have created our own generation of Genarlows, deprived of the freedoms we take for granted because we would rather be “tough on crime” than smart on crime.

This is culled from a comment by rocketman0621 on a diary about the federal court ruling against Jessica’s law.

  Many politicians, especially Republicans, would like all of society to believe that ALL sex offenders are predators lurking in every corner of our communities ready to jump at every opportunity to abduct and assault our children. They try to twist reality by playing on our worst fears as parents by instigating rage in all of us with assistance from the media by sensationalizing child abduction cases as examples why we should banish ALL sex offenders. The truth, however, is that not all sex offenders are like the ones we see on TV. The great majority of them are first offenders who’s offenses are misdemeanors. After all, there is a legal basis why our justice system classifies certain offenses as misdemeanors and that is because they are much less serious than felonies. Check the legal dictionary if you don’t believe me. Now, don’t get me wrong. I hate sexual predators especially those who victimize children. Like most people, I absolutely believe that these sex predators should be monitored closely upon their release from prison or be it as Jessica’s Law put it – sent away to a place where they would not be able to harm children. My beef with this law is that it lumps all people in the registry as a predator and subjects them to a one-size-fits-all punishment.

When someone kills another, our justice system makes every effort to determine the degree and circumstances to which the slaying was carried out. Hence, there is murder one, passion killing, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, etc. Why can’t we apply the same logic when we are dealing with sex offenders? Is it fair to treat sex offenders much worse than murderers, robbers, carjackers, drug dealers and the rest? I don’t think so because each of these other criminals are potential sex offenders also. If they have the will and audacity to commit these non-sex crimes, what makes you think they will never commit a sex crime? In fact, many sex offenders have other criminal records as well. Hence, it makes no sense whatsoever for our society to be cleansed of sex offenders while these other criminals live in our midst without any restrictions. Are our children really any safer?

Jessica’s Law attempts to punish again and again and again and again those who committed thier indiscretions decades ago with no regard to the level of seriousness in each offense. Most of these people have paid their debts to society, regretted their mistakes, and have lived law-abiding lives ever since. It must be difficult enough to find steady employment and to live a normal life when your face and private information are posted all over the Internet.  Had these past offenders known decades ago what their lives would be like under Jessica’s Law today, most of them might not even have the audacity to commit their crimes. It’s plain and simple. You cannot apply today’s rules to those who made an error in judgement in a different time.  It’s changing the rules in the middle (or in this case, in the end) of the game. That is simply not permitted in the Constitution. As a society, we simply cannot allow these twisted politicians who are using our children and playing with our fears to get elected to get away with these constitutional violations. Imagine what’s in store for us if Jessica’s Law becomes the precedent. Next thing we know, we’ll have new punishments for those who were convicted of DUI, theft, drug-offense, white-collar crimes, etc. Is that what we really want? Sex offense is a hot button issue now with all the media attention, but in a few years another crime will be the focus of modern persecution. Watch out illegal immigrants!

I’m not done. These same politicians who author these crazy laws offer children safety as their primary reason why they do it. Why is it then that they don’t try to be just as aggressive in combatting the murder of innocent children in the inner cities of America? Every year, hundreds of children are shot and killed in drug and gang violence in many metropolitan areas, but there doesn’t seem to be as much hysteria and call for crackdowns on these senseless killing compare to when one white suburban child is killed by a sex offender. Are the lives of rich suburban children more precious than those children in impoverished areas? There are just as many minority children that are molested and assaulted as their suburban counterparts. We have Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law, Adam’s Law, but why isn’t there a push to have a law named after any of the minority children killed? Perhaps Michael Richards can explain it to us better.

I’m afraid we are becoming a paranoid society paralyzed by our irrational fears over crimes that have not yet been committed. Our corrupt politicians want to punish offenders for their perceived future crimes based on their past records. There is, however, an alternative motive for these politicians to append their names in these stupid laws. It’s a great platform for them to win people’s admiration and votes come election time. It is something they can brag about to their contituents. Whether these laws actually save lives is questionable. In fact, lawmakers in places like Iowa who pioneered these residency restriction laws are now working to repeal it because it caused more problems rather than provide solutions. Think about it. When you have thousands of offenders who went underground due to the unreasonable provisions of the law, are our children any safer? When you have thousands of deranged, suicidal offenders who’s lives and families have been torn to pieces with nothing to look forward to and nothing to hold them back, are our children any safer?

It’s time to stop the persecution and allow those who are rehabitable to get their second chance to prove their humanity. After all, we all make mistakes. Some of us are just lucky enough to not have been caught with our indiscretions. Ironically, many of the lawmakers who work so diligently – and hypocritically – to pass these laws are themselves guilty of the very same offenses they are warning us about. I wonder how many more Mark Foleys are out there. Let us concentrate on the most dangerous and deserving of society’s wrath and remove these unconstitutional barriers on the minor offenders who have learned their lessons and are trying hard to re-integrate themselves into the society.

It’s Friday, the election is Tuesday.  Jerry and Charlie need lots of volunteers, see Ethics in Congress’s diary.  If you are in SoCal, I’m sure Francine Busby could use some volunteers.  Also, Democratic Victory HQ’s will be needing volunteers. You can find locations near you here. You can sign up here.

Ok, teasers: Field Poll, McClintock is crazy, Laura Bush needs to communicate more with her husband, there aren’t enough absentee ballots in SD, and more!