36 Comments

1. Bob Wells says:

   Friday, Aug 7, 2015 at

   We’re still protesting. 203rd & E. Ave R (1 block south of Palmdale Blvd).
   Stop by and say Hi
   Also, on Tuesdays the Pillowcase Rapist’s guards are desensitizing him by teaching him to shop at craft & fabric stores in Santa Clarita.

   Reply
2. Shelly Stow says:

   Friday, Aug 7, 2015 at

   Ms. Arenson, please do some research on the subject of residency restrictions. I challenge you to find any evidence supporting the efficacy of these restrictions. After you have researched, please write another article explaining what you found.

   The meaning of the quote is clear. People who are put on the registry did–past tense–commit a sex offense–except, of course, for those falsely accused and wrongly convicted. They are not committing sex offenses any more; a very small percentage will re-offend, but the overwhelming majority will not. Therefore, they are former offenders. And are you sure they are required to register when they are convicted, or is it when they are released from prison?

   Reply
3. Betty Arenson says:

   Friday, Aug 7, 2015 at

   Ms. Stow, “Efficacy” of residential restrictions?? You have every opportunity to open your home, offer any place in your neighborhood to house these convicts. Such offers would cure the whole topic wouldn’t it? There would be no need for the state to spend money looking for housing with offers like yours. Next: I’m done doing research for those who won’t; Next: I quoted what the law says from the Dept of Justice web site if you have a different set of facts, challenge the DOJ; Next: whats your source of “facts”–what research have you done? Next: “wrongly convicted?? I cited the murdering perverts who tortured innocent children who received all of the benefits of the legal system…our very liberal legal system. As far as “research”, I was only able to write on a few cases…the details are atrocious. Clearly I’ll be quoting more soon. AGAIN!! I would like to see “sex crimes” in tiers..like I’ve said too darned many times in the last week, the true not-reformable perverts are NOT the same as the 19 year old guy and 17 year old consenting girlfriend. There’s always the argument of what about the wrongly convicted?? Its always put forth by those who claim to be so bothered by that but NEVER get out and volunteer or lead any cause to make corrections. SB54 was to give local county courts the ability to here the plea of the challenger, including the wronged. My research into these cases tells that many of the perverts are repeat offenders. Just because they are let out of prison does not mean they are “cured”. I suggest you have a conversation with Bob Wells who posted before you did. If you live anywhere near the SCV and are clued in, you will know exactly what case he’s talking about. You are also free to make your position known the the parents of the little girls I mentioned in the commentary. Those are conversations I’d love to hear.

   Reply
4. JM says:

   Friday, Aug 7, 2015 at

   I live in California and my family has lived in our state for at least 7 generations. I am proud of the fact that my father is in a Hall of Fame in the city in which we live. I too am a mother and grandmother.
   I deeply disagree with this commentary. It displays just how uneducated the general public is regarding our sex laws and registries.

   Of course we can all agree that we want to protect children. But making everyone suffer due to the highly publicized cases of murders and kidnappings is hardly fair. One fourth of those listed on our sex registries in this country are children.

   In California while there are laws that restrict registration for those two/three years apart in age, so many young people (and their whole families)are getting swept up in the horrible nightmare. So if a girl is 17 (but looks 25), and the male is 20/21, he is considered someone to fear. I don’t buy that. It doesn’t even have to be sex, a touch (hug or kiss will do) it is called lewd conduct. Think it doesn’t happen? Think again.

   Our registry is life time. Forever. Most go to prison, not jail. We have over 100,000 on our registry. So, this is no way to know who is possibly a danger because it is saturated, and some pictures may look like dirty old men, but the offense could have happened 30 or 40 years ago when the now old looking man was 19 or 20.

   Our tax dollars are being used to support these laws. No one can even tell us how much this is costing the tax payer, while our education systems, infrastructure, water systems , etc. decay.

   They can’t find housing (no one will rent to them), they can’t find employment (no one will hire them), they are shunned from society. And Ms. Runner thinks this will make the public safer? And yet it’s become the best way for politicians to get votes, by using them as pawns.She needs to read our state website “California Sex Offender Management Board”.

   The general public has no idea what is happening, nor do they care if it happens to be someone who has been accused of a sex related offense, but they ought to be concerned because someday it might be their son and their family torn apart over what a few decades ago was considered NORMAL BEHAVIOR.

   I retired has a Student Specialist, I worked with at risk students for over 30 years, our son teaches Middle School.
   I was just 16 when I met my husband at the age of 21. Today, he would be considered a sex offender. I have a problem with that. We are very successful, happily married for over 40 years. People say, “Well it was different back then”. Really? I DON’T BELIEVE THAT HUMAN BEHAVIOR CHANGES JUST BECAUSE WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT CENTURY!

   Yes, we need to protect the innocent victims, but let’s do that by ensuring only those that truly are a risk to our safety are prosecuted. The has become the biggest cash cow of our century.

   If Ms. Runner whats to do something why not support a tiered registry.

   Reply
5. Margaret Moon says:

   Friday, Aug 7, 2015 at

   Ms. Arenson, I would like to field your comments about housing “convicts.” After release from incarceration a person is no longer a convict. As for a source for statements made, the California Sex Offender Management Board, which Senator Runner voted for, states the very low reoffense rate of registered citizens. Most recently the California Supreme Court has ruled that residency restrictions don’t keep children safe and blanket enforcement of them violates constitutionàl rights. I would also state again that the research study cited by Senator Runner as support for “Jessica’s Law” does not exist. That is a matter of court record.
   Too many laws have been passed based on fear and myth to convince the public that the lawmakers are protecting them. A common practice for politicians to gain votes.
   PS I,too, am a grandmother who owns a Bible and a gun. I am shocked that you can say that someone could kill another’s soul. I don’t believe that is possible. Many people bear scars but retain their soul and I’m quite sure that is Biblical.

   Reply
6. Shelly Stow says:

   Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

   “Invite them to live next to you.” What a specious argument. Since I have never looked at a SO registry to see who does live in my area, many registered citizens may and more are welcome.

   Yes, some people do heinous things. They should be punished severely. However, everyone who ends up on the registry–and some are indeed innocent–should not be punished with them, and that is what residency restrictions do, and you know it. Some of the money you would spend on these ineffective restrictions should be spent on victim services and effective prevention programs such as Erin’s Law which California adopted in fall of 2014. If you truly care about victims, why aren’t you speaking out in support of this? Is it because it doesn’t include the registry or restrictions or any focus on former offenders but rather focuses on the reality of where child sexual abuse happens?

   As far as the research, are you kidding me?
   Tom Tobin, vice chairman of the California Sex Offender Management Board: “There’s not a shred of research that supports residence restrictions. We do things that are not so wise, because we want to do something.”
   “Within five years of passage of a law that restricts where sex offenders can live, the number of them listed as transient had risen from 88 to 1,986”. [http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offenders-611517-sex-law.html]

   “Studies conducted by the MN Dept of Corrections and the CO Dept of Public Safety have not shown any correlation between sex offender recidivism and living near schools or parks. However, there is ample scientific evidence that shows residency laws do interfere with the reintegration of sex offenders into society.”

   “The Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board issued the following:
   • Although residence restrictions appear to have strong public support, the Board found no evidence to support their efficacy. It’s imperative that policymakers enact laws that will actually make the public safe and not laws giving the public a false sense of security.
   • A wealth of information is available to indicate that sex offender residence restrictions have not reduced the risk of re-offending behavior. In fact, research supports that these restrictions often cause alienation, destabilization, and isolation that lead to re-offending behavior.”

   “In New Hampshire, there are no statewide laws governing residency restrictions. Because the State ‘failed to produce any evidence showing a substantial relationship between the residency restrictions of sex offenders and the protection of minors, the ordinance was invalid because it violated equal protection rights.”

   New Mexico: “The SOMB has been unable to locate research that indicates residency restrictions have resulted in reduced re-offenses, reduced victimization or had, or will have, any positive impact on public safety.”

   “From Maine’s Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee Study of Sex Offender Registration Laws, Page 19: “Hearing testimony on these bills and educating ourselves about other states’ experiences with residency restrictions, the committee finds, and the research supports, that SUCH RESTRICTIONS DO NOT INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY.”

   “From ‘Effective Sex Offender Management in New York State’: “All of the empirical research examining the effectiveness of residency restrictions shows that residency restrictions do not work to reduce the risk of harm to children. ”

   Reply
7. Betty Arenson says:

   Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

   “JM”. Thank you for your story and repeating the very point made earlier about the “tiering” of crimes. I too know a young man who got caught up with a “Yes, I’m 18” vamp and so sadly he is paying a huge price today.

   Reply
8. Derek Logue says:

   Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

   My name is Derek Logue, director of the website http://www.oncefallen.com, a website that exposes the fallacies of American sex offender laws. I use my real name and personal info, thus you won’t be able to accuse me of “hiding.” I’ll gladly stand by the message I am typing in person and not just behind a computer screen.

   First, some laws should never be put to “popular vote.” Had everything been left to popular vote, America’s African American community would still be slaves and homosexuals would still be civilly committed as sex offenders.

   Second, there is not a single study that has linked residency restrictions and reduced recidivism.

   In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted a study on residency restrictions; using case studies of recidivism, they found no correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism. They added, “Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor or the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact.” A follow-up study in 2007 also failed to find any correlation between geography and recidivism. Of the 224 offenders who met set criteria that included a previous offense to the offender’s residence and had a minor victim, not one offense would’ve been deterred by a proximity law. Recidivism was correlated to “social or relationship” proximity rather than residential proximity; 49% of the recidivists committed their offense more than a mile from their homes. The possible deterrent effect was therefore “slim” due to the rarity of the offenses it was trying to protect.

   In 2004, the Colorado Department of Public Safety’s S*x Offender Management Board also released a study failing to find any correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism. In addition, the study found recidivists were no more likely to live close to schools by choice than those who did not reoffend. The study found that so-called “shared living arrangements” benefited those on the registry and made them less likely to reoffend.

   You certainly can’t accuse me of not having the facts.

   Iowa scaled back residency restrictions after they passed 2000 foot residency restrictions in 2005 after they found an increase in homelessness and failure to register cases among the registrant population, while finding no decrease in s*x crime rates (in fact, the rate slightly increased). Kansas passed a moratorium on residency restrictions after seeing the mess Iowa had made.

   I find it repugnant that you are so deeply misinformed as to assume everyone on the registry has raped and murdered people. The killers of Jessica and Megan will never spend one day on this registry because they were given life in prison. Instead, just like our failed “war on drugs,” our failing war on “s*x offenders” has filled the registries with people who are no danger to society. We have registered children as young as age 9 on the registry. Depending on where you live, you can land on the list for public urination, having relations with a teen or taking a nude selfie while being a teen yourself, and even acts that lack a s*xual element (such as the case of the Illinois who grabbed a teenager’s arm to yell at her for running in front of his moving car). My assumption is you are okay with putting little kids on the registry.

   I’d like to see you sit down with Zach Anderson, the Indiana teen whose life was ruined because he had relations with a 14 year old girl who lied about her age (claiming to be 17) and even testified to that fact in court. I’m sure you even support the unethical Judge Dennis Wiley, the man who sentenced Zach to 25 years of hell for something that shouldn’t even have been prosecuted.

   At the end of the day, people were still wrong about Jessica’s FLAW. Residency restricions don’t work, California’s homeless registrant population jumped from less than 100 to over 3000, and the California Supreme Court made the right decision for once.

   Your article fails to impress me. You appeal to emotion and the same tired stereotypes to justify a law that been proven to be a bad idea in theory AND in practice.

   Reply
9. Jean says:

   Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

   Jessica’s Law does nothing to protect the safety of our children. It pushes the sex offenders into homelessness – a sharp increase of about 30% after Jessica’s Law was enacted. It was intended to only be applied to those who are on probation or parole, but in counties like San Diego – it was applied to all sex offenders.

   The courts were right to overturn Jessica’s Law. Residency restrictions haven’t shown to protect children. It’s not ok to live 999 ft away from s school, but ok to live 1001 ft away? The restrictions give parents a false sense of security, believing if a sex offender doesn’t live near them, then their child won’t be abused.

   The fact is, 95% of sex offenses are committed by people who are not on the registry and 93% of them are family members or in the victim’s close inner circle.

   For every wasteful dollar we spend on punishing sex offenders well past when they paid their debt to society, the less money we have to go towards education, prevention and programs to help victims heal.

   I voted for Jessica’s Law, dumb to think it would keep my family safe. I now tell legislators that Jessica’s Law is a terrible mistake and should never be revisited. If any residency restrictions are needed, then it should be up to CDCR to make that decision on a case by case basis, while a person is on probation or parole (when they are more inclined to reoffend).

   Reply
10. Shelly Stow says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    “Invite them to live next to you.” What a specious argument. Since I have never looked at a SO registry to see who does live in my area, many registered citizens may and more are welcome.
    Yes, some people do heinous things. They should be punished severely. However, everyone who ends up on the registry–and some are indeed innocent–should not be punished with them, and that is what residency restrictions do, and you know it. Some of the money you would spend on these ineffective restrictions should be spent on victim services and effective prevention programs such as Erin’s Law which California adopted in fall of 2014. If you truly care about victims, why aren’t you speaking out in support of this? Is it because it doesn’t include the registry or restrictions or any focus on former offenders but rather focuses on the reality of where child sexual abuse happens?
    As far as the research, are you kidding me?
    Tom Tobin, vice chairman of the California Sex Offender Management Board: “There’s not a shred of research that supports residence restrictions. We do things that are not so wise, because we want to do something.”
    “Within five years of passage of a law that restricts where sex offenders can live, the number of them listed as transient had risen from 88 to 1,986.”
    “Studies conducted by the MN Dept of Corrections and the CO Dept of Public Safety have not shown any correlation between sex offender recidivism and living near schools or parks. However, there is ample scientific evidence that shows residency laws do interfere with the reintegration of sex offenders into society.”
    “The Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board issued the following:
    • Although residence restrictions appear to have strong public support, the Board found no evidence to support their efficacy. It’s imperative that policymakers enact laws that will actually make the public safe and not laws giving the public a false sense of security.
    • A wealth of information is available to indicate that sex offender residence restrictions have not reduced the risk of re-offending behavior. In fact, research supports that these restrictions often cause alienation, destabilization, and isolation that lead to re-offending behavior.”
    “In New Hampshire, there are no statewide laws governing residency restrictions. Because the State ‘failed to produce any evidence showing a substantial relationship between the residency restrictions of sex offenders and the protection of minors, the ordinance was invalid because it violated equal protection rights.”
    New Mexico: “The SOMB has been unable to locate research that indicates residency restrictions have resulted in reduced re-offenses, reduced victimization or had, or will have, any positive impact on public safety.”
    “From Maine’s Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee Study of Sex Offender Registration Laws, Page 19: “Hearing testimony on these bills and educating ourselves about other states’ experiences with residency restrictions, the committee finds, and the research supports, that SUCH RESTRICTIONS DO NOT INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY.”
    “From ‘Effective Sex Offender Management in New York State’: “All of the empirical research examining the effectiveness of residency restrictions shows that residency restrictions do not work to reduce the risk of harm to children. ”

    Reply
    • Betty says:

      Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

      Thank you Shelly for letting truth and fact douse this inane diatribe posted to help her friend. A majority does not make something right Ms. Betty. The lynch mob mentality died off in the wild west.

      Reply
11. JM says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Betty,
    Our family got involved due to a dear friend’s son. A young man who was falsely accused of touching a 15 yr. old who lied about her age. As I sat in the court room, I was completely shocked. (long story)

    Another friend’s son was accused of rape. A crime that was proven false years later after he spent 7 years in prison! He was working with his dad that day, but because it was his dad, no one would believe his father’s testimony. He was convicted solely on the basis of the type of truck he (the accused) was driving.
    I get very angry when people think that false convictions don’t happen!

    After someone comes out of prison with no money, no where to live, how do they take their case to court, as Ms. Runner has suggested? And why wasn’t these thing written into Jessica’s Law in the first place.

    How many of our children have died due to gun violence? Parent abuse? Drownings? Car accidents?
    How many children has our own government killed in the past 100 years. The answer: Millions

    The Runners used studies that did not exist in order to get Jessica’s Law passed. This has been proved and is a matter of court record. Why haven’t they been punished for lying? I haven’t a clue, but I do think it will be made public in the future.

    I am sorry that you will led to believe all the lies and deception. Clearly you nor the general public has really no idea of what the truth really is.

    Murder of innocent children is the most horrific crime, something we just can’t (and don’t want to) even imagine. But, our registry isn’t about murder, which is what Megan and Jessica’s laws are about.

    So, our registry isn’t just about protecting children, it’s way deeper than that. It is mostly about money, big money. Dig deeper and you might learn something, as we have.

    Reply
12. Betty Arenson says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    I don’t know how the topic got to the government murdering hundreds of children or a registry being about big money and implying the Runners are making that money, but I’m sure a lot of people would be interested in that proof. As for the lying girls who claim rape when they haven’t been, may all of those truths come out and may they pay a huge price; anyone who watches news know about the Duke Lacrosse matter and other fraternities; what can be done about those things? I don’t know at this point. On other parts, it seems most of us are agreeing on a couple of points after all. We’re never going to agree on the “efficacy” of residence restrictions….maybe its a feel-safer thing for families and not a solidly valuable tool to many; I just know I don’t want some creep who preys on little kids–be it with his hands or a camera, near my home or loved ones or the park where my family’s children play. For at least the 5th-or 6th time AGAIN, aren’t most of us talking about “tiered” offenses versus one-size-fits-all sex offenses.
    Rather than argue about residency on the outside (of incineration), probably a stronger and more societal benefit would be in NEVER letting the proven bad ones out of prison. All of the creeps that murdered (for instance)Polly, Megan and Jessica had violent histories. Their granted freedoms were very costly to a lot of people. No, no registry would have helped them.

    Reply
    • Jean says:

      Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

      I would agree on a tiered system, something that has been pushed for in CA for some time, but the Runners and other legislators always reject the idea. They see it as a one size fits all.

      There is very few offenders that reoffend. The vast majority of them do not, as shown by the CDCR’s own report showing a 1.8% reoffense rate.

      You are afraid that a sex offender will move in near you and abuse the children or photograph them for their sexual pleasure. Did you know that 93% of sexual abuse is committed by someone who is a family member (parent, sibling, aunt/uncle, grandparent) or close inner circle (clergy, coach, teacher, sitter, etc). It’s not the stranger down the street. 95% of sexual abuse is committed by those who are not on the registry.

      My child was abused by someone we knew and trusted. They were not on the registry. Residency restrictions didn’t protect my child, it allowed me to look left, while it was the person on my right the whole time.

      When you push former offenders into homelessness, how is that protecting the public? Wouldn’t you want to have Law enforcement to know where they live? Or just have them transient.

      When Runner proposed this to the Public Safety Committee, it was pointed out that there are several juveniles living in the streets, and pushing offenders into the street doesn’t protect them!

      Residency restrictions was a failure. Many voters didn’t know the collateral affect it would have on society. We didn’t know it would have no effect on reducing sexual crimes, we didn’t know that it would push offenders into homelessness, we didn’t know that it would do the complete opposite of what it was promised to do – increase public safety. Instead of owning up to this failure, Runner ignores all of this and continues to push the agenda to further punish offenders while putting the public at a greater risk.

      I wish I lived in Runner’s district- if so, I would be pounding the door and demanding Sen. Runner’s resignation or recalled.

      Reply
    • Joe says:

      Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

      You hit the nail on the head:
      “I just know I don’t want some creep who preys on little kids–be it with his hands or a camera, near my home or loved ones or the park where my family’s children play”
      These laws are all about hate and not if they work or not. Do you know if you have a drug dealer near you who’s dealing to kids? How about a murderer. A habitual dui offender? I’m sure you’d want them out to if you knew about it. The sad thing is you even KNOW a kid on the list and surely you
      Know the misery that family is going thru and you still support these horrendous laws.

      Reply
13. Biff says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    My bad for realizing that this train wreck has moved on… below is a response I submitted on the original article.

    http://scvnews.com/2015/07/31/dems-kill-safety-bill-commentary-by-sen-sharon-runner/

    For convenience I am copying and pasting it below. Please refer to the quoted portions from the original news article. Here goes…

    @Betty Arenson – good grief…. where to begin. Let’s see….

    “Oh my gosh….the “distance” is the issue?” Uhmmm, yah! It is all about the distance. It is about someone residing 1,999 feet from a school putting our children in grave danger, while 2,001 feet from a school is fine. If this law is not about distance, what then? A distance that, mind you, can be traversed on foot by an average adult in just over 8 minutes. There is always running and driving. Yikes!

    “Lets be real; if these molesters and murderers were kept behind bars as they should be, there would be no need to draw boundaries on the outside of prison walls.” Yes let’s be real and remember that murderers(!) once released from prison have no, zero restrictions on ANYTHING. Riddle me that. And keeping them in prison for life? All 850,000 people required to register as sex offenders in this country? People like Zach Anderson (you can easily google him)? Not on my tax dime, thank you very much. And not with my Constitution. And you think someone like that should not be on the list? But he be. And would be subject to Sen. Runner’s law.

    “Do you want one of these bad characters living next to you or you family members, especially the vulnerable? I don’t.” And there you have it. Need I remind you that Jessica’s Law is about prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within a certain proximity from schools and parks. That is how it was sold to the public. It has absolutely nothing to do with “living next to you”. Unless, of course, there are so many centers with diameters large enough that they will result in banishment from entire cities. Oh, what’s that, banishment is against the law. Which is what this court decision is all about. It is also my understanding that in this country, i.e. just past Santa Clarita there are large areas with sparse population (ironically Sen. Runner’s district) where these people will be forced to move to once drive out of YOUR neighborhood. So you think it is okay for other people to have neighbors like that, but unacceptable for you? Let me the one to tell you. These laws (on the face) are about schools and parks and NOT about whom you approve of as a neighbor or your property value. Because that is the bottom line, is it not?

    All Sen. Runner was doing with her feeble attempt was to substitute one blanket ban for another. The only difference being who administers the blanket. Tsk tsk. She was asked to come back with a revised bill. Very generous of the committee, including the “Dems”. Apparently she has called uncle and is slamming the very people that gave her a second chance. Keep up the good work? If that is the best she’s got then Lord help us.

    “The fact the perverts are even allowed to contest the matter is pretty darn generous of the USA’s Democratic society.” Seriously? Where do you get this stuff from? Certain people not allowed to contest something in a court of law is the direct antithesis of a democracy.

    “By the way Michael, thank you for the dialogue in a respectful manner versus name-calling and drive-by shots.” hmmmm… who used words like “slime”, “pervert”, “creep”? That is hardly a respectful manner. Sure sounds like name-calling and drive-by shots to me. I do not know @Michael from Adam and he may well be one of those people you so loathe (and if so called the names above) but he’s got you in the class department by a mile.

    Reply
14. Biff says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Sen. Runner was afforded the opportunity to amend her bill, in the interest of public safety, by both parties in the CA Senate Public Safety Committee – in an effort to have it pass Constitutional muster. I call THAT democracy.

    She failed or elected not to do so and instead chose to trash her political adversaries, blaming them for the failure of her ill advised bill. I call that an epic failure and a sorry attempt at diversion from one’s and one’s bill’s shortcomings. At the end of the day, really pathetic.

    Reply
15. Biff says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    “I don’t believe I’m alone is considering all of them as murderers. When a dominant figure molests, rapes or commits commits any similar act, the soul of the victim is killed. The victims are robbed of their senses of self-worth, trust, peace, safety, freedom and security for the rest of their lives.” – @Betty Arenson – please find out the definition of “molesting” in the State of California. While there are, no doubt, terrible people who commit heinous acts, all it takes for a ‘child molestation’ conviction (PC 647.6) complete with lifetime sex offender registration is ‘inappropriate language’ directed to a person under 18. Or having a 17 year old girlfriend at age 19, to become one’s wife. You state: “…the soul of the victim is killed”. For reals??? Care to back up the hysteria train just a bit?

    Reply
16. Biff says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    My bad for “NOT” realizing… (above – moderator, please edit if possible)

    Reply
17. Biff says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    “For at least the 5th-or 6th time AGAIN, aren’t most of us talking about “tiered” offenses versus one-size-fits-all sex offenses.”
    Not sure what you are talking about, but it does not matter. All that matters is that Sen. Runner was talking about blanket restrictions (on the local level) for all 290 registrants. When you get elected to the California Senate, Betty Arenson, I will be the first to support your “tiered” offenses bill. Until then I will oppose Sen. Runner’s bill and call her out for the opportunistic hack that she is. Next!

    Reply
18. TPL says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    On June 28, 2007, I had returned home after a long flight from New York following my grandmother’s funeral. I was exhausted and tired. Within hours, a young man broke into my home, physically assaulted me before forcibly raping me. It felt like an eternity but was probably only a few minutes before he was done and ran out of my apartment. I was alone. My family was still in New York. I was in a state of shock. This rapist was 2 months shy of his 18th birthday. Because I am an adult female and he was still a juvenile I was charged with unlawful sex with a minor. ME. The victim. The attorneys told me “You allowed yourself to be taken advantage of.” A true example of blaming the victim. But a statutory rape is much easier to guarantee conviction that a rape by an acquaintance (a neighbor). I was told it was my fault. I am now a registered sex offender for my own rape because the law stated that juveniles do not rape adult women. Are you going to tell me that I can’t live in a safe community? Are you going to say that I am not entitled to the same rights afforded all Americans?

    Of course my case was reviewed by a new county and the case dismissed. But I’m still required to register. Where is the justice?

    Reply
19. Shelly Stow says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Nor would residency restrictions have helped their victims. Those men were murderers. Yes, when someone has a history of repeat violence, society should be protected, as much as we can be, but it should be protected by the appropriate sentencing of the individual who is the danger. It should not pass laws and ordinances that affect hundreds of thousands of individuals, including their spouses, children, parents, and siblings, who have nothing in common with a few, violent murderers with the exception of having their names on the same list, a list that covers a wide, wide range of behaviors.

    Reply
20. Derek Logue says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Once again you are focused on the very small number of folks that murdered. As I stated, the murderers of those children had life sentences handed down at the time of sentencing. The few that inspire residency laws will never have to worry about living under them.

    I can’t expect any rational conversation when you keep using terms like “creeps” and “perverts.” All that tells me is you are still stuck on the same tired stereotypes that clouds the conversation. You rely too much on anecdotes and emotional appeals as the basis for your entire argument.

    Here is something to consider– we have a little something called the US Constitution (seems like something you conservatives tend to forget when not discussing the 2nd Amendment). Like it or not, EVERYONE, even convicted criminals, have rights. Unfortunately, we have a traitor to the Constitution sitting as chief justice, and there are enough cowards joining him to erode the freedoms of all citizens under the guise of “public safety.” S*x crime laws are just one way to make eroding rights easier.

    So I take it you prefer feeling safe as opposed to feeling free?

    Reply
21. Marie says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Betty said, “We’re never going to agree on the ‘efficacy’ of residence restrictions….maybe its a feel-safer thing for families and not a solidly valuable tool to many; I just know I don’t want some creep who preys on little kids–be it with his hands or a camera, near my home or loved ones or the park where my family’s children play.”

    Too late, Betty. The people on the registry are not the ones parents need to worry about. Registrants who commit another sex offense are rare. Most sex offense arrests are of first-time offenders. That means that the “creeps” you need to worry about are the ones NOT on the registry.

    You asked for facts and research and you got them in the earlier comments. Your response to those comments has been to feebly wave your hands and say, but the registry restrictions make me FEEL safer!

    Which do you want? To FEEL safer while new sex offenses–by first-time offenders–continue to happen in your community or to actually prevent new crimes? If you choose ‘feeling better’ over prevention, you are despicable.

    Reply
22. Betty says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Regardless of what YOU think, the courts, who keep people like you and Ms. Runner in check, said its not constitutional. You can rant, rave, writhe and wring your hands, cherry pick the comments that make you look intelligent with your response, but you can’t argue that you are wrong. Runner is wrong. Thank GOD we have courts with intelligent people keeping people like you in check.

    Reply
23. Hannah Grace says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Ms. Arenson – I agree with the idea of punishing the sexually violent predator. However, the one-size-fits-all law of California is utterly ridiculous. Are you aware that 95% of sexual abuse is at the hands of a trusted individual? Are you aware that an individual convicted of incest is not required to register on the PUBLIC sex offender registry? I ask you: who is more dangerous to children – The drunk driver with repeated convictions, the drug dealer selling his “candy” to the neighborhood children, the adults who have repeated convictions for domestic abuse/child abuse? Aren’t all of these crimes just as heinous as sexual molestation? In my opinion, they are more because there is no public information (registry) to inform the neighborhood of their transgressions. Yet those crimes have a higher recidivism rate than sex crimes. Most registered citizens have only one conviction for a sex offense and yet have a lifelong punishment. Those who are guilty of the most heinous are not on the registry because they are required to register after they are released from prison. Most of the violent sex offenders are in prison for life. I challenge you to become educated on the FACTS concerning the sex offender. I have already done my research.

    Reply
24. hk says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Ms. Arenson, If, one of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren did something to put him/her on the sex offender registry, how would you treat that child?

    Reply
25. Bradley Schultz says:

    Saturday, Aug 8, 2015 at

    Ms. Arenson, you expect one to “…protect and follow the Constitution of the United States in its entirety.” But what seems lost in your stance is the Constitution protects the individual, sex offender or not, from government oppression. Since you claim to be an expert, please cite how sex offender laws do not violate ex post facto and/or Eighth Amendment (as it once did prior to Smith v. Doe, 588 U.S. 84 (2002)) and/or Fourteeth Amendment proportionality. The inherent fallacy in your stance is in the title invoking victims Jessica and Megan. The politicians, such as Senator Runner, exploited Jessica’s and Megan’s names at the disingenuous emotionally-charged attempt to get re-elected (you bought political BS and have taken it up a notch). Fact is that poor Jessica and Megan were victimized by people ALREADY required to register as a sex offender. So the registry did nothing to save Megan and Jessica. There are about 700,000 sex offenders in this country, over 100,000 in California alone.

    Reply
26. Brian Baker says:

    Sunday, Aug 9, 2015 at

    Interesting mix of comments on your article, Betty. Many along the lines of: “punishment doesn’t prevent future crimes”, etc.

    Well, actually, that’s true enough. The ONLY punishment that actually prevents future crimes is executions that are actually carried out. Once a guy’s dead, I can pretty much guarantee he won’t re-offend.

    However, excepting that, if the only criterion we’re going to use to determine punishment is whether or not it will “prevent future crimes”, we may as well do away with ALL actual punishment, and maybe just admonish them harshly. A few stern words, and send them on their way.

    Registration of sex offenders is part of the penalty prescribed by laws enacted under the state’s Penal Code, no less so than the applicable prison sentence. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Plain and simple.

    Reply
    • Shelly Stow says:

      Monday, Aug 10, 2015 at

      No, Brian, actually registration is not legally punishment, and the only time SCOTUS ruled on it, many years ago, they ruled it was not. It was established as a “civil regulatory scheme,” but anyone who knows anything knows it is punishment in disguise, and some courts are finally seeing that, mainly because the requirements are becoming more and more onerous. You see, it is applied retroactively in almost all states and is for a lifetime in many states, often for behaviors that were relatively trivial and many committed as children and juveniles. If it were legally punishment, none of this would be allowed. We would be quite happy for you to do everything you can to convince your legislators that it is indeed punishment.

      Reply
    • Jean says:

      Monday, Aug 10, 2015 at

      Brian,
      The registry isn’t apart of the punishment. If it were, it would have been ruled as unconstitutional by the courts. The registry solely exists because it’s seen as regulatory. Yet, everyone can see the registry for what it is – a punishment, and for many offenders- for life.

      Reply
    • hk says:

      Monday, Aug 10, 2015 at

      Brian, would it be okay for a police officer come to your house and tell you can not there, anymore for a crime(s) the you have done and did the time for many years, ago? By the way, living in your house was not part of “doing the time” at the time you did the crime.

      Reply
27. michael says:

    Sunday, Aug 9, 2015 at

    I really wish the media and any other organization would stop publishing, producing or relying on reports and opinions from law makers or any organizations about how great sex offender registration and notification laws work. They are using false statistics and pure myths to further their personal agendas under the guise of protecting children. None of these failed policies have achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry. Individuals and organizations should have enough integrity to investigate their claims before they publish it or rely on it and be sure that there is some credibility to it and not just a platform to exploit children for a law makers personal gains or their own. Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate what a failure these registration and public notification laws are in the US. These laws are a waste of tax dollars and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and government agency resources.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483

    These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8%

    The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ

    Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do.

    From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

    The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

    I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject.

    Thank you for your time.

    Reply
28. Anthony Jones says:

    Monday, Aug 10, 2015 at

    The sex offender registry is EVIL!
    See this documentary film on it http://www.evillaw.tk

    Reply
29. Bradley Schwartz says:

    Tuesday, Aug 11, 2015 at

    BTW, how did Ms. Arenson become a talking head by hiding behind the Bible, Second Amendment, pretending to hold the Constitution dear, and claiming not to be concerned of the President’s skin color? She’s clearly shown prejudice against an unfairly oppressed minority (those who have already paid their sentence to society). She seems to ignore the parables of Jesus protecting oppressed misfits. She clearly knows little of the Constitution. I would be concerned with this woman having Second Amendment rights! Does Arenson understand the original intent of the Second Amendment? Arenson is the type of person scam artist politicians like state senator Sharon Runner rely on: Arenson the ‘misinformed voter.’ Boggled by smoke and mirrors, Arenson’s kind is a political pawn of state senator Runner of the first-degree. I can’t believe Arenson’s dummy vote is worth as much as mine.

    Reply
30. Michael says:

    Tuesday, Aug 11, 2015 at

    Well, contrary to POPULAR belief, we, thankfully, do NOT live in a democracy.

    In a democracy the majority (also sometimes known as the mob, with a mob’s mentality)can ride roughshod over the rights of the minority or minorities with a simple majority vote.

    We, fortunately, live in a constitutional REPUBLIC (“…and for the republic for which it stands…”)in which the rights of the minority or the unpopular are protected, or are supposed to be, by fair and REASONABLE laws.
    Which Jessica’s law is/was not.

    A law that is popular with the mob does not mean the same thing as it being right, good or effective.

    I don’t think I have to remind anyone that, just because something is popular means that it is right and/or fair.
    Ie. Rumor has it that slavery was once VERY POPULAR in the south.

    Reply

Leave a Comment