California’s Proposition 83 also known as “Jessica’s Law” is a proposition that was voted into California’s government in their November 2006 elections. Proposition 83 increases the prison time of convicted child molesters from its current ruling to 25 years or more sentencing. Proposition 83 will require registered sex offenders to live no closer then 2000 feel from any school or park. Proposition 83 will require sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devices for the rest of their lives.
When proposition 83 was penned it was proposed that these new laws or amendments to the current Megan’s Law would be just for those who currently being released from prison on sexual offense convictions. It was not to be retroactive or so it seems. A writer wrote “The proposition does not specify only sex offenders who are convicted after the law goes into effect. Some legal scholars speculate that it could legally apply to thousands still in prison, and possibly to more than 65,000 sex offenders who are no longer under state watch.” (Contra Costa Times, 2006)
Legalizing proposition 83 to be retroactive could force current inmates to serve more time for their crimes, move registered sex offenders away from your homes and make them wear a tracking device for the rest of their lives but will these regulations actually protect children better? Some say yes, some say no, I say we need better solutions.
There is a problem with the 2000 foot regulations in California. It is the fact that most of San Francisco, The Bay Area, and Los Angeles are within a 2000 foot radius of schools and parks. This would cause registered sex offenders to move to rural areas of California.
I can understand the fact that a sex offender should not live within walking distance of a school but in today’s world of transportation, what is stopping a person from getting into a car and traveling to an area where there are children?
Plus, no one is looking at the fact that sexual abuse towards children happens between a child and someone that adult trusts. A small percentage of sexual predators are strangers to the children that they harm.
“Critics say it would dump sex offenders on small municipalities with few resources to monitor them, possibly raising the danger level by isolating them from family support and treatment.” (Capitol Notes, 2006). For a sex offender to move to rural areas of California means that sex offenders will not have access to the resources that are needed for rehabilitation or to produce a normal lifestyle of employment and housing.
I agree that a pedophile should be reminded of the trama that was done to a child. I’m not trying to say “Oh poor Pedophiles.” but the truth is, these individuals still have to make a living. There are some who have served their time and are trying to change their lives around.
In the age of Internet, sexual predators are running ramped. One in five children who use computer chatrooms has been approached over the Internet by pedophiles. (Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Akerman, Telegraph.co.uk January 2002). For example, a hot site called myspace.com has nearly seventy million profiles on them. Many of them are profiles of young teens, this means that of those seventy million profiles, 7 million or more could be contacted by pedophiles.
As you can see, limiting where a pedophile can live is not going to stop them from having access to your children. I believe that Proposition 83 was written with good intentions in mind but simply misses the point.
