California AG declares blanket residency restrictions unconstitutional

By Kate Mather . . . California officials announced Thursday that the state would stop enforcing a key provision of a voter-approved law that prohibits all registered sex offenders from living near schools.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said it would no longer impose the blanket restrictions outlined in Jessica’s Law that forbids all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, regardless of whether their crimes involved children.

High-risk sex offenders and those whose crimes involved children under 14 will still be prohibited from living within a half-mile of a school, the CDCR emphasized. Otherwise, officials will assess each parolee based on factors relating to their individual cases, the agency said.

The shift comes nine years after California voters approved the controversial law, which has made it difficult for some sex offenders to find places to live.

The California Supreme Court on March 2 unanimously ruled that Jessica’s Law violated the constitutional rights of parolees living in San Diego County who had argued that the limitations made it impossible for them to obtain housing. As a result, advocates said, some parolees were living in places like riverbeds and alleys.

“While the court’s ruling is specific to San Diego County, its rationale is not,” CDCR spokesman Luis Patino said Thursday. “After reviewing the court’s analysis, the state attorney general’s office advised CDCR that applying the blanket mandatory residency restrictions of Jessica’s Law would be found to be unconstitutional in every county.” (Read the full story at Los Angeles Times)

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Avatar

  • This topic has 3 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by AvatarConcerned wife and mother.
Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11513 Reply
      Avatar
      James Townsend

      Its a shame that the government is finding out how wrong all this is but government is government and it seems all government wants to be right. That law was discrimination to start with. To have people separated from families, no place to live, no family support, or no were to lay there head. Sooner or later government will find out that they are the one’s that do more wrong than right in a lot of these sex issues. In fact I’m sure a lot on the registry where caught up in these sex sting operations that are a bit unconstitutional. Police are suppose to be protecting and serving they are not protecting and serving when they pose as teenagers in adult chat sites, and than when caught up in all this scheme they lose their whole life to a fictitious registry for life. A lot of these man-made laws are simply ridiculous .

    • #11514 Reply
      Avatar
      Al

      High-risk sex offenders and those whose crimes involved children under 14 will still be prohibited from living within a half-mile of a school, the CDCR emphasized. Otherwise, officials will assess each parolee based on factors relating to their individual cases, the agency said.

      The California Supreme Court on March 2 unanimously ruled that Jessica’s Law violated the constitutional rights of parolees living in San Diego County who had argued that the limitations made it impossible for them to obtain housing.

      Um… excuse me, but if it’s unconstitutional for one, it is unconstitutional for all… you cannot have your cake, and eat it too.

      It is about time that people are starting to realize the absurdity of these laws. and acctually, there are worse ones… Almost all sex offenders, whether or not they had crimes against children (which really doesn’t matter anyway), while on probation or parole, are prohibited from being around children. period. no exceptions. (in most states)

      This absurd ruling, while well intentioned, is flatly unconstitutional, (first amendment as well as others), and prevents offenders from attending basically every family function or holiday event, making them a pariah within their own family structure, and forcing them to be outside even their own family society support structure at times when it is most needed.

      If an offender had a crime against a certain family member, they would be under violation of a no contact order to be around that person anyway. If an offender cannot attend a family function, or holiday dinner with family and friends, how are they to assimilate back into society in a normal way? For those offenders who end up with a lifetime special sentence, or lifetime parole, this would mean that they would NEVER be able to attend ANY family functions, holiday dinners, stop by a friends or family members house (that have children) unannounced, etc.
      If an offender were to attend a dinner at a restaurant with friends or family, and a child is seated at the table next to them, they would then have to leave the restaurant. (I know someone who was violated and locked up for this in Iowa)
      I was under the impression that the registry, and these special sentences, were to be administrative, and non punitive in their scope. That’s why they were shot down as cruel and inhumane punishment. This sure sounds punitive to me.

    • #11515 Reply
      Avatar
      Concerned wife and mother

      Yes, indeed…. They should be ruled unconstitutional in other states as well. It seems like each state dictates it’s own rules and regulations! Aren’t we one big country or just a bunch of little countries in one? They create bs laws, make them harsher trying to achieve their own political agenda, they are corrupt, violate the law themselves. It takes one dedicated hero to expose them for what they really are! That one in a million….. But imagine it there were one of a million? That would be the only way to succeed! Will we ever see this happen? I am starting to have doubts….. People want their liberties back and should be entitled to it!

Viewing 2 reply threads
Reply To: California AG declares blanket residency restrictions unconstitutional
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">