Pages: 1

 

2006-10-20 13:25:30
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California
Ok, I've been doing my civic duty reading ballot measures (California) before voting on November 7th, and since this is something that can apply to everyone, I'd like to pick your collective brains.

Prop 83 (aka "Jessica's Law") is  proposing to limit registered sex offenders to much less of an area within the San Francisco Bay Area to live by preventing them from living 2000 feet from a school or a park (supposedly parks active with kids playing).  Looking on a map of the SF Bay Area which shows small round markings highlighting safe zones according to this proposition leaves very few places a registered sex offender can live.  So naturally, at the onset of hearing about this measure, I think "Sure, why not!  Make neighborhood parks and schools safer!"

But then, after taking my vote more seriously (like people should do), I studied it more, read the arguments for and against this measure, and i started thinking of other important aspects.  I noticed on that map that it would push registered sex offenders (the bulk of 90, 000 of them) to neighborhoods within 10 miles of my home and further east in the Bay Area.  So what of those neighborhoods?  People there with kids, mortgages, and satisfaction with their neighborhoods now will likely get inundated with all the region's worst neighbors.

I also thought about how much of a witch hunt this is because while many of those scumbags would definately repeat their offenses if given an opportunity, some are genuinely changed and probably even free of the criminal behavior of their past. 

I live 50 feet away from a registered sex offender.  I've seen him in our parking lot several times coming and going, and I know his face, vital stats, his crimes, his timed served, and I have thought thoroughly about how to protect my children from him should he spring into action against them.  My children know his face very well, his name, and they know to run from him if he should ever approach them.  But that's it.  I"m not gonna get a witch hunt going or harrass him or call the cops on him if he's ever near our building.  LIkewise, I'm kind of weary of this proposition as it sounds like it might be just that..a misdirected witch hunt.  Currently, Megan's Law in our area seems like it's doing the job it's intended to do, why make such a drastic step?  or should I?

How would you vote?  HERE'S PROP 83

** This is primarily for people with kids who know the concern I'm talking of, but feel free to discuss if you aren't a child owner **

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-20 13:26:00)

2006-10-20 13:38:36
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6701|The Land of Scott Walker
Hmmmm. 

" . . . the bulk of 90, 000 of them) to neighborhoods within 10 miles of my home and further east in the Bay Area.  So what of those neighborhoods?  People there with kids, mortgages, and satisfaction with their neighborhoods now will likely get inundated with all the region's worst neighbors." 

That would probably prevent me from voting for it, if Megan's Law is effective.  What are the details on Megan's Law?  Sounds like you've taken the necessary steps to protect your kids in an open society.  Not much more you can do.  Other than clean your AR-15 on the front porch.
2006-10-20 13:40:19
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6992|Salt Lake City

It's really quite stupid once you think about it.  Just because they can't live by those places doesn't mean they can't go there and snatch up a kid if they really wanted to do so.  Also, like you said, this forces those not within the protected areas to suffer the blunt of an abnormally high number of sex offenders; neighborhoods which also contain children.
2006-10-20 13:40:47
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6837|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

** This is primarily for people with kids who know the concern I'm talking of, but feel free to discuss if you aren't a child owner **
Child owner, I like that.
2006-10-20 13:41:24
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6965|Wilmington, DE, US
Build parks everywhere so they have to live in the middle of nowhere.

EDIT: Why not build a giant pen in Montana or some low population state for them?

Last edited by Ikarti (2006-10-20 13:41:49)

2006-10-20 13:42:18
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

It's really quite stupid once you think about it.  Just because they can't live by those places doesn't mean they can't go there and snatch up a kid if they really wanted to do so.  Also, like you said, this forces those not within the protected areas to suffer the blunt of an abnormally high number of sex offenders; neighborhoods which also contain children.
Exactly.  If they live out in Brentwood or Oakley, they can get in their windowless kidnap van and drive towards a schoolyard and get their game on.


Stingray wrote:

Hmmmm.

" . . . the bulk of 90, 000 of them) to neighborhoods within 10 miles of my home and further east in the Bay Area.  So what of those neighborhoods?  People there with kids, mortgages, and satisfaction with their neighborhoods now will likely get inundated with all the region's worst neighbors."

That would probably prevent me from voting for it, if Megan's Law is effective.  What are the details on Megan's Law?  Sounds like you've taken the necessary steps to protect your kids in an open society.  Not much more you can do.  Other than clean your AR-15 on the front porch. big_smile
Megan's law allows you to go to your county website and view on a map where registered offenders are living, and usually it'll list details like what they did, if they're out of registration, etc.  I've used it to print out the dozen or so offenders who live within 5 miles of my home so i can memorize their faces, names, and some of their crimes..and likewise show my children their faces to hopefully commit to memory.

there's also other laws that require GPS locators on such offenders.  and this is all good and all, but there's the other notion that the unregistered sex offenders or first timers are still out there.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-20 13:46:06)

2006-10-20 13:46:25
jarhedch
Member
+12|6926|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st
yet another reason for the right to bear arms. I'm voting yes, even though i'm not a "child owner", simply because it allows us to keep better tabs on them. Having said that, I don't think that the law will do much more than what's going on now. However, we've yet to see what it can do.
2006-10-20 13:51:12
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California
Yeah, if a yes vote passes, they may not even congregate and fill up vacancies in the far east bay..they'll probably just go under the radar or leave the state as many are guessing.

Be nice if funds for prop 83 also went to prevention...like outlawing porn, making prospective parents take classes on how to be a good, nurturing parent; teach people how to value life and virtue...etc, etc...
2006-10-20 14:00:04
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6837|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

Yeah, if a yes vote passes, they may not even congregate and fill up vacancies in the far east bay..they'll probably just go under the radar or leave the state as many are guessing.

Be nice if funds for prop 83 also went to prevention...like outlawing porn, making prospective parents take classes on how to be a good, nurturing parent; teach people how to value life and virtue...etc, etc...
Outlawing porn!

That's crazy talk. You can't go saying things like that on the internet, it'll get upset.
2006-10-20 14:05:19
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California
True, we don't want all of BF2S reporting me for spam..maybe i should edit that! lol

Can't mess with the precious pr0n....
2006-10-20 14:34:28
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6853|Seattle

Demographics have little to do with when/where/why people sexually assault kids. It can be anywhere at anytime so I would have to say it does not matter if they're 50 feet from a school or 50 miles.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-10-20 14:40:51
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

King_County_Downy wrote:

Demographics have little to do with when/where/why people sexually assault kids. It can be anywhere at anytime so I would have to say it does not matter if they're 50 feet from a school or 50 miles.
Well apparently not.  They're wording this measure because sexual predators who live by schools and parks do have greater tendancy to recommit their sexual crimes.  Removing that proximity would/could prevent the lazy ones from repeating..I'd hope.

But I do see what you're saying.  And for what it's worth, Megan's law (or one of the other ones on this topic) requires the sherrifs department to notify schools of registered sex offenders who live a certain distance from schools.  And in general, I think registered sex offenders are obliged to tell prospective landlords of their label.
2006-10-20 14:42:13
jarhedch
Member
+12|6926|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st
You'd make my wife very happy indeed if we 'd outlaw porn, though it'll never happen. As for the costs associated, Thats a dopr in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. People have yet to realize the crisis the state is still in budget wise, it's bloated, inefficient government at it's worst in CA, with useless programs, and too mant, designed to take over the basic necessity of everyday choice and life. If teh tide doesn't stop disastrous results will happen.
2006-10-20 14:47:13
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

jarhedch wrote:

You'd make my wife very happy indeed if we 'd outlaw porn, though it'll never happen. As for the costs associated, Thats a dopr in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. People have yet to realize the crisis the state is still in budget wise, it's bloated, inefficient government at it's worst in CA, with useless programs, and too mant, designed to take over the basic necessity of everyday choice and life. If teh tide doesn't stop disastrous results will happen.
Which is why i'm voting yes on
J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e so far. 

maybe i'll make a thread for 87..that's a tough one too..though I think YES is the way to go only because Chevron is the only "anti-87" ad I've seen.  it's impossible to know what will really happen.
2006-10-20 14:51:03
jarhedch
Member
+12|6926|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st
http://www.nooiltax.com/
sorry to say Iron chef, 87 would be a disaster, (and oil companies aren't evil) and I'm voting no on every bond issue going. We can't be borrowing anymore money at teh expense of the future. Ca needs to pare down its bloated government, not throw more money on it. Taking out more bonds bails out the very people that need to be reigned in and stop the over spending. The CA status for bonds is so bad that we're actually spending $2 for eveyr $1 that actually gets spent on the projects the money goes towards.

Last edited by jarhedch (2006-10-20 14:51:36)

2006-10-20 15:02:26
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California
Bond money aside, CA gov't is where the money needs to come from to pay back the huge debt..which was raped from us partially because of corrupt energy policy.  I'm laughing to think what angelides would do to fix the debt..he'd probably put is closer to Davis sized debt that Arnold has helped to alleviate a little.
2006-10-20 15:17:35
jarhedch
Member
+12|6926|Aberdeen, Uk, SF Bay Area 1st
agreed, Angelides would be useless to fix things, but the government would be good to pare down the massive programs that are inneffective (in addition to loosening the stranglehold the unions have on the budget), and Arnie has done some good, but has largely been hamstrung by a very incompetent and out of touch congress,. Davis badly screwed the pooch in office during the energy crisis waiting for hte feds to come in (which they didn't, and shouldn't have), and I am glad he's out. The incumbents need to be booted out, and accountability needs to be retunred to the lawmaker's list of things they need to worry about.
2006-10-20 15:20:06
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6785|Global Command

IRONCHEF wrote:

Prop 83 (aka "Jessica's Law") is  proposing to limit registered sex offenders to much less of an area within the San Francisco Bay Area to live by preventing them from living 2000 feet from a school or a park (supposedly parks active with kids playing).  Looking on a map of the SF Bay Area which shows small round markings highlighting safe zones according to this proposition leaves very few places a registered sex offender can live.  So naturally, at the onset of hearing about this measure, I think "Sure, why not!  Make neighborhood parks and schools safer!"

But then, after taking my vote more seriously (like people should do), I studied it more, read the arguments for and against this measure, and i started thinking of other important aspects.  I noticed on that map that it would push registered sex offenders (the bulk of 90, 000 of them) to neighborhoods within 10 miles of my home and further east in the Bay Area.  So what of those neighborhoods?  People there with kids, mortgages, and satisfaction with their neighborhoods now will likely get inundated with all the region's worst neighbors.
So what your saying is " not in my back yard?"

The law doesn't stipulate where they have to move, just where they can't.

Father of two in California voting Yes
2006-10-20 15:24:31
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6756|Los Angeles
I'm going to vote NO. For me it swings too far in a weird NIMBY direction. I'm not convinced that the deviant behavior that this will effectively prevent is enough to offset the huge blow to other guys who haven't done anything wrong for 40 years.

The thing is, the system for registering sex offenders is simply not fair in my opinion. It's too binary. You have guys who raped 10 kids last year who register as a sex offender. You also have guys who got drunk and flashed themselves to a 25 year old girl in 1965 who still need to register as a sex offender. Personally I think the first type should be registered and the second guy should be let out of the system. Or maybe create levels of behavior, so the 2000-ft rule would apply only to people who are child predators. I would support this prop after such a distinction, but not before.

Whatever the case, for me the negatives from this prop far outweigh the benefits that can be reasonably expected, so I'm not going to vote for it. To me it's just more fear-driven platform tool that people will use to get votes later... "I am a strong advocate of the family... I voted for tougher laws against sex offenders". The ones who would really benefit from this passing are politicians.

Chef if you're looking at the official voter info guide, check p. 46 for the rebuttal to the argument in favor, or you can find the same thing here - Iowa passed similar props before and they're trying to repeal because they're "ineffective, a drain on law enforcement resources, and far too costly to taxpayers." And then I see they use my argument... "its most punitive and restrictive measures would apply far more broadly; even to those convicted of misdemeanor, nonviolent offenses". "A 19 year old boy could be subjected to lifetime monitoring after a conviction for having sexual contact with his 17-year old girlfriend". The rebuttal to the argument against doesn't even try to address the points of the argument against - they just use ALL CAPS to restate the same arguments. Weak.
2006-10-20 15:39:00
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6747|Northern California

ATG wrote:

So what your saying is " not in my back yard?"
No.  I have one 50 feet from me, across the street from me, and a handful a fewmore blocks away..and about 3 near my daughter's kindergarten.  Voting yes would cause them all to be gone since i'm right by a park, but I think it is ineffective and too "witch hunt" like...and a waste of money.  Also, as others have said, it doesn't mean it will prevent the crimes.

But as ship says above, it hasn't done well in other places.

Having boiled it down, reading the various articles, the arguments, and opinions on this thread....I ask myself if my YES vote will make my children safer?  Secondly, will it make other children safer?  And will it work and not cost me alot.

I think it won't make my children safer, it will possibly make other children safer, but i don't think it will work and it will be expensive as cited in ohio.  but will i feel guilty casting a no vote...

EDIT
Ok, just learned more info that will definately make me vote NO on 83.  Wow, you really can find things if you want to...

Turns out that Arnold just passed laws that effectively do the job that prop 83 would do, without the added cost and occupying of our police forces (SBs 1128 and 1178) that 83 would cost.  It says that such offenders could not be within 1360 feet of a school, there's no loitering around schools or other places kids congregate (malls?  parks?).  It already has the GPS locating and staffing..prop 83 would require more money being spent to have more monitors.  Prop 83 would require all registered sex offenders to wear GPS locators FOR LIFE (unconstitutional) while current laws require they wear them for the duration of their parole.

Long and short of it is...Prop 83 will cause Urban areas to be free of sex offenders pushing them all to suburbia and more rural areas (far east bay, far south bay)...and lots of money will be spent for little added safety or improvement on current laws.

Ironchef says "NO" on 83.

Sweet.  Thanks BF2S community for your input.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-20 16:07:48)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard