Following a March 2 ruling by the California Supreme Court, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced Wednesday that they would no longer enforce a key provision of the 2006 voter-passed Proposition 83. The proposition came to be known as Jessica’s Law, named after Jessica Lunsford, a nine-year-old girl who was raped and murdered in 2005. Part of that law prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Because this provision led to increased homelessness, however, California officials are walking it back.
California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that Jessica’s Law had “increased the incidence of homelessness among [sex offenders], and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling, and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees.”
In announcing the changes, CDCR spokesman Luis Patino said, “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.”
According to sex offender advocates – and wouldn’t you love to call yourself one of those – victims of the law were being forced to live in places like riverbeds and alleys because they could not find housing that qualified. Apparently it’s that hard to find a house in California that’s more than 2,000 feet from a school. So hard that one would be forced to live in a riverbed. Come on.
If there is any category of criminal for whom we should retain strong restrictions, it’s sex offenders. According to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Statistics, rapists have a 24% recidivism rate, molesters who target girls 16%, and molesters who target boys 35%. The fact that California considers their housing rights to be more important than the right of children to feel safe at school says a lot about where our country is heading.
How much do you want to bet that the people advocating on behalf of these sex offenders are the same people who think it should be a crime to have a gun anywhere near a school zone? Maybe if the gun-owner was forced to live in an alley otherwise, they would be more understanding. Then again, the gun owners I know would be able to find an appropriate house if the alternative meant living in the wild.
Once again, liberals prove that the will of the voter means nothing to them if it conflicts with their desires. They prove once again that they will always be at the ready whenever there is a sex offender, a terrorist, an illegal immigrant, or a drug dealer who needs their help. After all, it’s law-abiding Americans who are the real enemy.