ShareThisWednesday, November 15, 2006
Less than 24 hours after voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative that would impose ill-considered restrictions on paroled sex offenders, a federal judge stayed those parts of the new law that would have covered existing parolees. And, in a hint of just how poorly drafted and ill considered this measure was, even Proposition 83's most ardent supporters welcomed the judge's action.
Among other things, Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, bars paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. It also requires them to wear global positioning devices that will track their comings and goings for life.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the initiative was convicted of a nonaggravated sex offense 15 years ago, served his time and according to his lawsuit "has been a law-abiding and productive member of his community" ever since. Because he lives within 2,000 feet of a school or park, "(p)laintiff will be forced to move from his home, and ... be irreparably harmed," federal Judge Susan Illston wrote in her restraining order. That order blocks the measure from applying retroactively to some 90,000 sex offenders who committed their crimes before the measure was approved.
The legal affairs secretary for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a strong supporter of Proposition 83, said the administration would "vigorously" fight the lawsuit. But the initiative's leading sponsors, Sen. George Runner, and his wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, said they never intended for Proposition 83 to apply retroactively, and they don't believe the judge's order will interfere with implementation plans.
Meanwhile, the president of the California Correctional Peace Officer's Association, the state prison guards union, who previously supported the initiative, has had second thoughts. At a Capitol hearing last week, Mike Jimenez said he believes Proposition 83 will burden parole agents with the impossible task of finding housing for thousands of displaced sex offenders. He called it "a bad idea." He's right. Sadly, it's now state law.
