The California Supreme Court has (partially) overthrown the residency restrictions on sex offenders passed in the state's "Jessica's Law" referendum.
Now, in theory, keeping sexual predators away from kids sounds like a great idea. In practice, though …
1. There's no actual evidence that it works to reduce child molestation.
2. The California restrictions — forbidding residence within 2,000 feet of a school or park — were such that it was difficult to impossible for many paroled offenders to find housing or rehabilitation programs — especially when some municipalities gamed the system by broadening definitions of school or park locations, or building "pocket parks" intended solely to block out neighborhoods. In the case the court decided on, it was found that the law blocked access to 97% of San Diego's apartment units.
3. California's law doesn't take into account the risk of a given offender or even what their "sexual offense" was — public urination outside a bar at 2 a.m., for example, can end up classified as a sexual offense.
Again, I'm in favor of protecting kids. But our sexual offender laws are more than a little nuts at times, in terms of who gets classified as such, and then how we try to sweep the whole category beneath the rug by banishing anyone who is classified that way from our communities and from where they can get work and shelter and (if needed) treatment.
A welcome decision limiting residency rules of Jessica’s Law
The problem with California’s version of Jessica’s Law — one of the problems, anyway — is that it so severely undermines the ability of a sex offender to return safely and responsibly to society that it may well make the person more dangerous rather than less. The measure’s blanket ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of a park or school pushes many parolees out of cities and suburbs altogether, keeping them away from drug and alcohol tr…
