Fullerton Council Votes to Abolish Sex Offender Ordinance

The Fullerton City Council this week voted to abolish the city’s ordinance that restricted where convicted child sex offenders can live as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by a man who claims to have been rendered homeless by such laws.

James Touchstone, a lawyer working for Dick Jones, Fullerton’s contract city attorney, told council members that any attempt to fight the lawsuit would be futile because of a 2015 California Supreme Court decision that deemed a blanket enforcement of housing restrictions on sex offenders as unconstitutional.

The settlement also called for the city to donate $5,000 to the Family Safety Foundation.

“There have been 18 lawsuits filed by the same plaintiff,” Touchstone said, adding that Seal Beach and Tustin had similar suits filed against them.

However, police will still be able to monitor and, on a case-by-case basis, manage where sex offenders live while they’re on parole, Touchstone said.

Resident Barry Levinson, who pushed to get the city to adopt the ordinance in 2010, said the key phrase was “blanket enforcement.” He told the council that the state Supreme Court’s ruling isn’t applicable to Fullerton’s ordinance because of the way the law was written.

“Our law is specific” to child sex offenders. There has been, as far as I know, no similar case law being struck down,” Levinson said. “I ask you please … get all the facts before you make our children unsafe.”

After hearing Levinson’s input on the issue, the council asked Touchstone to clarify.

“With all due respect, I must disagree with Mr. Levinson on his comments,” Touchstone said. “It states that ‘any sex offender … is prohibited from residing within 2000 feet from any school, park or day care center.’”

However, the city ordinance does single out child sex offenders for its enforcement purposes.

“‘Sex offender’ means any person required by law to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender for an offense against or involving a child or children,” reads the ordinance.

Councilman Greg Sebourn asked if there was any chance to tweak the ordinance to keep it legal.

“Unfortunately, I do not believe that we would be successful in amending the ordinance,” Touchstone said.

“This is disgusting, obviously,” said Councilwoman Jennifer Fitzgerald. “The state courts have decided that communities cannot take further steps to protect its citizens, especially its children.”

Councilman Doug Chaffee said the council’s first responsibility is to the constitution.

“I took an oath to uphold the constitution,” Councilman Doug Chaffee said. “It’s clear to me that they way we’ve written this ordinance — it is unconstitutional. Sometimes it’s distasteful, but I do want to uphold the constitution in all respects.”

In an interview after the meeting, Levinson said law enforcement monitoring and case-by-case restrictions still allowed from the high court’s ruling isn’t enough.

“That does help. But once they’re off parole, they’re out. They’re beyond any control,” Levinson said.

Spencer Custodio is a Voice of OC contributing writer. He can be reached at spencercustodio@gmail.com.

  • verifiedsane

    There was another child molester and serial killer who kept a infamous blog “Blogging The Fifth Nail”. His name was Joseph E. Duncan III – more info: https://www.bizarrepedia.com/blog-of-a-serial-killer/

    After working with this dangerous and manipulative population; you develop kind a sixth sense for weeding through the b*ll-pucky and facade. This is why posters like “guest” and “TNF13” have raised all kinds of red flags. I can only recommend that you as readers here, read their comments with your eyes wide open.

  • verifiedsane
  • verifiedsane

    who is supposed advocate TNF13 who has flooded this article with comments – this person was asked numerous times if they were a registered S*x Offender and would not respond. Of course, selective honesty is really no honesty at all… Now we know!

    “I am writing to you because I consider myself a primary
    prevention advocate. I am also a registered s*x offender, and I mol*sted
    a child myself. Maybe you find it shocking that someone who
    mol*sted a child can do advocacy for the primary prevention of child s*x
    abuse, but I do not use that label of advocate lightly. I have a blog, http://prevents*xoffense.blogspot.c*m/,
    which is centered around the topic of primary prevention. It is also a
    compilation of resources. The biggest thing I learned from hurting the
    child that I did is that my choices did not need to happen.
    I have an attraction to children. An attraction that, as your article correctly points out, cannot be cured.
    However, it can be treated and managed very effectively. That is not my
    statement, that is the statement of professionals who work with s*x
    offenders and child mol*sters. I tried to get help for my attraction
    three years prior to my crime”


  • verifiedsane

    Penal Code 29800 PC is California’s “felon with a firearm” law. It imposes a lifetime firearms ban on anyone who has been convicted of a felony offense in any state or country.

  • Individual cases and articles do not make the norm. You are generalizing based on nothing but headlines. Here are some studies if you care to read them, as well as other headlines:


    One you may want to pay attention to: New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime, Quartz.

    TNF 13
    Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

    • verifiedsane

      You read like someone who is either an apologist for s*exual deviants, one themselves, or a self aggrandized therapeutic clown who makes their living sucking upon the udder of this liberal academic & government bureaucratic cash cow.

      As for Your “Prevention” Fantasy = Please tell that to the children, rape victims, the dead, and their families …I’m quite sure you will get a resounding response…

      • Yes, when I tell victims that if the government decided to pursue primary prevention and that their victimization did not have to happen, I am sure the response is going to astound me. Sexual abuse does not have to happen in the first place. That is what primary prevention is about.

        If you would like to address the articles and studies in my post, by all means. Insulting me because you disagree with me does not make you credible.

        TNF 13
        Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

  • The average sexual offender repeats their sexual crimes at a rate around 11.5% (Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2009: DOI: 10.1037/a001442 : Sample size: 45,398 offenders across 16 countries). Since when is 11.5% high?

  • verifiedsane

    What a misleading comment using one obscure cherry picked article……prevention? are you kidding? These are hard wired s*xual predators…Those inclinations and desires do not change through incarceration, over time, or do they change through failed civil commitment schemes in the overwhelming majority of cases.

    California is currently warehousing approximately 1000 SVP’s @ Coalinga State Hospital which is in all likelihood for the remainder of their lives. Yet, even is a locked secure facility such as this; these predators have been caught running child p*rn and drug rings (Fact: do your own web search). Facilities like this are virtual training grounds for SVP’s to refine their criminal and predatory skills just waiting to be unleashed upon society if ever released.

    This scourge of society are receiving better treatment, care, and facilities than any other civilly committed population at a great cost to tax payers (approximately 200 million dollars a year for just the 1000 SVP’s interned at Coalinga State Hospital). Those other civilly committed with mental health needs and developmental disabilities populations who have committed no crimes what so ever, receive less in health care, rehabilitation services, and are housed in far far worse conditions/facilities. So like “guest”, TNF13 is using misleading information and a straw-mans argument with little basis in actual reality. This particular deviant population poses a significant threat and high risk to children, women, and our society as a whole.

    This is why they have been deemed s*eual predators by state legislatures and the citizenry nation wide; because of their high likelihood of re-offending, and unlikelihood of any successful rehabilitation.

    That is the REAL TRUTH that we as a society must grapple with…do you want these animals walking around free without sufficient monitoring or protective containment in your neighborhood?

    • The recidivism rates for sexual offenders have been low for decades. Yes, that is a fact, as is the study I referenced earlier. Plug the study into Google and find similar ones: DOI: 10.1037/a0013881. Search the following studies as well:
      The Department of Justice, using a 3-year follow-up period, found a re-offense rate of 5% in 2002, and 13% in 2012 (NCJ 198281 for 2002, NCJ 238060 for 2012). The average sexual offender repeats their sexual crimes at a rate around 11.5% (Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2009: DOI: 10.1037/a001442 : Sample size: 45,398 offenders across 16 countries). Those DOI numbers and NCJ numbers tie to documents: Plug them into Google.

      A sexually violent predator is a legal term defined very broadly depending on the context in which it is used. Using them as examples of the thousands upon thousands of sexual offenders in California is like using Jerry Sandusky as an example of all football coaches: It is a gross generalization.

      If you want the real truth, then search for it yourself. “Do sexual offender residency restrictions work?” Google that. “Sexual offender sexual recidivism” Google that too. You will not find that residency restrictions work: To the contrary, you will find that virtually every study done on them finds that they increase recidivism. You will not find high numbers when looking at recidivism, particularly when compared to general population, which is 60-75%.

      Anyone can click my name, go to my blog, and see plenty of studies and articles on the subject, alongside what primary prevention is and other areas within prevention. A good highlight is David Finkelhor’s “The Prevention Of Childhood Sexual Abuse”, which is a 19-page article looking at numerous methods of addressing sexual crimes. I have been utterly transparent in citing studies that anyone can Google and look up for themselves. Anyone can look up who David Finkelhor is too.

      Do not take my word for it. Look it up.

      TNF 13
      Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

      • verifiedsane

        You are little more than an apologist for s*xual predators….you have a blog? How about your real name and criminal history?

        Having years of experience working with this sociopath predator population, I can a test they are not stupid; Yet, they are extremely legalistic and are master manipulators…that does not make them any less dangerous; in fact, it only makes them more so…

        TNF13: “A sexually violent predator is a legal term defined very broadly depending on the context in which it is used.”

        “Sexually violent predator” means a person who has been convicted of a
        sexually violent offense against one or more

        victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a
        danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely

        that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.

        refer to Cal Wel & Inst Code § 6600 Definitions

        It appears to be clearly defined; with some modifications & differentials from state to state.

        • Yes, I have a blog, which I have been very active in for nearly two years. Here is the list of studies for you to peruse at your leisure:


          Here are three highlights for you:



          Antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy) is quite rare (1% of US adults, according to the National Institute of Mental Health), as you would know if you really do have experience with it. While prison populations typically have a higher prevalence, most sexual offenders do not end up in prison.

          A sexually violent predator is nothing more than a legal term used to classify certain sexual offenders for civil commitment, and each state has different critieria. Such offenders do not represent the majority of sexual offenders, and the claims you are making have no support. Only a very small fraction of the population has I can cite study after study supporting my claims, and I do not make claims that I do not support.

          Your supposed experiences working with sociopaths is irrelevant unless you can back it up. For that, you would need to give your real name and credentials, but I doubt you will provide them any more than I will entertain your attempt to manipulate me into sharing mine.

          TNF 13
          Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

          • questionauthority2

            The therapy is justified paycheck earnings for the bloviating “therapists” who claim to be “rehabilitating” them. I’ve been reading this thread and wonder why you, TNF13 do not give up YOUR own real name and credentials as you are appearing to be grooming, just like they do. You are contradictory in your argument being an advocate, yet vehemently defend SVP’s who are also often murderers, rapists and of course abusers of children.
            Your blog is a facade.

          • You also use a pseudonym, and you have provided no facts to rebut what I presented. What I advocate is preventing sexual crimes before they can happen, and there are multiple approaches to how that happens. You can read more about primary prevention here:


            If you prefer to hear an expert, see this nice summary:


            Again, ad hominem attacks do not make you credible. They are just a method of grasping at straws when you have no argument to present. Could you address the facts and ideas I have presented, rather than maligning those you disagree with?

            TNF 13
            Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

          • questionauthority2

            I will never agree with you. You have obviously never worked in a facility with SVP’s or you are in fact one. Take it or leave it. Your responses are repetitive and vague over and over again.

          • I take it that you prefer uncivilized insults to a civilized discussion. Good night.

          • questionauthority2

            I’m right. 😉

          • questionauthority2

            Knew it. Confirmation in your response. You will not get far in this world doing what you are.

          • Do you know the warning behaviors in potential abusers, and what to do when you see them?


            TNF 13
            Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

          • verifiedsane

            A front blog and defending s*xual predators doesn’t make you credible: it just makes you a defender of the indefensible.

            Maybe you need to edit your blog title to read “Advocate for Criminal Predators of Child Sexual Abuse”

          • Maybe you need to find a better hobby than trolling people that advocate preventing child sexual abuse instead of reacting to it where it happens.

          • questionauthority2

            Defending predators of these crimes typically is the branch on the same tree.

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYfnbnHV4Gg

            I suppose you think they are defending abusers too?

          • questionauthority2

            Evading your truth with a youtube.

          • Do you know the ten facts about child sexual abuse? Test yourself:


            TNF 13
            Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

          • verifiedsane

            A quick web search shows you are just regurgitating the same idiotic comments over and over again everywhere. Are you a registered s*x offender?

          • Do you know the proper terminology to use around child sexual abuse and related crimes? Find out:


            TNF 13
            Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

          • questionauthority2

            You already said that. Twitter. Yawn.

          • Find out more about child sexual abuse and its perpetrators, and see if you know the facts or the myths:


            TNF 13
            Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

  • Guest

    Resident Barry Levinson pushed for this ordinance (both presence and residence) in 2010 because he wanted to banish a parolee who inherited the home adjacent to him. Because the parolee did not reside at the property he owned, and because he never set foot in the park nearby, said parolee was not breaking any laws and clearly a thorn in Resident Barry Levinson’s side.

    Resident Barry Levinson and OC Supervisor Shawn Nelson (former Fullerton CC member), with the help of OCDA Tony Rackauckas, introduced the original ordinance in order to rid Resident Barry Levinson of his unwanted neighbor. By Fall 2010 it was a crime for any registrant (with an offense against a minor) to be present (!) within 500′ of a park, school or day care. Not sure exactly the addresses involved of both Resident Barry Levinson and the parolee but I am willing to bet they were within 500′ of a park. Mission accomplished. Property value protected.

    And THAT was the sole reason for these ordinances. They spread like wildfire throughout OC first, and then the state. As expected, first the presence restriction was declared unconstitutional, and later the blanket residence restriction (for those NOT on parole). I would just love to know how much this personal quest by Resident Barry Levinson has cost the tax payer (OCDA lobby time, staff time, attorney time, law suit settlements, etc). How about that for an article?

    Resident Barry Levinson, in his public comments last Tuesday, claimed he has read all legal documents regarding this issue. To claim that ‘restricting’ this ordinance to those with offenses against minors is not a ‘blanket’ restriction, when the CA Supreme Court ruled that this ordinance cannot be applied automatically to those on PAROLE is ludicrous. While City Attorney Touchstone appeared to be incorrect in his assertion that this applied to all 290s, he was correct in that it was unenforceable as it is still a blanket restriction. Watching Resident Barry Levinson on video twitching in the background while he is getting schooled by City Attorney Touchstone is priceless 🙂

    • LFOldTimer

      Thanks for the history lesson. I wasn’t aware of the background on the park ban.

      I knew that many OC cities piggybacked on the park ban ordinance until the courts ruled it was unconstitutional and then the cities repealed the ban one after another. I always thought the park ban was political stunt for council members to curry more favor with the electorate. Of course in America a s*x offender is viewed as lower than a cold-blooded murderer.

      I could never really understand the s*x offender park ban. I’ve never reviewed the stats but I assume that only a very small percent of s*x crimes against children (or anybody for that matter) occur in a park. I would assume most of those crimes against children occur in the child’s home or in a relative’s home or in the home of a trusted close friend of the family. It would make more sense to ban a former child s*x offender from any home that has a child 16 years old or younger than from a park.

      But it made zero sense to ban a 22 year old registered s*x offender who had previous consensual relations with a 17 year old from walking in a public park. That’s about as stupid as it gets. But that’s exactly what was happening. It was a witch hunt that targeted all registered s*x offenders regardless of the circumstances behind their convictions. If a politician failed to jump aboard the witch hunt bandwagon by voting in favor of the ban it meant almost certain loss of his or her elected seat at the next election. It would certainly be used against the incumbent politician running for reelection by their political opponents.

      The higher courts realized how stupid (and unconstitutional) the park ban was – and declared it so in their ruling.

      • David Zenger

        “Thanks for the history lesson.”

        Look at the County players who were pushing cities on these ordinances back in 2010-11. Not too hard to figure out why. And the reasons had nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with politics as you have no doubt already surmised.

        And Spitzer wasn’t even back on board the Board!

        • LFOldTimer

          One of the funniest episodes in county politics that I recall was back when the Feds were investigating Mike Carona and rumors were flying about his pending indictment. A State Assemblyman at the time, Spitzer appeared at a BoS meeting and during public comments stood with a Duke Lacrosse s*x scandal book in hand warning everyone not to ‘rush to judgment’ and to beware of prosecutorial misconduct. ha.

          The rest is history.

    • OCservant_Leader

      Thanks for the REAL story.

      I wish more people would report the truth.

      What an eye opener.

  • The Equalizer

    This law was passed (the Registry) so as to make politicians look like they were implementing something to help society; it has done the reverse in a practical sense. It should be abolished.

  • LFOldTimer

    Hey, nobody likes a s*x offender, particularly s*x offenders who victimize kids.

    But once a man (or woman) satisfactorily completes the terms of his or her criminal sentence they should enjoy the same freedoms as anyone else.

    Otherwise why not a lifetime driving ban for someone convicted of a DUI? Why not a lifetime alcohol ban for someone convicted of a felony while under the influence? Why not a lifetime ban on shopping for someone convicted of shoplifting? Why not a lifetime ban on pet ownership for someone convicted of animal abuse? Why not a lifetime ban on knife ownership for anyone convicted of a stabbing offense?

    If a p*dophile is a danger to the community – don’t let him out of jail. But once he fulfills his debt to society by completing the terms of his criminal sentence – give him the same protections under the US Constitution that you would give to the next guy.

    • verifiedsane

      The fact is that s*x offenders (especially p*dophiles) have a
      documented very high recidivism rate…society is playing with fire and
      children’s lives without having extreme controls placed upon these
      particular individuals. The unfortunate reality is that SVP (s*xually
      violent predator) laws in place today are very limited in scope, and do
      not protect greater society from these s*xual predators in many, (if
      not) most cases.

      Although, I agree with the general premise and
      leanings of LFOldTimer’s “Equality Under the Law” argument. There is
      also a very strong counter argument to be made for public safety and
      protecting children from s*xual predators…This a legislative problem
      that has been tossed around the halls of Sacramento for decades without
      many viable solutions being created; except building billion dollar sink
      hole political shrines like Coalinga State Hospital to warehouse
      habitual and dangerous offenders (under the laughable rouse of
      rehabilitative treatment) after their prison terms have been fulfilled.

      • LFOldTimer

        I respect your argument, verified.

        But why should a s*x offender get treated more harshly than a convicted murderer, who is free under the law in every respect after he does his time?

        I agree that any crime against a child is evil. But if a man is so dangerous that he poses a threat to the community he should be kept in jail. Once he’s released and has completed his parole – he should be as free as any other convicted criminal.

        • Guest

          Evil? You mean like this guy?

          • verifiedsane
          • Guest

            Thank you for bringing those up… these two guys MET because they were living in their cars in the same parking lot. They were HOMELESS (the younger one is described in court documents as having had family support) because they were not able to find a residence (with family or otherwise) that complied with this residency restriction.

            In other words – absent this residency restriction they most likely would have never met, and very possibly four women would still be alive today. How about that! Can one say that these restrictions are to blame for these murders? Too much? That they were contributory? Hmmmm…

            Regardless – no child in a park, or school or day care was saved from anyone living less than 2,000 feet from said park, school or day care… I forget what your point was. Not much, as you are already resorting to personal attacks.

          • verifiedsane

            Now you have gone from nonsensical, to over the top bat *hit crazy…

          • Guest

            Just describing the facts. Calling me names does not change them 🙂

          • verifiedsane


          • Guest

            Another brilliant argument…

          • verifiedsane

            thank you…

          • verifiedsane

            another innocent life snuffed out…let’s hear more of your lame excuses Guest http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/12/convicted-sex-offender-charged-in-murder-ohio-state-university-student.html

        • verifiedsane

          Why should they be civilly committed or be labeled SVP under a very limited subjective criteria and law? Is that not also a violation “Equality Under the Law”.

          We as a society have to grapple with most basic principles of the greater good, while protecting the innocent and most vulnerable in our society. Sometimes that directly conflicts with broadly interpreted constitutional protections.

          We as a society and civilization are going to have to pick our own poison; because we all will have to live with the real life results and consequences of those decisions.

          • LFOldTimer

            Oftentimes the ‘greater good’ is a slippery slope that erodes the basic fundamental constitutional rights of all Americans.

            Domestic spying by NSA was supposedly done for the ‘greater good’ too.

            And they call Snowden who exposed it a treasonous traitor and some politicians want him executed. lol.

          • verifiedsane

            We often have to gingerly walk upon and across that slippery slope, or we just end up the battered casualty at the bottom of a rocky ravine…even the Constitution has its limitations and human interpretation..The NSA program is still in existence (though congress has given some lip service & gingerly touched upon some of the issues of our citizen rights to privacy) and has not been found to be fundamentally unconstitutional as of yet…

          • LFOldTimer

            It is certainly a violation of the US Constitution to eavesdrop on a US citizen without a signed warrant from a judge. Prior to Snowden blowing the whistle all that was needed was an administrative rubber stamp and the complicity of a giant telecom corporation. So much has changed. The Constitution is actually being followed today, believe it or not.

            Now if we can only get the Ninth Circuit Court to follow the US Constitution and rule of law.

      • Guest

        Your claim is 100% incorrect. Those required to register as s*x offenders have a very low recidivism rate for a like crime, second lowest only to murderers (who indeed often serve life in prison). Every recent (government) study will tell you so. The California S*x Offender Management Board will tell you so. The CDCR will tell you so. Please link to recent credible study to support your contention.

        Even so, this ordinance never did anything to protect children, it was designed to banish those who have served their criminal sentence. Specifically from Mr. Levinson’s neighborhood who happens to live close to a park. Children are NOT abused in public parks BY those required to register who LIVE reside less than a 5 minute walk from the designated space. Name ONE instance where this has happened. You have a much much greater chance of getting struck by lightning.

        Children are abused, well over 9 out of 10 times, by someone without such a record, someone they know and trust. Overwhelmingly family members. They are abused in homes – theirs or the perpetrator’s. In a very high percentage of cases that home is one and the same

        • verifiedsane

          You are absolutely wrong and are purposely misleading the public… you must be living in some alternative universe, or trying to get around your monitoring ankle bracelet..The facts and living reality paints a completely story…S*xually Violent Predators have one the the highest recidivism rates of all felons. This does not even take into account the very high numbers of victims of these S*xual predators that were never reported or prosecuted because of statutory limitations, or victim intimidation by the courts.

          If your going to play apologist for child predators ans serial rapist, please at least gets your facts and your poor attempt at cherry picking the statistical data straight.

          As you have referred to and have used incestuous predators in your poorly conceived defense of the indefensible; you must also realize those types of predators don’t even fall under the legal criteria and statistical data as a deemed SVP!

          In fact, the vast majority of civilly interned SVP’s don’t even participate in the rehabilitation process.

          Whether local segregation ordinances are an effective deterrence or provide a false sense of community safety is really inconsequential to the real issue society faces with these evil predators.

          The rehabilitative/liberal era from the 1950’s – through the present has been a colossal failure. Coddling predators at the expense of victims & society. This has to change dramatically.

          We spend more funds & resources providing services and protections to the criminal predatory elements of our society, than we do protecting and providing services to the innocent and victims.

          That paradigm has created a systematic pattern of gross injustice, is unsustainable, and will eventually leave America/Our communities/society morally and financially bankrupt.

          • OCservant_Leader

            Well said.

            Perhaps it’s time for a – Victim Justice System = shift focus from offenders to victims…

      • OCservant_Leader

        Great post.

        I couldn’t have said it better.

        Why not just give them a permanent tattoo on the forehead – then everyone knows what we are dealing with.

        They cannot be rehabilitated.

    • questionauthority2

      “Likely to -re-offend”is criteria for this group who is typically the “worst of the worst”– do you want someone like the “Pillowcase Rapist” next door?

      • LFOldTimer

        Then figure out a way to keep s*x offenders in jail if they pose a danger to the community.

        But once a man completes the criminal sentence imposed upon him by the courts he should be a free man in every respect. The US Constitution should apply equally to every citizen on US soil.

        DUI offenders have a tendency to re-offend as well. Why not a lifetime ban on driving a vehicle for a DUI offense? After all, if we could save only one life….. you know how the saying goes….Why would I want to share the road with a potential drunk who could put me in a grave? My argument holds as much validity as yours.

        Beside, a definition of a ‘s*x offender’ has been diluted over time. A 21 year old who had consensual relations with a 17 year old could theoretically be forced to register as a s*x offender and get branded for the rest of his life.

      • Guest

        Last week a guy was arrested for his 9th DUI in 6 years. Do you want someone like him living next to you? Do you want any criminal living next to you? 1 out of 4 adults in the US have a criminal record. I do not want any of them living next to me. Might you be one of the 25%? Maybe I am. Then what?

        • questionauthority2

          Go ahead and make that analogy; if you had a Level 3 s*x offender (SVP) move in next door, you will be talking a different talk. Try it. Start with the “Pillow Case Rapist” as an idea for a visual. Drunk drivers do not on average get convicted and jailed for more than 9 years, then get out and repeat again. The theme here is how much are you willing to gamble with s*x offenders who milk the system for $200K each a year to be housed in one of the most “shang-ra-la” facilities you will wish wasn’t built on the back of a tax payer– they are heinous criminals with top of the line care the rest of their lives, they don’t even want to get out half the time. It’s easy living! nothing like prison! they have all of their Civil Rights in tact! and you pay for it!

          • LFOldTimer

            I have no idea what sort of penal facilities the s*x offenders are housed in – but if your description is accurate that’s wrong. Prison should = punishment. I believe that all state prisoners should have a mandated 8 hours of labor 5 days a week. And no conjugal visitation either. No one should look forward to going to prison.

          • questionauthority2

            Just look up the facilities– Coalinga has all the bells and whistles, so do others across the country

          • verifiedsane

            Guest is using typical s*x offender sociopath manipulation…comparing apples to oranges, while shifting blame somewhere else….There is really no rational dialogue to be had with these types…this is why political money pit boondoggles like Coalinga State Hospital exist. To pacify the public and to warehouse these predators semi-permanently, or until they find a loophole in the legal system to be released to the streets to once again victimize the innocent.

            How a state run secure facility allows child p*rn and illegal drug networks to operate within this facility is beyond comprehension. But it does act as a testament to how little rehabilitation is actually taking place there. Society doesn’t seem to care that for every single s*xual predator interned under current civil commitment laws, there are hundreds of dangerous others that are walking the streets with little monitoring in communities throughout California.

            Hey, that’s California government, throw lots of tax payer dollars at a problem while creating no actual/real solutions.

    • Joe Imbriano

      Stat 99 score above a 4 under Jessica’s law may get a parole violator 14 days in County lockup after all the sentencing reductions and the like with no fine, and maybe a warm cookie for those with a score under 4. For those not on parole, there is NOTHING in place to keep them from accessing children, just the way Brown and the rest of the pedophile protectors like it. Hughes didn’t enforce this law for years on purpose. Now he gets to be the big boy at the Tragic Kingdom.The police department and the school district are lying through their rotten teeth when it comes to what they are claiming about the reality of what just went down.Kids are in harms way.

      • LFOldTimer

        All I know is what I read in the paper, Joe.

        For instance, remember that case that put Judge M. Mark Kelly in hot water? The 20 year old who molested the small child? The offense that he committed apparently mandated a sentence of 20 or 25 years or longer. Kelly tried to reduce it to 10 and got called out big time. The DA appealed the sentence and the appellate court upheld the sentencing law – so the sentence must be increased to 20 or 25 years.

        Should someone who molests a child be subject to those long sentences? Absolutely. And there should be some risk assessment system in place so that the authorities can with a fair degree of accuracy predict whether a p*dophile is still a risk to the community prior to release. If he is – don’t let him out. If he’s not – give him the same rights as any other convicted criminal who paid his debt to society. That’s all I’m saying.

        • There is such a risk assessment, and California uses it: The static-99 and static-99r were created for just that purpose.

          However, I am also familiar with two studies: One of 21 years of arrest data in NY that found that only 5% of sexual crime arrests were of prior offenders, and another from 1998 that showed a lower recidivism rate for child molesters than rapists. I am also aware that 35.6% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by juveniles, and according to Elizabeth Letourneau who studies such things, 98% of those juvenile offenders do not reoffend. She gave a fantastic speech at TEDMED last year.

          It may sound like hogwash, but the facts indicate that sexual offenders do not often reoffend, and most crimes are committed by those with no criminal record. The better solution, then, is to prevent them before they can happen.

          TNF 13
          Advocate for the Primary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse