08/17/2011
By JOSH FRANCIS
San Juan Capistrano City Council decides to look further into the legality of a proposed ordinance to ban or restrict registered sex offenders from city parks.
Though all members favored the idea of keeping sex offenders out of San Juan Capistrano city parks, legal concerns about a proposal to put the idea into law prompted the City Council to postpone a vote on it Tuesday night.
- So, can any reporter or politician point me to a slew of news reports where a sex crime occurred in a park, school or other place these laws forbid people? Like said below, the ones you pick, are not the norm, but the exception. So stop passing laws based on the exception and not the vast majority. If we passed laws based on the exceptions, then why do we not punish everyone in this country, since a few criminals have done bad things? Because we are, or were, a just society, but that is changing, especially when it's the modern day "monster" sex offenders.
"I think there are too many question marks still," Councilwoman Laura Freese said. "Even though our hearts are wanting this stringent mandate, I don't think we're ready for it yet."
The council decided to research the legality of the ordinance and vote on it at a later meeting.
City Attorney Omar Sandoval presented the council with two options for an ordinance to ban or restrict registered sex offenders from city parks.
- It's nothing more than discrimination and state mandated exile, based on lies.
Option 1, modeled after Orange County's Child Safety Zone ordinance approved in April, would allow authorities to charge registered sex offenders with a misdemeanor if they enter a city park without written permission from San Juan Capistrano Police Services. Penalties would include a fine of up to $500 and/or jail time for up to six months for the first violation. Second and third violations would mandate jail time and fines of up to $500.
- So, since ex-offenders pay taxes on the parks they can no longer use, are you going to give them a tax break?
Option 2, a modified version of the county law, would allow Police Services to grant date-, time- and location-specific written permission for individual registered sex offenders if they have a reason to be there under specific guidelines, such as accompanying a minor for whom the offender is the legal parent or guardian, or using the park for free speech or assembly, lawful employment, voting in an election or attending a religious service. Signs would be put up in all city parks.
- Is this for those on probation/parole only, or as usual, all ex-offenders? When are we going to start working on "hall passes" for all other criminals as well? Like one for DUI offenders to not be able to enter stores that sell alcohol, which would basically be all stores? Or gang members from entering gun shops or stores that sell drugs? Fair is fair, right? Oh yeah, this is not about being fair, it's about punishing the modern day leper (sex offenders) to pacify the sheeple from the fear-mongering spread by the politicians, media and police agencies, for money, ratings and votes.
A requirement for either option is that notifications be sent to registered sex offenders who live in San Juan.
Sandoval said the city has 17 registered sex offenders, 13 of whom have been convicted of offenses against minors. The city is home to nearly 35,000 residents, nearly one-fourth of whom are younger than 18, according to a city staff report.
- So out of the 13 who committed crimes against children, how many were done in a park? I am willing to bet ZERO!
The council was shown a video of Phillip Garrido, a paroled sex offender who pleaded guilty this year to kidnapping and raping Jaycee Dugard, as an example of why such an ordinance should be implemented.
- Yes, instead of showing the facts from the vast majority of sex offenders, they pick one of the worse to show everyone. That is how politics and propaganda work. Mr. Garrido is not the norm, but the exception, and most of those convicted of sex crimes, do not go on to commit more sex crimes, or kidnap children, and that is easily seen, if you read the true facts instead of what the politicians, media and police want you to see. The vast majority of studies show that sex offender have the lowest recidivism of all other criminals. So why don't we have a national shaming registry for all the other high risk criminals?
"I think this is a very important issue and a very important thing to prohibit because sex offenders who are not on probation or parole are actually more dangerous, in my opinion, than the sex offenders who are on probation or parole," said Susan Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
- Are you kidding me? Show me the proof, not your personal opinion!
Council members had differing opinions on which option they would like to see implemented, but they had concerns with both.
Orange County sheriff's Lt. John Meyer, chief of police services in San Juan, said only Sheriff Sandra Hutchens could grant permission to allow a sex offender to enter a park and that the Sheriff's Department has no intention of granting any permissions.
- Sure would be nice to see the hard data on how many sex crimes have occurred in parks, but we all know we will never see that, because it would prevent them from passing laws based on lies, like this.
That being the case, "the city would be exposed to the liability" for any lawsuit that may occur if the ordinance is enacted, Sandoval said.
- It is my opinion, that all ex-offenders should sue the state for this infringement of their rights, even if they cannot afford a lawyer, swamp the legal system with law suits, even if you have to get a court appointed lawyer. Eventually it will bankrupt the state.
"I'm not too crazy about this," Councilman Derek Reeve said. "We have an ordinance but we don't make the decision, and you (Meyer) already said you don't foresee ever approving one. ... It just seems like we're opening ourselves up potentially to a lawsuit for a law that no one seems to know if it's even constitutional."
- Hell, if you had common sense and read the Constitution, you'd know banning people from public places is unconstitutional. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, only someone who is corrupt and violating their oath of office.
Sandoval answered questions about a legal challenge brought in San Diego in which that city removed restrictions from an ordinance similar to the one considered Tuesday. San Diego settled with the Public Defender's Office in that case, Sandoval said.
"They didn't want to be the first test case on this matter, and the surrounding cities are also on a holding pattern because nobody wants to be the first city to get sued," Sandoval said.
- So, just like you are suppose to do in a court of law, and find someone guilty based on facts, and if there is any reasonable doubt, then throw it out, why not do the same here. Clearly it's unconstitutional
The San Juan council also would have to decide which parks to ban sex offenders from. The county ordinance lists specific parks where offenders are banned.
"I think we really need to take a very close look at each of these parks and determine which of these would be more workable," Mayor Sam Allevato said.
The District Attorney's Office has sent letters recommending that each city in Orange County consider adopting sex-offender bans like the one in effect at county parks, recreational facilities and beaches.
- Once again, what are the facts on sexual assault cases being committed at parks, beaches, or any other place you mentioned? I am willing to bet none, or very little.
In June, Westminster passed an ordinance identical to the county's, and it went into effect in July. Irvine adopted a similar ordinance but only banned sex offenders who have committed an offense against a minor. Rancho Santa Margarita and Huntington Beach are among other Orange County cities moving toward adopting such bans.
According to Schroeder, the county ordinance and the ordinance presented to the San Juan council are not ex post facto laws (one that applies retroactively to punish an act that wasn't illegal at the time it was committed). The DA's Office conducted months of research to support that claim, she said.
- Months of research? Really? So where is this "research?" I'd like to see it. And by the text the reporter added in parenthesis above, it's clearly unconstitutional, if you don't bend the meaning to suit your own purpose. Also, I like how the reporter inserted "punish" into the meaning above, when the true definition is not about punishment, as you can see here.
"I believe (the county ordinance) is constitutionally sound," Schroeder said.
She said she is confident that San Juan eventually will pass the ordinance.
Thanks, SOI!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure my girlfriend would have told me about this soon since she lives in Orange County but I was glad to see this here...While reading this, I thought of how these so-called "law" makers consider themselves so far above the rest of us that they can do whatever they please with impunity (regardless of how laws like these have already been overturned in other states).In the same thought, I remembered the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where he (or another character) are standing in mid-air and saying, "I know this defies the law of gravity but...I never studied law."It would appear that many of these bone-heads never did much law study either. Or, if they did, it was simply "contract" law and their primary goal is to draft laws that look good to the public but are tailored to side-step the Constitution.Fortunately, the Constitution still has some life in it and, regardless of the thousands of amendments that have been added over the years, still clearly points out that people, even ex-offenders, have rights. Rights that these types would gladly deny!Of course, no matter how many of these laws are passed or how craftily they are tailored, the simple fact of the matter is that NOBODY will be able to enforce them. Oh, sure, if somebody is dumb enough to walk into a park while wearing a GPS device, they could get busted. But unless the city council is mandating tracking for everybody or branding a large "SO" on everybody's forehead, then nobody will ever know that an ex-offender was there...Remember the movie, "Good Morning, Vietnam!" At one point, Robin Williams parodies an army intelligence officer saying, "We ask people, 'Are you the enemy?' and if they say 'Yes' we shoot them..." Wanna guess how many lawsuits the city would suffer if the cops started asking everybody if they are registered sex offenders?Alternately, I envision the only means of enforcing these laws to be putting up fences around the parks with admission gates. The guard at the gate would then screen everybody that came through... Wanna guess how many people would go to the parks then?Note: I haven't forgotten about the new phone apps that can dig up a persons' history from their picture. I'm not sure how well this works but it's truly scary. The saving grace is that putting up cameras everywhere would cost the city far more than it is willing to spend (Orange County seems bent on turning itself into a police state from other reports I've heard so it wouldn't be surprising if they considered this...) That is, unless they expect the public to run around taking pictures of the people around them and reporting to police. Riots have broken out for much less...One last point, I noticed you mentioned above that ours used to be a "just" society... I would venture to say the the U.S. is now just "a" society. As such, the U.S. is falling apart from the inside because "justice" has devolved into a meaningless word. Even terms like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" are meaningless now. Everything is decided before ever getting to court. This is usually through a "plea" deal offered in lieu of a much stronger "threatened" sentence. If not, then the court is biased against the defendant simply because of this "crime."In my opinion, of course...
SOI makes an interesting query.
ReplyDeleteSex offenders may be exempt from paying taxes altogether! I mean, if they are no longer seen as potentially productive members of society and thus prohibited from taking advantage of public resources, then a good argument can be made that they should pay no taxes, or, at the very least, reduce their tax burden if they cannot reap the rewards of being a taxpayer. As simple as this sounds, it is a complex issue. With about 1 million RSO's on a national level, the taxes generated, assuming they are employed, can be a large sum. Politicians and law enforcement may have to reconsider their stance on the RSO subject.