Did Jessica’s Law Make Our Kids Safer?- commentary

by Lou Binninger

Voters overwhelmingly passed Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) in 2006 in reaction to the media barrage over the rape and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida. They assumed California law was too soft on those who prey on children. Some no doubt remembered the 1993 Polly Klass abduction and murder in Petaluma.

Prop 83 stopped sex offenders on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or basically anywhere children could congregate. In Yuba County for example, the new law meant none could live inside the city limits of Marysville.

Many parole officers and local officials charged with monitoring the whereabouts of sex offenders were not thrilled with the rigid one-size-fits-all rules of Jessica’s Law. These limitations applied to sex offenders of adults, as well. There were already many restrictions in place for paroled sex offenders depending on the type and severity of their crime.
Agents saw the new law making it more difficult to find housing, transportation, jobs and health care for offenders. Therefore, it became more arduous for parolees to successfully re-join the community and for agents and local law enforcement to oversee their movements. If a parolee could not obtain housing and work, agents had a monitoring challenge. A lose / lose scenario.

The voters meant well, but the outcome was not a safer community.

A California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) report found that the number of homeless sex offenders statewide increased by almost 24 times in the three years after Jessica's Law took effect. Parole officers told the court that homeless parolees were more difficult to supervise and posed a greater risk to public safety than those with homes.

Four parolees released to San Diego County filed suit saying the law prohibited them from finding housing in the city of San Diego. One of the male parolees who challenged the law was convicted of a sexual assault not on a child but on an adult woman in 1991. He had several serious illnesses and wanted to live with a relative who was a health professional. He was denied because of the residency restrictions. Instead, the man lived in an alley behind the parole office.

In San Francisco, a 2010 report estimated that 80% of paroled sex offenders were homeless since nearly the dense city housing is located too close to schools, parks etc. However, Prop 83 was not just an urban problem. The law’s application in Yuba County pushed offenders out of Marysville to the fringes of Olivehurst and Linda to comply with the 2000 ft. rule. There is a shortage of housing and other needed services in those areas.

The Supreme Court determined that the blanket policies for parolees "severely restricted their ability to find housing." Conservative Justice Marvin R. Baxter, who retired in January, wrote that the rules "increased the incidence of homelessness among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees."

The justices concluded that the law created an extreme hardship for parolees, those charged with monitoring them and did not necessarily increase public safety. CDCR still can impose restrictions like Jessica’s Law and even more demanding on a case by case basis. (For example, on those convicted of committing lewd acts on children under-14.)

California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked CDCR to instruct agents to extend the Supreme Court’s San Diego County ruling to the remaining 57 counties, as well.

Most offenders of all types after serving their sentence will return to their county of last residence. Helping not hindering parole agents and law enforcement to monitor these individuals maintains a safer community. Prop 83 did just the opposite.