IT'S WAY PAST TIME TO SCRAP THOSE WORTHLESS FEEL GOOD SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS

The Sacramento Bee reports that a registered sex offender on parole for child molestation has sued the city of Elk Grove, complaining that a city ordinance restricting where he is allowed to live violates state and federal constitutions. Elk Grove’s ordinance prohibits a registered sex offender from loitering within 300 feet of schools, day care centers, playgrounds, parks, amusement centers or youth sports facilities. The lawsuit by Michael Steven Escobar complains that Elk Grove’s ordinance would prevent him from residing with his mother in Elk Grove and would leave him few choices other than homelessness.

Elk Grove's ordinance is similar to California’s Proposition 83, the 2006 initiative known as Jessica's Law which barred offenders from living near schools and parks where children play. Actually, Elk Grove’s restrictions are quite tame compared to those of many other cities, some of which prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where children might gather or play. Those 1,500 or 2,500 foot restrictions make it impossible for a sex offender to live anywhere inside the city.

Those residence restrictions may calm the fears that people have about sex offenders molesting their children but they are really worthless in protecting children from sexual predators. The sex offender residence restrictions are nothing more than feel good laws.

As for the report on the lawsuit against the Elk Grove sex offender residence restrictions, here are the comments of some law and order types like me from PACOVILLA Corrections blog:

Paco said: As has been frequently noted on these pages, there is not a single study nor any data to support the notion sex offenders commit offenses at schools or parks near their residence of record. Yet, Jessica’s Law and ordinances such as Elk Grove’s enjoy broad public support, from Left and Right alike. The seeming unanimity notwithstanding, the Constitution clearly lacks a sex-offender exclusion–Residential restrictions for sex-offenders will, sooner rather than later, be overturned. In that context, Paco questions the City’s decision to press forward with the ordinance. Clearly, public safety is best served when predators are housed in known locations. Prohibiting 290′s from residing near parks or schools may sound like a prudent measure but, in practice, falls flat. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, after all — Surely this applies to child molesters as well.

King Willis said: I agree with your take on this Paco. These pervs represent a lesser threat to the community when law enforcement knows their whereabouts. Forcing them into homelessness might seem like a backhanded way of inflicting more punishment on a class of persons who richly deserve it, but it creates a situation where they have a greater probability of reoffending. These scumbags need to be watched and watching them is tough when they are roaming as homeless people do.

Bob Walsh said: I am happy to concede that the current law probably makes the people who have children and who live in “protected areas” feel better. It does not necessarily make them actually any safer. It almost certainly makes enforcement more difficult and it certainly makes it harder to track registered sex offenders. It was one of those warm and fuzzy ideas that sounded good to a lot of people but which, in practice, has a lot of negative and unintended consequences.


Paco Jr said: On the home page of the DOJ Megan’s Law Website is a category titled Facts about Sex Offenders. This little tidbit of information has been posted on the DOJ website for years. Nonetheless, millions of tax payer dollars have been spent on Prop 83, lawsuits, etc. Yet government officials and politicians continue to appease the public to “make them feel safe” from the big bad wolf. Most child sexual abusers find their victims by frequenting such places as schoolyards and playgrounds. FALSE. Most child sexual abusers offend against children whom they know and with whom they have established a relationship. Many sexual assaults of adult women are considered “confidence rapes,” in that the offender knows the victim and has used that familiarity to gain access to her.

Bulldogger said: As a sex offender parole agent, Jessica’s law was a great big headache, Thankfully in Region III there is a stay of that law while a lawsuit is pending. The high risk cases are a major pain in the ass as they are all transient because in LA County there are limited areas that do not meet the half mile restriction from a school or park. So the worst of the worst are roaming the streets.

To which I want to add that while I’ve got absolutely no use for child molesters and brutal rapists, I have to come down on the side of Michael Escobar in his lawsuit against the City of Elk Grove. Forcing people, even sex offenders, into homelessness would appear to violate several sections of our great Constitution. It’s way past time to scrap those worthless feel good residence restrictions.