California Proposition 83, Jessica's Law Sex Offender Penalties and Restrictions Initiative (2006)
| California Proposition 83 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 83 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported increasing civil and criminal penalties for sex offenders and child molesters; prohibited offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park; and requiring GPS monitoring of offenders. |
A "no" vote opposed increasing civil and criminal penalties for sex offenders and child molesters; prohibited offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park; and requiring GPS monitoring of offenders. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 83 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,926,800 | 70.47% | ||
| No | 2,483,597 | 29.53% | ||
Aftermath
Retroactivity challenged
Under the terms of Proposition 83, formerly imprisoned sex offenders must live at least 2,000 feet from parks and schools.
In a 5-2 decision handed down on February 1, 2010, the California Supreme Court said that Proposition 83 applies to all prisoners paroled after Proposition 83 was enacted, regardless of when they committed their crime. The court's verdict came in response to a lawsuit filed by four paroled sex offenders who said that the law should only apply to those whose crimes were committed after Proposition 83 was enacted. The court disagreed, saying that the law applies across-the-board to prisoners paroled after the date of passage of the 2006 initiative.[1]
Ernest Galvan, the lawyer for the four paroled sex offenders, said that Proposition 83 does not actually prevent the harm it was intended to prevent because although under the law, offenders can't live within 2,000 feet of parks and schools, the law does not prevent them from entering parks and schools.[2]
Indefinite confinement
On January 28, 2010, the California Supreme Court in a 5-2 ruling said the part of the law that allows the government to indefinitely confine convicted sexual predators may violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, because it treats sexual predators differently than criminals convicted for other reasons. The court did not strike the initiative down, but instead said that a fact-finding hearing must be held to determine whether valid reasons exist for treating sex predators differently.[3]
Measure design
Proposition 83 was named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old girl. She was the victim of a convicted sex offender who had failed to report his whereabouts, in spite of laws requiring him to do so.
Proposition 83 required registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives. It included a number of other provisions that increased the legal penalties for specified sex offenses by:
- Broadening the definition of certain sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, aggravated sexual assault of a child is defined as including offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim. Prior to Proposition 83, an offender had to be at least ten years older for a sexual assault of a child to be defined as "aggravated."
- Establishing longer penalties for specified sex offenses. Under Proposition 83, the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison includes assault to commit rape during the commission of a first degree burglary.
- Prohibiting probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
- Eliminating early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses, including habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape.
- Extending parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.
- Increasing court-imposed fees charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.
- Prohibiting any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. For specified high-risk sex offenders, the ban extends to 2,640 feet.
- Making more sex offenders eligible for an SVP ("Sexually Violent Predator") commitment.
As of 2009, California has 65,000 registered sex offenders, of which 6,800 offenders were on parole.[1][2]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 83 was as follows:
| “ | Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. • Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park. • Requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. • Expands definition of a sexually violent predator. • Changes current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and subsequent ability of sexually violent predator to petition court for sexually violent predator’s conditional release or unconditional discharge. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[4]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Supporters
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger[4]
- Bonnie Dumanis, the San Diego County District Attorney[4]
- Harriet Salarno, president, Crime Victims United of California[4]
- Monty Holden, executive director of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs[4]
- Steve Ipsen, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys[4]
- Gary Penrod, sheriff and president of the California State Sheriffs Association[4]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 83 were signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Bonnie Dumanis, the San Diego County District Attorney; and Harriet Salarno, president of Crime Victims United of California:[4]
| “ |
Proposition 83—JESSICA’S LAW—will protect our children by keeping child molesters in prison longer; keeping them away from schools and parks; and monitoring their movements after they are released. A rape or sexual assault occurs every two minutes. A child is abused or neglected every 35 seconds. Over 85,000 registered sex offenders live in California. Current law does not provide Law Enforcement with the tools they need to keep track of these dangerous criminals. Secrecy is the child molester’s biggest tool. How can we protect our children if we don’t even know where the sex offenders are? Proposition 83 is named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year old girl who was kidnapped, assaulted, and buried alive by a convicted sex offender who had failed to report where he lived. Proposition 83 will:
victimize children.
Crime Victims and Law Enforcement leaders urge you to pass this much needed reform. Jessica’s Law is supported by: • California State Sheriffs Association • California District Attorneys Association • California Organization of Police and Sheriffs • California Police Chiefs Association • Crime Victims United of California • California Women’s Leadership Association • California Sexual Assault Investigators Association • Women Prosecutors of California • Mothers Against Predators • Mark Lunsford, father of Jessica Lunsford • Numerous cities, counties, and local sheriffs, police chiefs, and elected officials. Law enforcement professionals know there is a high risk that a sexual predator will commit additional sex crimes after being released from prison. Prop. 83 keeps these dangerous criminals in prison longer and keeps track of them once they are released. Proposition 83 means safer schools, safer parks, and safer neighborhoods. Proposition 83 means dangerous child molesters will be kept away from our children and monitored for life. Proposition 83 means predatory sex criminals will be punished and serve their full sentence in every case. Our families deserve the protection of a tough sex offender punishment and control law. The State Legislature has failed to pass Jessica’s Law time and time again. WE CANNOT WAIT ANOTHER DAY TO PROTECT OUR KIDS. Vote YES on Proposition 83—JESSICA’S LAW—to protect our families and make California a safer place for all of us. For more information, please visit www.JessicasLaw2006.com.[5] |
” |
Opposition
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 83 were signed by Carleen R. Arlidge, president of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:[4]
| “ |
Proposition 83 would cost taxpayers an estimated $500 million but would not increase our children’s safety. Instead, by diluting law enforcement resources, the initiative would actually reduce most children’s security while increasing the danger for those most at risk: —First, the initiative proposes to 'monitor' every registered sex offender, on the misguided theory that each is likely to reoffend against 'strangers.' But law enforcement experience shows that when sex registrants reoffend, their targets are usually members of their own household. This Proposition would do nothing to safeguard children in their own homes, even though they are most at risk. —Second, the Proposition would not focus on the real problem—dangerous sex offenders—but would instead waste limited resources tracking persons who pose no risk. The new law would create an expensive tracking system for thousands of registrants who were convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses, perhaps years or decades ago. Law enforcement’s resources should be directed toward high risk individuals living in our neighborhoods. Proposition 83 would have other dangerous, unintended consequences. The Proposition’s monitoring provisions would be least effective against those posing the greatest danger. Obviously, dangerous offenders would be the least likely to comply, so the proposed law would push the more serious offenders underground, where they would be less effectively monitored by police. In addition, by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, the initiative would force many offenders from urban to rural areas with smaller police forces. A high concentration of sex offenders in rural neighborhoods will not serve public safety. Prosecutors in the State of Iowa know from sad experience that this type of residency restriction does not work. In 2001, Iowa adopted a similar law, but the association of county prosecutors that once advocated for that law now say that it 'does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.' (February 14, 2006, 'Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa,' Iowa County Attorneys Association.) (To see the full Statement, go to: www.iowa-icaa.com/index.htm or www.cacj.org.) A summary of the Iowa prosecutors’ findings shows why the Iowa law was a disaster and why Proposition 83 must be rejected: • Residency restrictions do not reduce sex offenses against children or improve children’s safety. • Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90% of sex crimes against children, because those crimes are committed by a relative or acquaintance of the child. • Residency restrictions cause sex registrants to disappear from the registration system, harming the interest of public safety. • Enforcing the residency restrictions is expensive and ineffective. • The law also caused unwarranted disruption to the innocent families of ex-offenders. For all of these reasons, vote “No” on Proposition 83![5] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2006, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.
The signature-gathering drive to qualify the Jessica's Law petition for the ballot was conducted by Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management company owned by Tom Bader and Joy Bader. This firm received $700,000 for the signatures they collected.[6]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 83
- Guide to Proposition 83 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 83 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 83 from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 ballot proposition election results
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Sex offenders lose challenge to residency rules," February 2, 2010
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "State justices debate limits on sex offenders," November 4, 2009
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Constitutionality of 'Jessica's Law' questioned," January 29, 2010
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 29, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure details, Yes on 83," accessed March 29, 2021
