Sex Offenders Within Law: Still Too Close to Schools?
Several registered sex offenders live in the Rancho Cordova area; some live very near local schools and parks, but no laws are being broken. Registrants are not breaking any laws despite the fact that some live in the very near vicinity of elementary or middle schools.
Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office said that within accordance with Jessica’s Law, registrants are required to live no closer than 200 yards to a school or park, but that there is some question as to exceptions within these restrictions.
“There is a lot of vagueness with Jessica’s Law and who it applies to.” said Dana Simas with the Attorney General’s office. Jessica’s Law requires inmates be screened to determine if they should be categorized as Sexually Violent Predators, provides Global Positioning System monitoring for High Risk Sex Offenders, and reduces parole caseloads through additional hires so agents can more closely monitor offenders.
According to the Megan’s Law website, roughly 25 percent of offenders may not be listed due to the terms of their parole or their conviction date. Registrants in Rancho Cordova are within the 200 yard limit with the exception of one, who lives closer than 200 yards to a local elementary school according to Google-Maps.
As explained by the Attorney General’s office, this situation arises when an offender has lived in the area for a certain length of time and can depend upon how long ago they were convicted.
The Attorney General’s Office also confirmed that there are constant efforts to improve the tracking of these offenders and insure that these laws are enforced and public safety is maintained.
Principal at W.E. Mitchell Middle School, Jay Berns, said that the school has been without incident and has been very impressed with the cooperation from the Rancho Cordova Police Department.
“The reality is that we try to be as proactive as possible,” said Berns.
Berns went on to say that “safety is paramount” and that “constant supervision” is necessary to keep the kids safe whether at school, coming to school, or leaving school.
W.E. Mitchell has a registered offender only 0.3 miles away, less than a 54 second drive.
Berns made it clear that the sex offenders that register are better than the ones that do not, and that enforcing the old “stranger-danger” idea to kids was still effective.
Disclaimer: This article is not meant to bring unnecessary attention to any one person or group of people. It is intended to show that despite obeying California laws, several sex offenders still live remarkably close to schools and or parks. The purpose is to inform the public and give links to resources, to better protect their children and the children within their neighborhoods.
Similar Posts:
- None Found
Short URL: http://www.ranchocordovapost.com/?p=2938
Posted by Eyragon Eidam
on Mar 5 2009. Filed under News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jessica’s law may have setup a false sense of security due to the false assumption that children are safer if sex offenders cannot live close to parks and schools. One could argue that sex offenders living in close proximity to where children learn or play is not any more or less dangerous for the children. They still live in our neighborhoods and still have free range of travel. Sex offenders are not currently prohibited from living in a neighborhood with young children or any neighborhood for that matter. One could justifiably argue that sex offenders living in close proximity to where children live is much more dangerous than the former.
I was shocked to see that one registrant lives in an apartment that seemed to overlook a local school’s baseball diamond. I was even more suprised when I learned that 200 yards was the minimum living distance. I believe that every human being should have rights and liberties until they take those rights and liberties away from another person. Regardless of whether or not they have paid their debt to the justice system, parents and children need to know what dangers are present in their area.
I am shocked to hear someone shocked because a person has ‘paid their debt to the Justice System’ must still owe some sort of personal debt to that individual.
I agree that parents need to know about the dangers their children face. Here is the greatest danger, 80% of all sex offenses committed against children are committed in the home by a parent, immediate relative, or a trusted friend known to the victim and family, not by a person on the registry.
Seems the best way to protect your children might be to stay away from them. Sorry, is the truth uncomfortable? Would you rather have more feel good laws that have proven over the last two decades to accomplish nothing?
I want to know exactly what this journalist, who is so careful to post a disclaimer and the two posters who bandy the term about so easily mean when they use the active noun ‘sex offender’. From the first post, it would seen that having been previously convicted of a sex offense makes being in the proximity of children is now to be a sex offense. From the second, it appears that once the broad label is applied, somehow the person has lost all Constitutional Rights and devolved into a fourth class citizen.
Please, please, do some research, learn some facts, before you respond from your gut. And would someone please get these people a copy of the Constitution.
Kelly R Piercy
http:www.gasorr.org/
gasoem@gmail.com
gasorr.org
P. O. Box 180
Hull, GA 30646
(706) 955 2009
Many of these so called sex offenders were charged with pissing on the side of a road. Big sex offender!
Mr. Harris,
With all due respect, the sex offenders mentioned in this articles violated children and now live near schools and parks. I think that is fairly difficult to defend. This system is not without flaws and the purpose behind this article is to inform, not reform.
Mr. Piercy,
Please account for the offenders not mentioned in your statistics, the ones who are repeat offenders. Regardless of your personal views, the community in which we live needs to be aware and vigilant. Furthermore, in my copy of the Constitution nothing is written about the right to violate children. You have also made broad generalizations, claiming that these registrants are not dangerous seems careless and heavily weighted towards your argument.