Proposition 83			00.00 10/05
	Opinion
	Submitted as: "The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act:  Jessica's Law"
	The authors of this Initiative say in their introduction to it that it is not their intent "to embarrass or harass persons committed of sex crimes".  In the Initiative they then go on to broaden the definition of various sex crimes, require crimes committed as juveniles to be included in the record, remove the option of judges to consider mitigating circumstances, expand the definition of violent and felonious sex crimes, significantly increase sentence lengths, prohibit probation, and deny parole or the extension of the term of parole.  But of course, this is not "harassment"; it's just good old fashioned fear and reaction at its extreme.
	Consider the effects:  Sex criminals would serve longer terms, be denied probation, and be supervised for longer parole periods (and thereby have a greater probability of violating parole and being re-incarcerated).  In net, they will stay in jail longer.  Because of the expanded definitions of the crimes, more people can be officially considered sex criminals, and it becomes easier to jail them.
	"I'm all for that", you say?  Look at the details of just some of the tens of changes that 83 makes (exact references provided; check the text in the Voter Guide to confirm.):
		Makes mere possession of child pornography a felony, rather than a public offense. (New in Penal Code, 311.11 (a))
		Puts an attempt to commit a sex crime on the same level as actually committing one, when it comes to considering past record for sentencing.  (311.11 (b))
		Redefines sex with a minor, with an age difference as little as 7 years, as a violent felony (revision to 667.5 (c) (11))
		Adds "lewd and lascivious acts", on the same level as rape and sodomy, to lists of crimes and punishments throughout the code.  ("Lewd" and "lascivious" are hard to define, but would certainly include for example, being a flasher.)
		Forces every person accused of a sex crime to go to trial, regardless of circumstances. (new 667.1 (g))
		Makes being "armed with a firearm" the same as to "have [one] available for use." (revised 1203.06 (b) (3))
		Expands the residence restriction for parolees, not just in relation to schools, but also to any "park where children regularly gather."  (revised 3003.5 (b))
		Redefines sexually violent predator to be "a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more persons", when before the offense needed to have been committed twice. (revised 6600 (a) (1))  Now crimes committed as a minor are included.  (6600 (a) (2) (H))
		Redefines "sexually violent offense" to be any of a long list of sex offenses, if they are committed with a minor under the age of 14 years, removing any requirement that the act involve "substantial sexual conduct".  [Revised 6600.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code]
	And on, and on.  And on.  The capper is the requirement that certain sex offenders, though they have served their sentences and fulfilled their terms of parole, are nonetheless required to be "monitored by a global positioning system for life".  Apparently some debts to society can never be considered paid.
	Still for it?  Well, then, go in peace and hope that you get the security you expect.
	But for those who believe that even accused sex criminals have rights, that flashing is not the same sort of crime as rape, that first offenders sometimes do not repeat, that extenuating circumstances do exist, and that teenage boys sometimes do very stupid things, please join us, and Vote NO on 83.
	[Back to All Initiatives]