In 2006, California voters passed the proposition to put “Jessica’s Law” into effect. In theory, this meant that registered sex offenders would no longer be able to live within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the law and lack of penalties for violations is making it impossible for police to enforce. More than 70 percent of the city’s sex offenders are violating the law.
Authorities say the law does not specify whether it applies to all sex offenders or only those who were convicted after the law took effect. Also, they claim there are no punishments for those who violate the law, making it pointless to go after the offenders. San Diego criminal lawyers say many of their clients actually want to follow the law, but the 2,000 feet from any school or park requirement leaves them with few housing opportunities. As a matter of fact, four sex offenders have challenged the residency restrictions and their case will soon be heard by the state Supreme Court. The court’s ruling is expected in February.
For now, the requirement seems to be causing more offenders to become transient, and thus harder to track. A recent report found that in 2006 San Diego only had 88 transient sex offenders, but in 2008, the number rose to 1,056 –an 1100% increase. Experts worry that by pushing offenders into transient status, the state is actually increasing the likelihood of repeat offenses.
To read more about this complex issue, see the article on Sign On San Diego. Image via Dave mcmt [Flickr]
After years of warfare between authorities and rivaling drug cartels, Mexico has taken a progressive stand towards stopping the bloodshed by legalizing limited personal drug use. The effort may help save the Mexican government quite a bit of money on catching and penalizing drug users, which may free up more resources to battle the mafioso’s themselves.
A recent Supreme Court decision has already been resulting in an increased number of acquittals in drug and dui cases. The decision from Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts says that prosecutors must present a lab analyst for cross-examination in order for forensic evidence to stand in court. Prior to this decision, prosecutors were permitted to enter a paper lab report as suitable evidence.