California Housing Restrictions Relaxed For Some Sex Offenders

LAST WEEK THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MADE A CHANGE TO THE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS REQUIRED BY JESSICA'S LAW. THAT LAW APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2006 PROHIBITED ALL SEX OFFENDER PAROLEES FROM LIVING WITHIN 2000 FEET OF PARKS, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER PLACES WHERE CHILDREN CONGREGATE. A CASE WHICH ORIGINATED IN SAN DIEGO CHALLENGED THAT RESTRICTION AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT STRUCK THAT PART OF THE LAW DOWN EARLIER THIS MONTH. NOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HAS CHANGED THE RESTRICTIONS STATEWIDE FOR OFFENDERS WHO WERE NOT CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES INVOLVING CHILDREN. JOIN ME TO EXPLAIN WHY THE COURT SAID THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED AND HOW IT AFFECTS SAN DIEGO PUBLIC SAFETY ARE MY GUESTS, ALEX SIMPSON IS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW AND ALEX, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW. THANK YOU, MAUREEN. SUSAN FISHER SAN DIEGO VICTIM RIGHTS ADVOCATE AND FORMER APPOINTEE TO THE STATE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS. WELCOME TO THE SHOW. THANK YOU, MAUREEN. ALEX, THE STATEWIDE CHANGES THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING THAT FOUND THAT THE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS IN JESSICA'S LAW WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHY WERE THEY FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ? THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK IT IS NOT REALLY A SURPRISE THAT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RELOADED AGENT CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION AFTER THE SUPREME COURT MADE ITS DECISION. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE SUPREME COURT, CALVERLEY SUPREME COURT DECIDED WAS THIS PORTION OF JESSICA'S LAW THAT REQUIRES CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF A 2000 FOOT BOUNDARY FROM SCHOOLS AND PARKS WAS SIMPLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT APPLIED TO THEM BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY REAL RATIONAL BASIS BETWEEN THAT RESTRICTION AND THE PURPORTED AFFECT WHICH WAS TO TRY TO PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY. IN FACT, THE COURT MADE A DETERMINATION THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, IT DID NOT PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY. IT ACTUALLY MADE IT HARDER TO MONITOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ON PAROLE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT REOFFEND AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RATIONAL BASIS, THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WASN'T A GOOD POINT TO THE LAW AND FOUND IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHAT IS THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS POLICY ON ENFORCING HOUSING RESTRICTIONS ON CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER PAROLEES ? WITH THE COURT SAID WAS THAT SINCE THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT WAS ORIGINATED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, THE COURT'S DETERMINATION REALLY ONLY APPLIED TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY TO PAROLEES IN SAN DIEGO, WHAT CB CR HAS NOW SAID IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE LAW, AS APPLIED TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY, THERE ARE NOW GOING TO HAVE A POLICY THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION ON ANY PAROLEE IN CALIFORNIA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE WRITING ON THE WALL FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION. THEY DECIDED IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT HIS APPLIED TO THESE INDIVIDUALS FROM SAN DIEGO AND CDCR IS SAYING, WELL, THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT BETWEEN SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND THE OTHER COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA. AND TO BE CLEAR, THIS NEW POLICY DOES STILL ALLOW THE RESTRICTION FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN AND CAN BE DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS TO OTHER SEX OFFENDERS. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. THERE'S NO REAL KIND OF PROBLEM WITH AN ASSESSMENT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. AN INDIVIDUAL HAS OR SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM BEING WITHIN 2000 FEET OF A SCHOOL OR PARK AND THE COURT DECISION DID NOT TOUCH ON THAT. IT IS JUST THAT AS A BLANKET POLICY, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE COURT COULD RELY UPON TO SAY THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY PROMOTING PUBLIC POLICY. SUSAN, YOUR BACKGROUND IS AS A VICTIMS RIGHTS ADVOCATE YET YOU SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. WHY IS THAT ? BECAUSE IT IS SMART LAW. JESSICA'S LAW IN THE BEGINNING WAS NOT PROPERLY VETTED. MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO WORKED WITH SEX OFFENDERS DID NOT SUPPORTED. FOR THIS VERY REASON. THE BROAD BRUSH WITH WHICH EVERYONE WAS BEING TREATED. I'VE ADVOCATED FOR VERY LONG TIME THE HOUSING LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE CHANGED. AND WORKING AS A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WITH FOLKS WHO ARE OUT ON PAROLE AND VIOLATING THEIR PAROLE, I WORKED WITH A LOT OF SEX OFFENDERS WHO HAD NOWHERE TO LIVE AND WE WILL PUT THEM ON A GPS TRACKER AND TELL THEM TO GO PLUG IT IN BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PLUG IT IN. SO IT MADE THEM LESS STABLE AND IT MADE US LESS SAFE. HOW DID, ALICE, THE OLD HOUSING WISH ACTIONS IN JESSICA'S LAW, HOW DO THEY WORK IN THE REAL WORLD ? THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF JESSICA'S LAW AND THE NINE YEARS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED, IT SHOWS THAT THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE POLICY ITSELF. TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN FROM CDCR AND FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE COURT WHEN IT MADE ITS DECISION AND WHAT WE SAW WAS A 25 TIME INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ON PAROLE WHO WERE SUBJECT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS. THERE WERE A NUMBER PEOPLE WHO WERE LIVING BEHIND THE ALLEY OF THE PAROLE BOARD, PAROLE OFFICE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T OR COULD NOT FIND HOUSING. AND THOSE SORTS OF STORIES WERE THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S DECISION. IT IS REALLY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY MONITORING THESE INDIVIDUALS AND MAKING SURE THEY DO NOT REOFFEND, THEN YOU REALLY DO HAVE TO KEEP SOME PRETTY SECURE TABS ON THEM AND THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE LAW WAS JUST SEEN AS WORKING AGAINST THAT. SUSAN, I'VE HEARD THE DESCRIPTIONS DESCRIBED AS DESTABILIZING FOR THEM ON PAROLE. THEY ARE DESTABILIZING. THESE ARE FOLKS HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING A JOB BECAUSE OF THEIR HISTORY. THEY OFTEN ARE USING SUBSTANCES. IF THERE IS NOWHERE STABLE FOR THEM TO LIVE, THEN THEY OFTEN END UP GOING FROM FRIENDS TO FRIENDS HOMES OR RELATIVES HOMES OR JUST LIVING IN HOMELESS CAMPS ARE OUT UNDER A BRIDGE SOMEWHERE. THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM. THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THEIR PAROLE RESTRICTIONS. GENERALLY, THEY END UP JUST DECOMPENSATING WHEN THEY ARE ON THE STREET LIKE THAT AND THEY START TO VIOLATE PAROLE.. AND YOU MENTION THE FACT THAT IF YOU GET -- GIVE SOMEBODY A GPS MONITOR AND THEY HAVE NO WAY TO PLUG IT IN, IT IS BASICALLY USELESS. DOES D STABILIZATION ALSO MEAN THAT SOME OF THESE OFFENDERS COULD BE OFF THEIR MEDICATIONS AND JUST BASICALLY AS YOU SAY, THE COMPENSATE ? ABSOLUTELY. MANY OF THE 290 OFFENDERS THAT I WORKED WITH AS A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WERE BIPOLAR. AND LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE MEDICATION AND THEY BECAME DELUSIONAL AND THEY WERE LIVING OUT IN THE OPEN AND SO, YES, THEY WERE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO FIND WAYS TO MEDICATE THEMSELVES WITH ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES AND EVEN DOING PETTY CRIMES THAT COULD LEAD THEM TO VIOLATING PAROLE AND BEING ARRESTED AGAIN AND BEING PUT THAT INTO THE SAME SITUATION.. CRITICS SAY THIS CHANGE CAN BE TRACED BACK. IN FACT, YOU SAID SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES. SUSAN, TO THE FACT THAT JESSICA'S LAW IS POORLY WRITTEN LEGISLATION, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ? I DO AGREE WITH THAT. I AGREED AT THE TARGET AT THE TIME THAT JESSICA'S LAW WAS BEING PUSHED DOWN IN CALIFORNIA, I WAS AT THE PAROLE BOARD AS A COMMISSIONER. AND I WAS TALKING TO EVERYBODY THAT I KNEW AND TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO HOLD OFF AND HAVE IT PROPERLY VETTED. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE SEE THAT A LOT IN CALIFORNIA WHERE PEOPLE REACT TO A BAD SITUATION BY WANTING TO DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY AND CREATING ANOTHER LAW NAMED AFTER ANOTHER CHILD AND OFTEN THEY ARE NOT -- IT'S NOT VETTED AND WERE NOT CLEAR WHAT WE WILL GET UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. AND YET THIS CHANGE IS BEING CRITICIZED BY SOME AS MAKING OUR COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE. WE HAVE STATEMENT FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERVISOR DIANNE JACOB SHE SAYS QUOTE IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE COURT HAS PUT LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A POSITION WHERE IT CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE A VOTER APPROVED LAW THAT WAS MEANT TO PUT OUR CHILDREN FIRST SEX OFFENDERS DO NOT BELONG ANYWHERE NEAR OUR SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE CENTERS UNQUOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR REACTION TO THAT ALEX. YES, I THINK THAT SENTIMENT IS SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE WITH. WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS HAVE THEM MORE LIKELY TO REOFFEND. BUT I THINK THE TELLING PART OF THAT QUOTE IS THAT THIS WAS WHAT THE LAW WAS MEANT TO DO. AND THE PRACTICAL EFFECT, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES IS MAKE THE COMMUNITY LESS SAFE. SO IT IS A SENTIMENT THAT I THINK EVERYBODY CAN AGREE WITH. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE SAFE, SPECIFICALLY THE CHILDREN ARE SAFE. IF WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH AN INITIATIVE PROCESS OR THROUGH THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THEN LET'S DO THAT. IT IS JUST THAT THE COURT MADE A DETERMINATION THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IT WAS GETTING FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM CDCR AND FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT THERE WASN'T ANY REAL PERCEIVED BENEFIT TO THE LAW IS ACTUALLY CAUSING A LOT MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WAS HOPING. SUSAN, IS IT HARD FOR POLITICIANS TO SUPPORT CHANGES THAT EASE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST SEX OFFENDERS ? I THINK IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO THAT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT WE FIND THAT INITIATIVES ARE OFTEN PASSED BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT BOTHER TO LOOK ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THEM. AND FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO STAND UP AND SAY, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD EASE OF RESTRICTION ON SEX OFFENDER HOUSING MAKES THEM LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SOMEHOW BEING SUPPORTIVE OF SOMEONE WHO WOULD GO OUT AND HURT OUR CHILDREN. WHEN THAT IS JUST NOT THE CASE AT ALL. SO IT TAKES SOME INTESTINAL FORTITUDE FOR SOMEONE IN POLITICS TO DO THAT. ALEX, ARE THERE OTHER PARTS OF JESSICA'S LAW OR CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER LAWS IN GENERAL THAT YOU THINK NEED TO BE CHANGED ? I THINK ANYTIME YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SEX OFFENDERS AND THE LAWS THAT APPLY TO THEM, IT IS A POLITICAL HOT POTATO. WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE, PRACTICALLY EFFECTIVE POLICY, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO DO. AND I THINK THE WAY THAT THIS LAW HAS BEEN HANDLED THROUGH THE COURTS IS REALLY KIND OF INSTRUCTIVE ON THAT. THIS WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT WAS PASSED AFTER A TRAUMATIC EVENT AND NOBODY WOULD AGREE, NOBODY WOULD SAY THAT THAT WAS NOT DRAMATIC. IT TOOK A CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO LISTEN TO TESTIMONY FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE YOU COULD HAVE A VOICE THAT SAYS THIS IS JUST NOT PRACTICALLY EFFECTIVE. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE FOR A MOMENT, SUSAN. IN RECENT YEARS, CALIFORNIANS HAVE SEEMED TO BE PULLING BACK ON THE TOUGH PENALTIES THAT THEY ENACTED IN THE 90s. 3 STRIKES HAS BEEN MODIFIED. SOME NONVIOLENT FELONIES ARE NOW IN MISDEMEANORS AND THERE IS CONTINUING PRESSURE TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY. HOW ARE VICTIMS RIGHTS GROUPS DEALING WITH THOSE CHANGES? VICTIMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN GENERAL RIGHT NOW ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION ARE FEELING HAMSTRUNG. AND WE ARE SEEING UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF CHANGES BEING MADE TO LAWS THAT I FEEL WERE GOOD LAWS. I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF 3 STRIKES. THERE'S A REASON THAT IT WAS WRITTEN THE WAY THAT IT WAS. I AM US -- SUPPORTER OF THE DEATH PENALTY. I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE THAT IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. I JUST PREFERRED THAT WE HAVE SMART LAWS RATHER THAN JUST TOUGH LOSS. AND I THINK THAT ANYTIME LAWS ARE PASSED IN THE AFTERMATH OF AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE, WITHOUT THE PROPER BEDDING AND WITHOUT PEOPLE UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY WILL END UP WITH BAD LAW. QUICK QUESTION TO YOU, ALEX. ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS CAN LIVE AFTER THEY HAVE SERVED OUT THEIR SENTENCE ? YES. USUALLY, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A 290 REGISTRATION, IT'S A LIFETIME SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION. SO IF YOU'RE OFF OF PAROLE, THAT MEANS YOU STILL HAVE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER AND ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS I'VE TAKE ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS THAT IT MADE IT A NOTE THAT JESSICA'S LAW PORTION AS IT APPLIED TO THE RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS ACTUALLY WAS IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER SEX OFFENDER LAW, MEGAN'S LAW, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A MAP OF WHERE ALL SEX OFFENDERS ARE. IT JESSICA'S LAW MEANS THAT HOMELESS -- PAROLEES ARE HOMELESS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FIND APPROPRIATE HOUSING, THEN THAT MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT REGISTER UNDER MEGAN'S LAW AND YOU CANNOT KEEP TRACK OF THEM IN THAT WAY. AS YOU WERE SAYING, SUSAN, GOING FOR SMART LAWS THAT DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. ABSOLUTELY. I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH ALEX IS THE -- SIMPSON, THIS IS A PROFESSOR AT COLORADO SCHOOL WESTERN LAW, AND SUSAN PITCHER DANNY GOES ADVOCATE. THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.