El Dorado forced to alter sex offender law
By Kathryn Reed
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on a 3-0 vote Tuesday repealed the sex offender ordinance that was created with Phillip Garrido in mind.
Garrido and his wife, Nancy, were sentenced in 2011 to spend the rest of their lives behind bars for the 1991 kidnapping of then 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard from a bus stop in Meyers and then holding her captive 18 years in a shack and raping her at will.
A 48-year-old registered sex offender last year challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in federal court, saying it was too restrictive. The 2012 ordinance limited sex offenders from being within 300 feet of a park, school, public pool, library or playground.
Phillip and Nancy Garrido’s abduction of Jaycee Lee Dugard has changed sex offender laws.
El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson said his office believes the judge was sympathetic to the plaintiff and therefore he is willing to rewrite the ordinance to comply.
“We tried to put a buffer between certain sex offenders and parks and kids,” Pierson told Lake Tahoe News.
One of the issues raised by the sex offender, who in court documents is called John Doe, is that he would not be allowed to go to a fast food establishment that has a playground because there would be children there.
“You are right. I don’t want you in close proximity to children. I’m sorry that is an inconvenience for you,” Pierson said in response to that challenge.
Before the county begins amending the ordinance it will wait for a decision out of Southern California related to where sex offenders are allowed to be. A decision is expected within a month. Pierson hopes to have something before the supervisors within 60 days.
At the Jan. 7 meeting Supervisor Norma Santiago was absent and Supervisor Ray Nutting did not participate in the vote. The ordinance will be void in 30 days.
South Lake Tahoe and Placerville have adopted similar ordinances that would be subject to the same challenge. However, the county ordinance only affects unincorporated areas of the county.
Pierson said he plans to talk to officials in both cities once the county ordinance is redrafted and the ruling from Southern California comes out. South Lake Tahoe hasn’t bothered to start revising its ordinance even though it knows it will have to. City Attorney Tom Watson said he would review the federal case and present the City Council with options, but he didn’t say when or what those options might be.
“Our law has the same issue that is present in the county’s law. In my estimation, most of the time there are provisions that allow the parts of the laws that are deemed unconstitutional to remain unenforced but the other parts remain in effect. I would support an update to the law as opposed to repealing,” South Lake Tahoe Police Chief Brian Uhler told Lake Tahoe News.
The criminal regimes that are passing these laws need to be sued out of existence.
If these criminal regimes were not criminals, they would at least try to make their useless laws apply to all people who have been convicted of harming other people. But they are apparently too weak to even attempt that. They are not Americans.
Oh poor child molesters sorry you can’t get a big mac! you should have been hung and buried so you will never prey on children again…. you are the worst of the worst. shame on you.
That judge should be taken off the bench. Let that perv go somewhere else to eat. You don’t think he goes there for a reason? He shouldn’t have any rights when it comes to sex offender laws. It’s because of people like him that make these laws necessary.
Once again a bleeding heart says he’s sorry for the inconvenience. Sounds a lot like OBummer saying he’s sorry that Bin Laden was killed. Good God, these maggots should not be anywhere near their prey.
after sitting with the thought of pedophiles among us,ultimately, i have to side with equal rights. I’m not sure legislating child proofing the world is the answer. if said person is deemed fit to be a free american.
Hey GASPEN! This is about the Garrido’s, not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. When exactly did President Obama say “I’m sorry that Bin Laden was killed.” I’m guessing only in your mind.
Hey DEAN, I think the judge is from Utah.
One problem with the situation is that the persons subjected to the laws are inevitably going to go into various cities where the laws will differ. If each city has their own law, how is a person going to know how to stay in compliance? One city could require a person to stay 200 feet away from playgrounds, and the next city requires the person stay 500 feet away. Another city could require the subjects to stay out of McDonalds, and the next three cities do not. Another problem the judge may understand is that a city could deliberately create a law with greater restrictions. The city law with greater restrictions would make it much more difficult for a subject person to stay in compliance, thus the law would constitute entrapment. The solution is a uniform, state wide law.
Regardless of the inconvenience the sex offenders face as they move from town to town, its their problem as sex offenders to know the local laws and rules they have to follow. Oh the poor, pitiful sex offender has to actually be held accountable for their crime by being knowledgable about the rules to follow. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time, and with sex offenders its a life sentence. Think about the victim and their life sentence of having been violated. Poor sex offenders, cant go to micky d, s. Cry me a river….
Go Figure : Your anger is misleading your judgement. Many of these people were convicted based upon improper touching. Some had sex before their partner turned 18 years old. There are other examples of why many of these people are not a threat to society any longer. The Garrido’s are an example of the worst offenders; And they have been removed from society. But, I can rationalize that a three time drunk driver is a greater threat to society than a one time sex offender. Here you have refused to acknowledge the facts that I’ve brought to your attention. This resembles the Salem witch trials of the 1600’s when accused people were condemned to death based upon an allegation. I haven’t even addressed that some of these people are innocent and were convicted through use of perjury. You say, “Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.” I have news for you. While in prison, many people in this country have proven they were innocent.
go figure (JANUARY 9, 2014):
I would urge you to try to think about the issue less emotionally. What is happening is that people have been convicted of a crime (could be any crime, doesn’t matter) and given a certain punishment sentence. That sentence does not include having to accept additional punishment years later. That sentence does not include having to accept additional restrictions years later.
There are people who are listed on the Registries who COMPLETED their legal sentences decades ago. It is not acceptable that thousands of governments in the U.S. think they can come along and tell those people that they now have new, additional punishments/restrictions/harassment. We, as Americans, do not believe in that. And it is illegal.
So that is the problem. It has nothing to do with a crime that was committed. It has everything to do with adding punishment onto a person years and decades after the fact.
The original lies for the Registries was that they would exist so people could be “informed” about the people around them. If they had remained that way, they might have been slightly useful and not as counterproductive as they are today. They never should have been used as a list of people to whom all the rest of us can add punishment and harass. We are even doing that to their families and children. It’s beyond outrageous, it’s criminal.
These people were held accountable for their crimes. They paid their sentences. They completed parole or probation. They are not under supervision. It is not acceptable to add more “rules” to their and their families’ lives.
As far as your “victim and their life sentence of having been violated”, not to minimize anyone being harmed but very, very few victims are victims for life. When they are, the perpetrator has likely been sentenced to 10 life terms or more. Your “victims for life” statement is a very common excuse to try to justify harassing someone forever. But we only seemed to think “victims for life” happen if someone is sexually touched, yet not even if someone is actually physically maimed for life (e.g. from being shot).
I was severely abused as a child. I was not a victim by the time I was a junior in high school. And I sure as hell was not once I got to college. It is absolutely unfair and idiotic to treat everyone listed on a Registry as if he/she is like the Garridos.
Lastly, it would be no different at all if these governments also said “all people who have illegally shot a gun at someone is no longer allowed within 300 feet of parks, playgrounds, etc., whatever.” Or, “all people who have committed a felony are not allowed within 300 feet of parks, , playgrounds, etc., whatever.” In fact, the fact that this government did NOT say that is proof that their law was not really about protecting anyone. The main point of their law was to placate stupid and/or hateful people.
Wow, so much finger pointing. Maybe if would be potential sex offenders did a little research before they commit their special crime they might see that their choice of crime has reprocussions that go way beyond the touching or sexual activity with a minor or rape. All crime has reprocussions and there are innocent people who get falsly accused. It is a shame. If you or someone you care about is a victim of sexual crimes you might not be so forgiving. My opinion for any criminal is the same, dont do the crime if you cant take the punishment. Most everyone has access to the information about what to expect for punishment. I just googled sex offender punishments and there were pages of sites with info. I guess they can pleed ignorance but im guessing in this instant information age, the judge might not be so sympathetic. Rightfully so…
Go Figure : I know a little more about what’s going on in the courts than you may think. Twice I’ve gone against public opinion here, and twice, someone with knowledge has commented in support of me. I knew when I commented here that my opinion was very much against public opinion. F. R. T. has backed me up. You should read his words carefully. He did a difficult thing, and he did it well. He informed you of several reasons why these laws are unjust. If you continue to reject facts, you will not advance your understanding of law, or advance your understanding of the constitutional protections. Some people are beyond reach. You are probably not. I’ll conclude with two points. First: The punishment should fit the crime. This idea that if you touch some child wrong, you should spend years in prison is beyond lunacy. Second, read the eighth amendment. The eighth amendment is there for all citizens protection. And guess what, some friend of yours may need its protections someday.
Garrido and his wife, Nancy should be kept in prison for life on a 300+ year sentence as far as I am concerned. But, what people don’t understand is that they represent less than 0.1% of sex offenders. Most sex offenders are not violent at all.
More importantly, close to 90% of sex crimes against children are not by strangers, but are by family and close family friends. Even more important is that most of them are committed by first time offenders. So the registry has no effect for protecting against the vast majority of such crime.
Then, there is the actual statistical recidivism rate of sex offenders committing new sex crimes.
I have a pretty in depth analysis of sex offender recidivism for new sex crimes which can be seen at: http://childhood-destroyed-for-what.com/01-100-000-my-story/01-160-100-sex-offender-info/01-170-000-recidivism-of-sex-offenders.html.
The best estimate from the analysis results are:
Years from Release : Most Likely Case Recidivism : Error Margin
0 : 4.00% : (-2.66%; +6.00%)
1 : 2.55% : (-2.16%; +5.16%)
2 : 1.63% : (-1.51%; +4.32%)
3 : 1.04% : (-1.00%; +3.55%)
4 : 0.66% : (-0.65%; +2.87%)
5 : 0.42% : (-0.42%; +2.30%)
6 : 0.27% : (-0.27%; +1.83%)
I have an analysis of dozens of studies from 7 different states covering 56,006 released sex offenders and their recidivism for new sex crimes. Pick one of the seven states and let us examine the results in detail. If you are correct, you should be able to prove your argument from the government’s reports. Which state would you like to discuss the report for first; Ohio (8.3%), Arizona (3.25%), Minnesota (10%), California (three studies 3.35%, 4.05% and when technical offenses were removed 1.34%), Washington (3.72%), Maine (5.10%), New York (2.10% which takes into account 24 studies), which one would you like to begin with?
Or we could discuss reports from other states, like Colorado (2.61%), Connecticut (2.7%), Indiana (1.05%), Iowa (3.23%), Tennessee (3.5% rapists & 4.7% statutory rapists), Michigan (2.5%), Australian Broadhurst and Maller Study 1992 (8.4%), Australian Broadhurst and Loh Study 1997 (9.4%), Florida Levenson & Shields 2012 (5.2% & 13.7%), Virginia 2005 (8.17% & 3.6%)?
That gives more than a dozen different states and others making reports on sex offender recidivism, which one would you like to debate first?