Governor signs 'Chelsea's Law' on sex offenders-will lock up some convicted sex offenders for life

Governor signs 'Chelsea's Law' on sex offenders


SAN DIEGO (AP) -- Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed legislation that will lock up some convicted sex offenders for life.

"Chelsea's Law" is named for Chelsea King, 17, who was murdered in San Diego in February. A convicted child molester was sentenced to life in prison without parole less than three months later for killing King and 14-year-old Amber Dubois.

Schwarzenegger signed the bill Thursday at San Diego's Balboa Park alongside Chelsea's parents, Brent and Kelly King, and the sponsor, Assem. Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego.

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=94704&catid=2

These people can't be fixed.

This shouldn't be applied to other types of criminals though.

I know all the arguments about sexual predators not being "fixable." Still, locking someone up for life for a crime that would otherwise carry a shorter sentence is locking them up for future crimes that have not been committed yet. That's a terrible precedent to set. It is preemptive justice.

If a kid gets abused by a sexual predator we can't unring that bell.

I see your point but this is a complicated issue.

Don

...and don't pretend to have any better answers. Preemptive justice just doesn't sound like good justice to me.

A few quotes from Wiki:

Only 1 in 20 sex offenders are later re-arrested for another sex offense.


It's not just a narrow sampling at work here either. Multiple studies have repeatedly demonstrated that sex offenders rarely re-offend after release.


The recidvism rate for child molesters is even lower than that for sexual predators in general.

My sister and I were both molested as kids, so I have no particular sympathy for molesters and rapists. That said, I don't think our sentencing guidelines should be based on false presumptions or a dislike of one particular crime over another. I believe that the first duty of a prison should be rehabilitative, and not punitive. To sentence 20 sexual predators to life in prison simply because the statistics say that ONE of them will reoffend just seems abusive.

Sex crimes have one of the lowest rates of being reported, something like 10% or less (I think car theft has the highest rates of reporting, something like 60%). So you really can't tell how many reoffend based on rearrest rates for sex crimes.

Having said that, the fact that 90-95% of sex crimes are never reported makes laws like this a meaningless distraction designed to make soccer moms feel safe. You can implement a one strike and you are out policy for something as minor as an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old, at the end of the day 95% of sex crimes are never brought to the attention of law enforcement. So what difference does it make for the other 95% if you are giving out probation vs life sentences for the 5% who are arrested and convicted?

If anything there is some concern these draconian penalties may drive sex crimes even further underground since most involve complex emotional interplay between the victim and abuser (stepparents, parents, grandparents, siblings, dates, uncles, authority figures etc are among the relationships commonly seen among abusers/victims), so if a person is told the only options are to send their grandparent to jail for life or ignore the problem, more may choose to ignore the problem. If a kid tells her dad that his dad (the child's grandfather) is molesting her, and he knows his grandfather is facing life in prison it may make him more likely to ignore the problem. What do people do then?

If a law pushes the level of non-reporting from 95% to 96% (as a guess), does that actually increase sex crimes because the number of sex offenders in the 5% category who are actually convicted who will reoffend is lower than the % who will now not be reported? Or will laws like this actually act as a deterrent to potential sex offenders and lower acts in the first place?

Point is, there is no easy answer to stopping sexual abuse and bills like this are designed to trick people into thinking there are.

There is no guarantee a murderer will do it again, but we lock them up for life anyhow. This law only locks up "violent" sex offender who committed the offense against children. I see little problem with someone who has committed a violent sexual crime against a child from ever seeing the outsides of a prison wall again. Someone is just fucked in the head to do that period.

...about the nature of our justice system, albeit probably an unintended one.

We lock people up for life as punishment-- as revenge-- rather than as a corrective measure. Any justice that assumes from the beginning that there must be no opportunity for rehabilitation is not justice, IMO-- it's revenge. I know people have strong feelings about this, especially those of us who have been the victims of crime (and I was sexually abused as a child, although without any overt violence).

Preemptive revenge is another matter though. It scares the hell out of me. And I do agree with you that that is essentially what any life sentence without parole or other possibility of rehabilitation is.

Before anyone raises the issue, let me say too that the likelihood of recidivism is not a proper issue to consider, IMO. Even if the likelihood was 99.9999 percent, it can NEVER be 100 percent because there cannot be absolute certainty about the future, so denying any chance for rehabilitation is inherently unjust.

I don't want to see sexual criminals avoid justice-- I want them to receive justice, not just blind revenge. In a just world, people can overcome their demons, at least sometimes.

Whenever a woman or child is abducted, raped, and/or murdered it is ALWAYS by someone who served time for a sexual offense. They are a bunch of sociopaths.

That label often applies to minor crimes like public nudity, statutory rape (also known as parent hated boyfriend), and so on. Also, some states label a sexual encounter when drunk as rape (Va comes to mind), such that legally both partners have "raped" each other if they were both drunk. These obviously are minor crimes not worthy of the label "sexual offender".

I said rape and molestion children.

You stated "Whenever a woman or child is abducted, raped, and/or murdered it is ALWAYS by someone who served time for a sexual offense. They are a bunch of sociopaths."
That statement by itself does not narrow down the term sexual offender to only mean "violent rapists and child molesters/murderers" I was just pointing out that the term "sexual offender" is a bit too broad in standard practice. Chill down a bit. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the term we use daily due to the media.

probably agree with that sentiment.
Although none of those victims were women or children...

Under current California law, a girl under the age of 14 is incapable of giving consent, and therefore ALL sexual activity can be prosecuted as having occurred "against the victims will".

Theoretically, under this law, a 15 year old boy who orally copulates his consenting 13 year old neighbor could be sentenced to life in prison on their first offense. The boy would qualify for parole after 25 years, but even if granted would be on lifetime parole with realtime GPS monitoring and residency restrictions until the day he died.

I have a REAL problem with THAT.

Unfortunately we live in a state full of sex offenders running around (FL).

Maybe we'll pick up even MORE seats.

run screaming. If the bill could stand on its own merits they wouldn't need to resort to this cheap emotional ploy.

It all started with that "Megan's Law" in New Jersey, which believe it or not would not have saved the "Megan" it was named after because her parents already knew their neighbor was a sex offender.

That is a great rule of thumb

I wish they would do something about the Catholic priests that have molested and abused others sexually.