A judge who used a skewed movie to determine that a fugitive child rapist was a victim of judicial misconduct has ruled that it’s unconstitutional to keep pedophiles and sex offenders away from schools and parks.Excuse me?? So he's saying that living in the proximity of potential victims does not bear on the liklihood to re-offend?? These are not your garden variety sex offenders here. Some are pedophiles. These are people who are sexually aroused by children. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want someone like that living near the parks in which my children play!!! That would be like taking a child to a candy store, leaving him or her alone, and saying "now be a good boy/girl...don't take any candy."
Ruling in favor of four paroled sex offenders, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said that a California law imposing strict residency requirements on sex offenders forces them to choose between prison and homelessness. Overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2006, the measure (Jessica’s Law) forbids convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park frequented by children.
"The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child," the judge, who supervises the county’s criminal courts, wrote in his order. He also wrote that an increase in homeless sex offenders—supposedly an outcome of the law—would risk public safety.
Seriously, on what freakin' planet does this judge live?? Oh. Right. California. 'Nuff said.
Posts
Hizzoner should offer the perps rooms in his own house! Just like the Shorewood/Whitefish Bay perp-lovers on the Milwaukee County bench.
ReplyDeleteOh, no. He should offer the perps quarters near the judges children and/or grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteI often wonder how judges would rule if the perps were going to live in their neighborhoods...
ReplyDelete