the fiscal effect it could have, as well as current local and state laws that are already enacted.
If Assembly Bill 505 is passed, it could increase costs the state incurs by requiring CDCR to locate alternative housing for paroled registered sex offenders so they are not living together in large amounts. It is argued that sex offenders are often living in poor communities, where moderately priced hotels and motels meet the housing restrictions, however the complaints that when this “clustering” (Furutani) happens, the sex offenders often times can be found loitering around the premises of the hotels and outside of their dwellings. This raises the question of safety of neighboring communities.
By passing this bill, it could cost roughly $200,000 more a year for CDCR to locate different housing for sex offenders so they are not grouped together sharing the hotel/motel complex. By capping the maximum allowed at no more than 10% per hotel, it would make finding housing for these offenders, even more difficult, which would require even more money for extra administrative costs and placements in hotels that are more expensive then the required minimum legal restrictions where they are currently
placed. Also, by moving offenders out of poorer communities where most of these hotels/motels meet the minimum “standard,” we would be moving them into middle class communities where more often than not, there are more children present and people of the communities have expressed heavily that registered sex offenders are not welcome.
Currently, existing state and local laws already cover some of the issues addressed in AB 505 and are functioning examples. Penal Code 3003.5(a) states that paroled, registered sex offenders may not, during the period of their parole reside in a single family dwelling with any other person registered as a sex offender, unless like previous stated, they are related by blood, marriage or adoption. PC 3003.5(b), also known as Jessica’s Law, states that any person required to register as a sex offender, is prohibited
from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park. Finally, PC 3003.5(c) states that nothing shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from further restricting the residency of any registered sex offender. Previously passed Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law) also allows local governments to expand their restrictions to protect their communities, with the addition of day care centers, bus stops and other areas where children might be present daily.
Other implications of enacting this bill would be the monitoring of hotels and the measuring of the occupancy by parole agents. Offenders could check into the hotels by themselves and exceed this proposed cap, or the coordination of parole agents placing their parolees in these areas without prior knowledge of other agents placements. The passage of this bill should be denied, as it would cost the state extra money for CDCR staffing for the assistance of placing registered sex offenders in different areas where this proposed 10% cap is not at its maximum occupancy, as well as placing them into other communities where they are not welcome. Furthermore, the rest of the proposed issues to redefine Jessica’s Law, are already in place and covered entirely by Penal Code 3003.5 (a,b,c).
References
http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=19
6&eid=885656&evid=1
Furutini, M. (2010). AB 505 Assembly Bill.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_05010550/ab_505_cfa_20100111_194050_asm_comm.html
No comments:
Post a Comment