"Jessica’s Law too vague to enforce?"

Thanks to CrimProf Blog, we see this interesting article from the San Diego Union-Tribune pointing out various problems with Jessica's Law implementation. From the article:

Jessica’s Law, which was approved by California voters in November 2006, toughened sanctions against sex offenders and bars them from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In San Diego County, 1,266 of 1,731 offenders whose addresses are made public by the state live in those restricted zones, according to an analysis by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative journalism unit based at San Diego State University.

That finding surprises virtually no one in law enforcement. They say the law is vague and has holes, making it nearly impossible to enforce.

For example, the law doesn’t specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed. There are no penalties for violating the restrictions.

Four registered sex offenders, two of whom live in San Diego County, have challenged the residency restrictions, and their case is before the California Supreme Court.

The four men were paroled after Jessica’s Law passed, but their most recent crimes were not sex offenses. Parole officers told them they had to move from restricted areas near schools or parks or be sent back to prison.

I'm not sure I understand the use of the word "vague" here. It certainly isn't in the legal sense. The lack of specific language for retroactivity has been the norm with sex offender laws and that is just a matter of statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis. However, I think the other criticisms of the law in the article are worth noting.

Comments

[Confused]

"For example, the law doesn’t specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed."

The Federal Courts in CA on two separate occasions said in early 2007 that the law did not apply to those convicted and paroled BEFORE the passage of Jessica's Law. So what about these rulings? What affect do they have on all of this? What standing do these decisions have at all?

Can anyone help me understand how the court systems work? How can the Federal Courts rule against retroactive application, and yet we see in many, many editorials the same statements as the one quoted above.

[Joe Power]

Currently the residency restrictions are not being applied to RSOs sentenced prior to the passage of the proposition who live within a restricted zone. So where does the ambiguity come in?

Consider a "grandfathered" RSO who seeks to move to a location the proposition would otherwise restrict him from. Can he, or is the exemption a one time thing? What happens if a new school or day care is built within 2000 feet of a RSO's residence? Section 21 of the proposition (the section specifying the residency restriction) sets the 2000' limit but fails to indicate if a violation of this is a misdemeanor or felony, neither does it specify any penalties for doing so. If the RSO is not on parole, it is unclear what - if anything - the state could do about non-compliance beyond wagging a finger and clucking with disapproval.

All of the above involves just 1 of the 33 sections of the proposition. If even half the remaining sections generate half as many questions I think it fair to say there is a lot of ambiguity in it. Enough to have it tossed as unconstitutionally vague? I hope so.

[Ernest Galvan]

Consider also what it is "a park where children regularly gather." In San Francisco, the parole agents tell parolees to look for housing near AT&T Park, the San Francisco Giants baseball stadium. It is in a former industrial district with no schools or traditional parks nearby. In San Diego, all of the RSOs were forced to move away from Petco Park, the Padres baseball stadium, because the parole agents down there deem a baseball stadium to be a park where children regularly gather. One classic hallmark of an unconstitutional law is that it leaves the police completely free to define unlawful conduct in a way that defies prediction. That's what we have here.

[mike]

Does this also or should this really include those charged as level 1 'Sex offenders'? i.e. those that have been charged with petty crimes that have nothing to do with children. drunk urination, verbal abuse, open homo sexuality? Where does the line get drawn? Further more, if the over labeling continues- won't this altogether lose all its overall effect and purpose? With the over labeling of 'SEX crimes'- it will be impossible to enforce Jessica's law and, as a result, more vulnerabilities or liabilities will persist. correct?