Discuss amongst yourselves
Hey, comments are back! Woot! Yeah... as a protective parents whose wife once put someone on that registry, as it were, this is a big problem.
I understand not wanting sex offenders on parole to basically be unable to live, but this law sure seems to put landlords in a really, really tough spot... Hard to say. First, maybe--this was long...
I'm not a landlord or employer only a small businessman trying to pay the bills, but with the already complicated and onerous rules landlords have to face, is it worth it? At what point do all the risk and liabilities imposed just make someone not try...give up?
And, just because someone wants to make a few bucks renting a place, now they are forced to deal with pervs?
I'm going on welfare.
Not only are California landlords banned from using the state's Megan's Law database to decline renting their properties to sex offenders, they're not even allowed to warn other tenants that these paroled criminals are now their neighbors. If they do the first, they can be fined $25,000 for housing discrimination. But if they don't do the second, they can be sued for failing to protect tenants against a known danger.
Lawyers gotta eat too. As a greedy, running dog, capitalist, rent seeking landlord, you should be more sensitive to the needs of the poor, oppressed, perverts. Your "catch 22" is their meal ticket.
You might think that stratospheric San Francisco rents would also discourage anyone just released from prison, but so far, at least, Leno hasn't backed an affordable-housing-for-paroled rapists measure.
Checking the Megan's Law DB for my SF neighborhood clearly shows we have plenty of convicted child molesters living near the playground and library we use daily.
SF had also suffered by being a location of last resort for many California parolees.
Good thing the Governor has taken steps to prevent these convicted child molesters from marrying each other.
A problem with treating sex offenders differently than other criminals is that the definition of sex offender keeps changing. While no one would want a child molester near children, what about someone listed for downloading porn, or getting listed as an outcome of a nasty divorce, or busted for using a prostitute? Are these people demonstrably risks? There seems to be a need to further characterize sex offenders by type or risk of damage to others and to ensure that they have a chance to have a life if they have truly reformed.
Isn't it time you people took some Personal Responsibility?
If you can't prevent your children from being molested by sex offenders then you really shouldn't be having them in the first place.
In some cases, it is not the parents fault if their child is abused. Of course it is a horrible thing, but don't generalize!
Also, I saw my sixth grade coach listed. Quite interesting.
I think "Loony Liberals on Parade" would've been a better title for today's blog entry and the Wall Street Journal piece. All the foolish voters of California who've allowed the Democrat Party to dominate state government deserve no less than to find themselves living next door to a sex offender.
Cathy, much like the people who make them, laws are imperfect, and not everyone associated with such a list deserves to be treated like a social outcast. Sometimes those of us who are convicted and condemned are guilty of nothing more than "loving differently." Remember, there was a time in this country when merely loving a white woman (if you were Black) could get you into trouble as well. But brave, compassionate people managed to change that.
Would that you had more love in your heart, more tolerance, and less hatred for those who are different from you.
Edward Geine
President
Pan-Sexual League
Which is why, Mark, everyone should vote for Prop 77, so that every district is not a safely one-party seat.
Great op-ed. People are getting fed up with all the government imposed do-goodism that is often so confusing and onerous that it's impossible to achieve.
Ms. Seipp: I have great sympathy for your views, but the whole Megan's Law approach to sex offenders strikes me as illogical. If we don't believe in executing these people or keeping them in jail for life, then where are they supposed to live? It seems sadistic to release them and then harass them when they try to get housing. Of course, the adherents of the "human rights religion" (in Milan Kundera's words) would fight any attempt to keep such offenders behind bars or to kill them - but it strikes me that, if that's what we really want to do, then we should press politically for that, rather than play games.
David Ehrenstein's "Johnson" is reason enough for Megan's Law. That thing would rupture anyone's hymen, never mind a six year old's.
Jay: Even better, in some jurisdictions (most? maybe even all?), "public indecency" is a "sex offense".
And you can get conviced of it for peeing in the alley next to a bar at 2AM.
Which is why such registries, at the very least, should show the charge, and ideally should have a short summary of the actual offense; "peed on a bush" and "raped a dozen kids" should have drastically different effects on how people treat you.
(I haven't checked to see if CA's database shows the offense. One certainly hopes it does.)
It does show the offense. Peeing on a bush isn't a sex crime anyway. And I haven't seen anyone on the California Megan's Law website for Sunday-in-the-park-with-George-Michael type offenses. I mean, geez, get a grip.
Edward G: Call me.
Living in an area in SF that might roughly be compared to Silver Lake, I've found the Megans Law DB useful to see if I recognized anyone from around my neighborhood. Just part of being aware of your urban environment.
In a radius of one mile of my house:
1)288(A)Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
2)220 Assault W/Intent To Commit Rape, Sodomy, Or Oral Copulation, Rape By Force ,Rape Of Drugged Victim
3)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
4)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years, M243.4(D)(1) Prior Code-Sexual Battery
5)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
6)288(B) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years W/Force
7)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
8)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
9)220 Assault W/Intent To Commit Rape, Sodomy, Or Oral Copulation , M647.6(A) Annoy/Molest Children
10)288a(C) Oral Copulation With Person Under 14/Etc Or By Force/Etc
11)261(A)(2) Rape By Force/Fear/Etc
12)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
13)288(B)(2) Caretaker/Sexual Act On Dependent Adult W/Force, 288(C)(1) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child 14 Or 15 Years Old
14)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
15)288.5 Continuous Sexual Abuse Of Child
16)286 Sodomy ,288 Crimes Against Children/Lewd Or Lascivious
17)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
18)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
19)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
20)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
21)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
22)261(A)(2) Rape By Force/Fear/Etc
23)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
24)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
25)286(C) Sodomy With Person Under 14 Years Or With Force, 288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
26)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years, 288a(C) Oral Copulation With Person Under 14/Etc Or By Force/Etc
27)288(A) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child Under 14 Years
28)288a(B)(2) Oral Copulation With Person Under 16 Years
29)F288(C)(1) Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With Child 14 Or 15 Years Old
Ed G,
Did you like Texas Chinsaw Massacre or Psycho more?
No, get a grip yourself, Cathy. "George Michael "ffenses" was the primary means the powers that be had to "get the fags" -- before openly gay politicians were elected to office and (more recently) the Supremes overturned sodomy laws. But those names stay on those lists forever.
Shut up, Mark.
As for lewis' claim that "David Ehrenstein's "Johnson" is reason enough for Megan's Law. That thing would rupture anyone's hymen, never mind a six year old's."
I have no idea what he's talking about.
BTW, re your recent Romeneso letter -- I read City Beat to keep up with Andy Klein -- one of this country's very best film critics. I've even written for them a few times.
What a collection of wacked-out legislators.
If the Republican party in California wasn't so fractious and pathetic, Goldberg and Leno would be hung from lampposts.
Like Mussolini, Tex?
Yes.
That would be expressing good parental responsibility.
unbelievable comment "if you can't prevent your children from being molested by sex offender you shouldn't be having them in the first place'... any parent who loves their child would kill to protect them. Unfortunately, we cannot be with them 24/7. This from a parent who homeschooled hers for 5 years and hung out with them as much as possible. There are hideous peoplein this world, who seek to perpetrate heinous crimes against children. One can instill knowledge, talk openly and continuously about certain dangers in life to be aware of, and have all the 'escape routes' in place, lest one's child find themself in a place of endangerment. I don't consider the fact that my kids came out of their youth free from harm evidence that I was prepared to be a parent but simply the grace of God, first and foremost, our best efforts as parents (which were often shoddy) and serendipitously not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think if there were a test to take to see if people should become parents, no one would pass. It is truly, a learn-as-you-go gig. And it will quite literally turn one's heart inside out.
"I think if there were a test to take to see if people should become parents, no one would pass."
Sad but true. Well we're overpopulated anyway.
Good piece, Cathy.
"I think if there were a test to take to see if people should become parents, no one would pass."
I personally don't think it's all that difficult. We're all hardwired for it, one way or the other.
Besides, it provides an excuse for adults to watch "Spongebob".
Yeah, CityBeat has some awesome film critics.
TexasJew....gee, I never needed an excuse to watch Sponge Bob...or Animaniacs... People are hardwired to procreate, certainly....but the long haul of parenting is not what i would call an easy task, unless of course one has perfect, compliant children...or sees their offspring through the curse of rose colored glasses... personally, having kids has brought out the worst in me, and refined the best in me. Love does seem to cover a multitude of goof-ups in the parenting dept. Glad someone has it wired.
"George Michael "ffenses" was the primary means the powers that be had to "get the fags"
If that means a situation such as a person using public areas, which includes the type of restroom that singer was caught in, instead of a motel room, then the desperation or oddball nature of part of the gay community illustrates that certain "fags" are their own worst enemy.
BTW, I still have to shake my head (or snicker) when thinking of the stunned look Orprah Winfrey gave Michael when he told her he once had a serious, legitimate girlfriend. Liberals, which include Winfrey, can be so damn simpleminded about human behavior ("You mean there's SOME free will and free choice when it comes to sexuality??!!! That's impossible!!!!").
Just FYI per this topic...
October 4 : "Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday signed PROTECT's Circle of Trust bill into law. After two years of hard work by an incredible coalition of people and organizations, Senate Bill 33 has been chaptered as Chapter 477 by the California Secretary of State."
"Senate Bill 33 tore down had a devastating impact on tens of thousands of California children. Despite mandatory prison sentences on the books for sexual assault against a child, these penalties could be ignored as long as the perpetrator was any adult living under the same roof as his victim. Thus, a man convicted of continuously raping a child under the age of 14 could get probation, simply because the victim was “his own” child or the child of his spouse or girlfriend."
http://www.protect.org/
Mark there was a time, not that long ago, whewn two men could be arrested for striking up a conversation with one another. There was a time when men congregating in a private hom could be arrested without any sexual activity having occurred -- or even suggested. This happened to Tab Hunter back in 1953.
But you couldn't care less so go back to sleep. And be sure to put your head in a plastic bag when you do.
Calvinist, incredible numbers! How can they afford to live there, or are these some pretty elite perverts?
What I can't figure out is, are the numbers higher now due merely to reporting and is was always this way, or is the problem getting horrendously worse?
That guy of the pansexual league deserves the following:
to get castrated publicly, 1000 lashings, and jailed for the rest of his life. This guy seems like a creep.
By the way, in SAn Fernando Street, a seven year old girl was kidnapped and returned several hours later. She was sex. assaulted.
Hey Mark. Can you name any liberals who are not "simple-minded?"
peace
james
I have been doing some on-line research trying to located a good lawyer in Michigan to help with a case involving sexual abuse of a step-father against his daughter. This happened many years ago but has truly ruined her life. She has reached a point now where she is ready to fight back.
Can you help point us in the right direction to find good legal advice.
Thank you very much!
Calvinist, incredible numbers! How can they afford to live there, or are these some pretty elite perverts?
I live in Bernal Heights, which is very mixed both ethnically and socio-economically. If one was to buy a modest house here today you're talking 800k to 1 mil. But you have families that have lived here for decades, and also a couple of pretty nasty housing projects within walking distance (and a couple of half-way houses and rehab places). And SF has a very high ratio of rental housing to single family homes.
But in general due to urban density everything is compacted here, which also makes you more connected to the neighborhood and your neighbors.
What I can't figure out is, are the numbers higher now due merely to reporting and is was always this way, or is the problem getting horrendously worse?
My own theory is that the number of acts has remained fairly consistent, but over the last 15 - 20 years the number of prosecutions has increased significantly, especially in family/stepchildren/friend-of-family type cases.
Even here no DA wins by saying let's ease up on the child sex crimes.
I read the complete article in WSJ, Cathy. That was very good. I hope you help get your laws straightened out. I was surprised to see the post from Edward Geine. I thought he was dead; maybe if he writes again he can provide a homepage.
Peeing on bushes reminded me of something. Dogs can damage shrubs and lawns when they pee on them. "Dog injury" is listed as a common environmental problem in horticultural trouble-shooting guides. Once a lady called the Extension Horticultural Specialist at the U. of Ark. and explained some damage to her shrubs over the phone. He told her it sounded like dog injury. She laughed and told him that would have to be a pretty big dog because the damage was about six feet up in her shrubs.
She laughed and told him that would have to be a pretty big dog because the damage was about six feet up in her shrubs.
WEREWOLF!
Where wolf?
"You mean there's SOME free will and free choice when it comes to sexuality??!!! That's impossible!!!!"
***
Hey Mark,
YOU could, if you wanted to, get yourself a boyfriend. Yes? And you might even do it, if you believed, or had been told repeatedly, that having a boyfriend was the CORRECT thing to do, and that anything else was deviant and immoral and, in some states, illegal.
Fair, then, to say that you're straight because you've chosen to be straight? I mean, it's all a matter of choice, right? And if so, how'd that decision process work for you? Did you draw up a big decision tree? Tell us about it, huh?
Come sit by me, dr!
I've peed behind bushes when I've been out on very long walks. The dog always looks appalled.
I would like to see some proof of two men being arrested for "striking up a conversation". I don't believe a word of it.
I mean, it's all a matter of choice, right?
Uh-huh, because look at all the heterosexual males who often are tempted to cheat on their spouses or girlfriends, but choose not to. And I still recall watching on the Jerry Springer show a stereotypical effeminate male, no less, being fought over by both his girlfriend and boyfriend. He was Case Study No. 1 in the Dynamics of Free Choice and Free Will.
I don't believe a word of it.
You have to take most things from David E. with a big grain of salt. Leftwing minds tend not to be very reliable or sensible.
mark, you've nicely avoided the question. what i'm asking is, when did you decide to become a heterosexual, and how difficult was that decision?
even the most meager of details would help us all understand your point of view. please do share!
"Sad but true. Well we're overpopulated anyway."
Feel free to remove yourself from the population, then.
"If you can't prevent your children from being molested by sex offenders then you really shouldn't be having them in the first place."
And the sooner you remove yourself from the population, the better.
When you're peeing behind bushes, is the dog walking you? Why were the past few days difficult?
"I've peed behind bushes when I've been out on very long walks. The dog always looks appalled."
You mean that you're still not housebroken?
"Where wolf?"
There, wolf. There, castle.
"...Can you name any liberals who are not "simple-minded?"
Where's Diogenes when you need him?
Thank you so much for writing this insightful report.
San Francisco and the political leaders coming from it are all liberals run amok (with the exception of Feinstein, but we're not particularly thrilled with her, either)
Thanks for your article! To find out what really happened at the Public Safety Committee meeting, you should be able to get videotapes of the meeting from the CA media center in Sacramento. You need the date of the meeting- http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen...iotv/
TVDUBS.HTP
Also, while studying the "sex offender lobby"/etc. please consider studying the bizarre efforts to control the "massage unions/associations", and license massage/bodywork in CA and SF. Working to heal the "massage profession" from "the enemy within" (pedophiles, predators, pimps, human traffickers, prostitutes, etc.) is the current focus of my website.
what i'm asking is, when did you decide to become a heterosexual, and how difficult was that decision?
The more interesting question is when did singer George Michael conclude that his (self-described) legitimate, serious relationship with a female no longer was preferable to a relationship with a male?
I won't define human sexuality---certainly when dealing with behavior that involves millions (or even billions) of people---as devoid of complex, sometimes contradictory or unpredictable characteristics. But in some ways it's that complexity and ambiguity, which is apparent in the life story of X percentage of homosexuals, be it George Michael or others, that illustrate to me just how much free choice and free will are involved in people's social relationships.
Another example: "Will and Grace," which, yea, is a ridiculous TV sitcom show, has writers (some of whom are gay) who probably rely on reality to base their scripts and humor on. There was one episode where the very effeminate, flamboyant gay character of Jack becomes distraught because a female stripper is turning him on. That made me think of a Jerry Springer Show where a very effeminate male was being fought over by both his girlfriend and boyfriend.
Once again, look below the surface of most people's lives and you'll find many instances where such people are led around by a surprising amount of free will and free choice.
I would like to see some proof of two men being arrested for "striking up a conversation". I don't believe a word of it.
Could be true! One anachronistic definition of "conversation" is sexual congress.
"Thanks for your article! To find out what really happened at the Public Safety Committee meeting..."
Wasn't the agency run by Robespierre which instigated the terror phase of the French Revolution known as the "Committee for Public Safety?" Just a thought.
I had the following e-mail exchange with the Cathy:
Aren't you overstating the "rock/hard place" analogy. When I first read your column, I thought you were saying that landlords could be liable to tenants for failing to warn tenants of sex offenders who are renting units. I seriously doubt that that is true. If a tenant were to bring such a lawsuit, I would think a landlord would have a very sound defense, to wit, it would be illegal for me to do that. Are there any such lawsuits that your are aware of? Any suits that have turned out other than as I predict? If so, have they been upheld on appeal?
I seriously doubt that there is any real risk of liability here, but I am open to being educated.
Upon re-reading your column, all you really seem to say is that the landlord "can be sued." That is, of course, true, in the sense that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and it is the litigation process that determines if the suit has any merit. Is that all you were trying to say? Just wondering.
Reply: I don't have time to explain points in my articles that a reader doesn't understand, but a lot of lawyers read my blog, so if you like, you are welcome to put your questions in the comments section there and perhaps you will get an answer.
Anyone want to explain why Cathy's article was not misleading in this respect? (Full disclosure: I am a lawyer, although I don't practice in this field.)
We posted more on Leno, including a debunking of his "sex offenders aren't really a recidivism risk" statements, at Independent Sources here. That is at the core of his thinking, it seems, and if it's wrong, much else is as well.
Cathy, et al:
I believe I understand the fear and anxiety you have when contemplating the presense of convicted sex offenders in your neighborhoods, possibly near your children. You seem to yern for some quick magical fix which will make the problem disappear with no effort or responsibility on your part. The fantasy is "out of sight, out of mind."
Is this because that what you perceive in sex offenders are the nastier aspects of humanity which you desperately avoid recognizing within yourself? Good people can, and too often do, the monstrous deeds. Genuine evil begins only when there is no opportunity for heartfelt remorse or genuine reform.
The goals of an intelligent, humane citizenry should be:
1. Protect the innocent, especially children.
2. Require reform as a consequence of all criminal convictions.
3. Prevent the development of deviant and criminal modes of thinking.
4. Reward successful, positive change!
Most, if not all, current sex offender laws violate at least one of these goals. The predictable results are: continued failure, persistent fear and anxiety among the public, and high taxes to pay for ineffectual prisons. Neither the "Sex Offender Lobby" nor your complaints about them provided a clear solution to the crisis. (Although, you were all quite successful in muddying the waters.)
You are invited to a more extensive and informed view of sex offender reform issues. Just point your browser at
Like it or not, you are (all) very much like the sex offenders you would shun and banish from your midsts. Before your next encountery with them, contemplate two simple questions:
1. How would YOU wish to be treated, if YOU were convicted of a sex crime?
2. Are you sufficiently free of evil within yourself that you have the moral prerogative to be casting stones at others?
So the law says so? Big deal. As if people in the most regulated and litiguous society in the world actually care about the Law. There is such a thin as personal conciousness and following your own moral/ethical compass.
This reads like a solution looking for a problem. Ah well, it is a blog, gotta write about something.
In the meantime people like me will just use that database via discrete means, exercise our prejudgements and in tru political correctness, say disguise it, conceal it, say something alse and deny it. Really, how the hell can a so-called sex offender (Orwell would love that term) prove otherwise?
One thing you quickly learn in business and landlording is that there are many, many, many laws. A lot of them are contradictory and they constantly change. There's a bunch of ideologocal sanctimonious finger-wavers around every corner saying 'dont do this, dont do that, cant ya read the sign?' Eventually, you take what suits you, do your risk/reward analysis and get on with it.
Methinks its time to escape from the ideological PC prison that is the land of the almighty dollar.
So the law says so? Big deal. As if people in the most regulated and litiguous society in the world actually care about the Law. There is such a thin as personal conciousness and following your own moral/ethical compass.
This reads like a solution looking for a problem. Ah well, it is a blog, gotta write about something.
In the meantime people like me will just use that database via discrete means, exercise our prejudgements and in tru political correctness, say disguise it, conceal it, say something alse and deny it. Really, how the hell can a so-called sex offender (Orwell would love that term) prove otherwise?
One thing you quickly learn in business and landlording is that there are many, many, many laws. A lot of them are contradictory and they constantly change. There's a bunch of ideologocal sanctimonious finger-wavers around every corner saying 'dont do this, dont do that, cant ya read the sign?' Eventually, you take what suits you, do your risk/reward analysis and get on with it.
Methinks its time to escape from the ideological PC prison that is the land of the almighty dollar.
Commenting by HaloScan
