Lancaster furthers restrictions on registered sex offenders

LANCASTER – The Lancaster City Council Tuesday approved an ordinance that imposes restrictions and regulations upon registered sex offenders in addition to those imposed under state law.

Specifically, the new ordinance prohibits registered sex offenders:

  • From living within 2,000 feet of any school, park or day care center.
  • From living at a residence or hotel/motel/inn where another registered sex offender already lives (with a few exceptions).
  • From being within 300 feet of a school, day care, park or bus stop near a park, playground, public library, public museum, crisis center or shelter, arcade, youth sports facility and amusement park, where children are present (with a few exceptions).
  • From decorating their homes or answering their doors to trick-or-treaters on Halloween. (Read the Ordinance No. 981 here.).

Any registered sex offender who violates the ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, eight people spoke against the ordinance. Many called it unconstitutional and said it was an unreasonable burden for people who have already completed their court-imposed prison sentences.

“What if you were known for the worst thing you’ve ever done?” Linda Cordero asked the council. “This law is punishment, it’s unconstitutional, it’s a poor use of city resources, I’m asking that you please table it.”

“The media, victim activist groups, and others have fueled the moral panic regarding sex offenders with emotional hyperbole and exaggerated unsubstantiated statements. This has created a witch hunt with registrants as the target,” said Kathleen Garner, who quoted several statistics and sources in making her point.

Janice Bellucci urged the council to look at the issue from a historical perspective and compared the ordinance to the Salem witch trials, the Japanese-American Internment and racism.

“There have been other times, as I said, when our country lost its focus and denied the constitutional rights of individuals, and I’m telling you that you’re headed there if indeed you pass this ordinance,” she said.

Bellucci, an attorney who has written letters to the council opposing the ordinance, said it would undoubtedly be challenged in court.

“You will be sued as a city and you will be sued as individuals because we brought to you facts that you chose to ignore,” Bellucci told council members. “It’s a waste of the city’s money to defend itself from a lawsuit that could in fact be avoided; it’s going to be costly to you as individuals, as well.”

Council members had harsh words for the critics.

“You can spout all your statistics, one child is too many and we’ll do our best to protect that child,” said council member Marvin Crist. “We get sued all the time… and we’ll fight you in court to protect our children.”

Council member, Sandra Johnson, said she was offended by any comparisons between sex offender restrictions and racial discrimination.

“I’m offended that we can even categorize those two in the same sentence,” Johnson said.

“They weren’t born that way, they made a decision and they did something wrong,” said council member Ron Smith said. “And for you people out there to equate that with 9-11 and veterans and racial discrimination… you should all be ashamed of yourselves.”

The council voted 3-0 (with Mayor R. Rex Parris and Ken Mann absent) in favor of the new ordinance.  (Read Ordinance No. 981 here).

-

  88 comments for “Lancaster furthers restrictions on registered sex offenders

  1. Michelle Egberts
    September 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Citizens of Lancaster, Elected Officials and Law Enforcement… A blanket restriction prohibiting sex offenders from living near places where children congregate is unconstitutional, a state appellate court ruled Wednesday, September 12, 2012, throwing a surprising wrench into a popular law. The decision by Division 1 of the 4th District Court of Appeal concerns the 2006 ballot measure known as Jessica’s Law, which barred registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

    The court said the across-the-board enforcement of that restriction as a condition of parole violates offenders’ constitutional rights. While the decision applies specifically to San Diego County, it could have sweeping ramifications across the state.

    http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/controversies/court-blocks-virtual-residency-ban-on-paroled-sex-offenders-120917?news=845325

  2. Robert Curtis
    September 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

    It amazes me that anyone would like to go down in history as a person that instituted this kind of ordinance. I suppose the Americans behind incarcerating the Japanese and killing native Americans and others did it with high thoughts of doing the right thing. These people are the enemies of freedom and the Constitution of the United States of America. Don’t be deceived because of it being done in the name of protecting the children. That excuse was also used by Hitler. Truth

    • Tina Marie
      September 13, 2012 at 11:00 am

      It amazes me even more that someone would blatantly violate someone else’s space and dignity and then expect sympathy and tolerance for it.

      • Robert Curtis
        September 13, 2012 at 11:57 am

        Sympathy? Tolerance? First lets just remember these people have paid their debt to society and the registration is suppose to be regulatory (a bad joke) not punitive. Now from that angle it fails horribly and you would even agree to that it’s a punitive measure.

        That being the case then it is unconstitutional and violates freedom and Rights. History will call me right on this. Why? because our children are of a different way of thinking and come from a different kind of reality in many ways. I’m a hairstylist/salon owner I see them differently because they are different. We are in the information age now but the old timers of my generation doesn’t get it yet. What kids talk about on playgrounds today would make a sailor blush.

        They’re more aware than ever what is BS and what’s not. These laws in time will be an embarrassing joke. Kind of like the time of McCarthy. Then they even had people like Lucille Ball on their communist registry. I guess they didn’t like her sense of humor.

  3. Think About It
    September 13, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Here are some things which could require you to register as a sex offender:

    1: Urinating on the side of the road
    2: A woman flashing her breasts at a night club
    3: Underage teens having sex, both can get charged with statutory rape
    4: Pornographic popups on your computer (caused by viruses/spyware/adware)
    5: Minors having pictures of themselves nude.
    6: Sex in your car
    7: Clothes in your car
    etc, etc, etc, etc……

    The laws are very vague and allow for minor issues to become major issues by letter of the law, but I doubt that is in line with the spirit of the law.

    Now, while all of these may deserve some sort of punishment, do these people need to spend the rest of their lives tip-toeing around as registered offenders?

    I wonder when sagging pants is going to land kids on the registry.

    • Think About It
      September 13, 2012 at 10:04 am

      #7 should have read “Changing your clothes in your car”

    • Robert Curtis
      September 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      Many more than what you listed. Question people have you ever done any of these things?

      A having a one night stand with a woman after she had a couple of drinks. I female attorney told me if a woman just has one glass of wine she’s considered under the influence of alcohol.

      A teen mooning his friend in a car (hey, kids do stupid things they’re kids).

      After having few beers and grabbed/swatted the waitress’s butt. No I’ve never done that.

      • Adam Chant
        September 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm

        You are just Fear Mongering now. Understanding the difference between the letter and spirit of the law is what makes these incidents generally unenforceable. When additional crimes are included they are complementary, but really hold no weight for prosecution on their own.
        Show some instances of these being charged and you will also see additional -more serious- crimes accompanying them.
        Just stop pushing the agenda the city voted. let it go to court.

        • Think About It
          September 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm

          All I get from posts like yours is:

          “Just bow down and deal with it. Don’t pursue dialogue. Don’t try to think about things. Just accept what those in powers say to accept.”

          • jay
            September 13, 2012 at 7:14 pm

            Isn’t that what Hitler did for with the Jews? And the Jews just went along with it until it was too late.

        • Robert Curtis
          September 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm

          That what you stated Mr. Adam Chant is simply not true! My personal case disproves that. Odd thing sir just a few years after my conviction the TSA assaults our women and children every day at the airport and gets paid to do so.

          Another thing any charges sexually related is extremely prosecuted no matter how minor the offense. It’s politics and trust this if you’re charged you’ll be convicted due to the emotions involved whether you are guilty or innocent.

          The burden of proof falls on the accused. Ever try and disprove a negative? Can’t be done. It’s not suppose to work that way, but that is how it is with sex crimes.

  4. anotherdummy
    September 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    I have heard of people being required to register as sex offenders for urinating behind a dumpster… Are they included in this new ordinance?

    • Robert Curtis
      September 13, 2012 at 8:37 am

      Yes, because California is one of only 4 states that doesn’t have a tiered system. So whether you got caught urinating outside (tell a guy that hasn’t done that) or had sex with you 17 year old GF while you were 19 you are included. Most sex offenses are not against children and are misdemeanors. Something to think about. It’s not a hard thing to become a registered sex offender.

    • sikntired
      September 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Not if they are illegal aliens.

  5. Stinger
    September 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Simply put (and regardless of your position about sex offenders, per se), if this ordinance applies to persons who have already had their cases adjudicated, then it is an ex post facto law in is, by defintion, a violation of the Constitution. If it doesn’t apply to persons who have already had their case(s) adjudicated, then it is a nightmare to try to enforce for the Sheriffs.

    Final analysis: an ill thought out law created to give the impression of ‘doing something’ without any real forethought being used or study into what actually works to protect the public.

    Get ready for yet another money drain in lawsuits due to Parris & Co.’s egos. It’s sad, really, that these guys can’t even do a good idea right.

    • Say What?
      September 12, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      Yeah because the Mongols & TCAL/NAACP suits against the city were both brilliant successes.

      Wait? What?

  6. April
    September 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Are you people serious? Registered sex offenders are not necessarily child molesters. People caught urinating in public (which can include out on a deserted dirt road behind a tree) are registered sex offenders. So someone with a full bladder and got caught not being able to hold it now can’t decorate their house for Halloween? WOOOOOOOOOOW

    • Darius White
      September 13, 2012 at 11:51 am

      More than one comment has referenced the “urinating in public…” point in their arguments/opinions. Can someone/anyone provide a real name of a person who has been required to register as a sex offender because of just this point? We don’t need to be concerned about any “privacy” issues in releasing a name or names because they’re on the sex offender website. It would just save alot of research time in validating this point.

  7. AVEMT
    September 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    To all of you who oppose protecting our children: Where do you live? We can make them YOUR neighbors…

    • Say What?
      September 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Let’s round up all of the sex offenders in the AV and move them into Ms. Bellucci home in Santa Maria. I’m sure she won’t mind helping out these poor abused souls.

      • Robert Curtis
        September 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

        Oddly knowing how much therapy, responsibility and accountability registrants go through (The Grinder) if she had the space she probably would take you up on that offer!

        In fact, if I had the means to rent to them after all their training, education and therapy these people are the least trouble because of the high price they would have to pay if they did messed up! Prison or jail is a harsher place for sex offenders. (head scratch) Actually would be a wise business decision if the law allowed it!

    • Haverford
      September 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      No one opposes protecting children. Its just that this ordinance does not do this.

      • Say What?
        September 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm

        I disagree. Its a good first step. Now we need to look into making more steps in the same direction.

      • Tina Marie
        September 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm

        got news for you…it isn’t just children who are victimized it is anyone who seems/looks vulnerable, which is usually a small woman of short stature!

        • Haverford
          September 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm

          then I got news for you… if you watch the City Council Meeting, all they talked about was protecting children, and not a word about small women of short stature.

    • jay
      September 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      I have had neighbors that were sex offenders, actual child molesters. They were never an issue. I worried more about the neighbor across the street that kept watching my children out his window who wasn’t on the registry.

      Also, I would like to know why all children are not protected. These restrictions and the registry itself hurt the children of the registrants. Why do they not count? These restrictions have proven across the country to actually cause more issues than to protect anyone. Many places have gotten rid of the restrictions because they know they don’t work.

  8. ReadyForBackLash
    September 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    I know what I am about to say is going to spark up some pretty heated replies and a lot of dislikes, but it is what it is:

    Special enforcement of “sex offenders” is wrong. The fact that they are registered shows that they were in fact convicted of their crime(s) and completed their sentence. Why then, must the spend the rest of their lives imprisoned in a different way?

    If you think they should be punished for the rest of their lives, then by all means push for life sentencing or capital punishment of these offenders. However, if we are going to release people from prison, beyond standard parole/probation restrictions, continuously punishing them for the rest of their lives is too much. Why release someone to begin with if the consensus is that their lives should continue to be dictated after release?

    • Haverford
      September 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      You are right – “Special enforcement of “sex offenders” is wrong.” – but it does get votes and sells media. It also makes politicians sound like they care more about the community than they do about their job and themselves.

      One big fat LIKE from me!

      I watched the CC Meeting video… I would like the female CC Member – who cited, with a quivering voice, a case of abuse in her family as a reason to pass this law – to elaborate on how this ordinance would have protected her relative. Was the offender a registrant at the time of the offense? Did the offense occur in one of those locations, now restricted to registered sex offenders? I did not hear her say this – my conclusion would have to be ‘no’. Perhaps this is a logic leap, but I think she would have stressed this had it been the case. So no, the abuse would not have been prevented – as if the threat of a fine and up to 6 months in jail were to deter someone bent on committing a crime that results in decades in prison.

      The tone of the 3 council members (where were the others – public opinion got to you?) was more befitting of a medieval morality play than modern democracy. They were ‘offended’ that people had the nerve to speak up for the Constitution on September 11th, of all days???? Did those citizens speaking schedule the meeting on that day? Chastising speakers in the middle of the public comment section? What a joke. Kangaroo Court comes to mind.

      As one of the speakers said – it is our DUTY, as citizens, to protect the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. And yes, that includes not only people with guns and airplanes, but also ideas and principles.

      While this is true for all citizens, it holds especially true for those in elected office. Last night – epic fail! Hopefully someone will take them up on their invitation / dare for a lawsuit.

      • sacryingshame
        September 14, 2012 at 12:38 am

        Great letter.
        I also watched the CC meeting on TV. It was Ms. Johnson who spoke in the quivering voice. I think she may need some counseling if she is still affected like that.
        I was offended at how the 3 council members spoke to people when the timer bell rang. You could here them sighing and I can only imagine they were gritting their teeth.
        Why do they get to decide on these things? Why isn’t it a citizens vote? It affects alot of people and those 3 council members got to decide for everyone in Lancaster. This is so wrong. Kangaroo Court was a great description of those proceedings.
        I had the unfortunate opportunity to have a friend accused of a sex crime involving a minor. Accused, convicted and put on trial. In that order. I felt I had witnessed a Mississippi lynching. Since his release, the harrassment has been relentless and his children are suffering. If he wasn’t so beat down, I’d suggest he be the test case. He simply isn’t strong enough, his spirit is broken.
        Anything else I have to say has been said by so many of the other comments. I am embarrassed to be part of this community and yes, I know I can leave. I am leaving.

        • Michelle Egberts
          September 14, 2012 at 5:45 am

          @sacryinginshame… as one of the eight individuals who spoke in opposition of this ordinance, we found it very interesting that not one citizen in the City of Lancaster who attended the council meeting spoke up to support the Ordinance.

          However, all is not lost as a lawsuit will be filed and it will be left to the courts to determine the constitutionality of it and render it’s judgement to the City of Lancaster. This Ordinance will NOT hold water in the courts.

          In the meantime and pending this litigation, there are a couple of things that a “290 Registrant” may do on their behalf. First, they can file an APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM INTERNET DISCLOSURE through the State of California Department of Justice http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/pdf/application.pdf

          Based upon a review of the 290 Registrants criminal history and submitting supporting documentation, the Registrant may be granted exclusion from the Megan’s Law Internet site by the California Department of Justice.

          Furthermore, the 290 Registrant is eligible to file a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS with the courts. There are attorneys who will do this “pro bono” (free of charge)on behalf of the registrant. Feel free to e-mail me at avsecondchance@aol.com Many registrants, family members/friends of registrants are not aware of this, even if they are currently on probation /or parole.

          SAMPLE OF APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM INTERNET DISCLOSURE

          STATE OF CALIFORNIA
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CJIS 4046D (Orig. 10/2005; Rev. 01/2011)
          PAGE 1 of 2
          APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM INTERNET DISCLOSURE

          Please print or type the required information. Illegible or incomplete information, or the lack of required documentation, may delay the processing of this application and may result in denial of your application. Mail this completed application, together with all necessary supporting documentation to: California Department of Justice ATTN: Sex Offender Tracking Program P.O. Box 903387 Sacramento, CA 94203-3870
          FULL NAME Last First Middle Suffix
          DATE OF BIRTH DRIVER’S LICENSE/I.D. NUMBER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
          ADDRESS Number and Street (P.O. Boxes will not be accepted)
          City State Zip Code TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)
          Basis for exclusion (Please check one or more of the following that apply)
          Felony violation of California Penal Code (PC) section 243.4(a) (no documents required). Misdemeanor violation of PC section 647.6 – former PC section 647a (no documents required).
          Violation of a PC section 290 offense with proof of successful completion of probation or that you are currently on probation. Submit to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a copy of a probation report, pre-sentence report, report prepared pursuant to PC section 288.1, or court documentation that demonstrates the following: 1) you were the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent; and 2) the crime did not involve either oral copulation or any type of penetration.
          Felony violation of PC section 311.1, section 311.2 subsection (b), (c), or (d), or section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, or 311.11 if the person submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report filed in court that clearly states that all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.
          Based upon a review of your criminal history record and submitted supporting documentation, the California DOJ will determine whether you meet the requirements for exclusion from disclosure on the Megan’s Law Internet site. Please ensure that only copies of your documentation are sent and not the originals. Documentation submitted to the DOJ will not be returned to the applicant.
          Pursuant to California PC section 290.46(e), I hereby apply to be excluded from disclosure on the Megan’s Law Internet site. I certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I understand that I am still required to register, which is a lifetime requirement, and comply with all of the provisions set forth in PC section 290 – 290.023, as well as all other applicable laws.
          SIGNATURE
          DATE
          Questions concerning completion of this application may be directed to the Sex Offender Tracking Program Megan’s Law Section at (916) 227-4974.
          STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CJIS 4046D
          (Orig. 10/2005; Rev. 01/2011)
          PAGE 2 of 2
          REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
          ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCLUSION FROM INTERNET SITE
          You may apply for exclusion from the Megan’s Law Internet site if one of the following conditions applies:
          1. You were convicted of one or more of the following offenses:
          • A felony violation of Penal Code (PC) section 243.4, subdivision (a) – Sexual Battery.
          (No documents required)
          • A misdemeanor violation of PC section 647.6 (formerly section 647a) – Annoy or molest a child.
          (No documents required)
          • An offense for which the offender successfully completed probation or is currently on probation, providing
          that the offender submits to the Department of Justice (DOJ) a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing
          report, report prepared pursuant to PC section 288.1, or other official court document that
          clearly demonstrates the following:
          1) The offender was the victim’s parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent.
          2) The crime did not involve oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or
          the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
          • And, you have never been adjudicated a sexually violent predator pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
          Code 6600, et seq.
          • And, during the period of probation, the offender did not receive additional incarceration time for a
          violation or probation, nor was convicted of another offense resulting in a sentence to county jail or state
          prison.
          OR 2. You were convicted of one or more of the following offenses:
          A felony violation of PC section 311.1, section 311.2 subdivision (b), (c), or (d), or section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10,
          or 311.11 if the person submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report filed in court that clearly
          states that all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time
          of the commission of the offense.
          If, subsequent to his or her application, the offender commits a violation of probation resulting in incarceration in
          county jail or state prison, exclusion status from the public Megan’s Law Internet site shall be terminated.
          ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION
          In certain cases, in order for the DOJ to evaluate your application, you must also submit supporting documentation.
          IMPORTANT: Please ensure that only copies of your documentation are sent and not the originals. Documentation submitted to
          the DOJ will not be returned to the applicant.
          Sources where this information can be obtained and the types of documents that the DOJ will accept include:
          • Probation Department – Probation officer report, pre-sentencing report, or letter from your supervising probation
          department.
          • Court – Court report prepared pursuant to PC section 288.1 or other official court documentation.
          • Defense Attorney – Letter from the attorney who represented you during the trial.
          If you are obtaining a letter from one of the above sources, it must be written on departmental or attorney letterhead and signed
          by an appropriate official.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 14, 2012 at 9:42 am

            Michelle it takes courage to put yourself out there and dare to post this type of information. I applaud your actions to inform and support those that are otherwise shunned in our society seemingly without hope.

            I’m proud to see there is an American that will stand up as a patriot against popular opinion and not only just speak but act in regards to protecting freedoms and the Constitution and it’s founding principles.

            Sadly the Lancaster City Council doesn’t share that kind of vision.

          • CaptainObvious
            September 14, 2012 at 10:16 am

            Yeah, Egberts is a patriot…NOT!
            With all her knowledge about the parole/probation system, you’d think she would be able to keep herself out of jail…..but NO! Thank you Ms. Several Time Convicted Felon for your insight.

          • Michelle Egberts
            September 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm

            @ Robert Curtis… Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. The true question is: “Why does the media and politicians continue to ignore these facts and adopt such illegal Ordinances?” Maybe so they can exploit the issues on disinformation, to help them “look good” and get elected? This is election year and there is BIG money to be made in the sex offender witch hunt?

            Original article: http://www.nhinsider.com/nhigb/2012/5/21/chris-dornin-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders.html

            The hype surrounding sex offenders, especially when its young people having sex, is purely political. It’s part of those get-tough-on crime policies that gets the constituency stirred up and gets votes. The damage being done when inappropriate labels and restrictions are placed on those who pose no threat to the little girl or boy next door is ignored. Many of our young men are/or have served time and wear the label and bear the stigma of ‘sexual offender’ because some young lady’s parents couldn’t believe that their teenage daughter had become sexually active and they pressed charges.

            This article addresses and dispels common myths for those who are fearful about a sexual offender living in their community. John Q. Public needs to know there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between a SEXUAL OFFENDER and a SEXUAL PREDATOR. We need to stop lumping those that pose no risk with those who truly are dangerous. Instead of instilling fear in the hearts of citizens for selfish gain, our political pundits should be about reversing legislation that is becoming impossible to enforce and that is putting our communities at risk.

            I am convinced that remedy from the current sex offender situation in our community/country will come only through the pursuit in the court system of civil rights and Constitutional violations.
            Hopefully, this article and information contained within will pave the way with the truth and the facts!

            Robert, I just hope that the “290″ Registrants will empower themselves to take action by applying/submitting the APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION FROM INTERNET DISCLOSURE and WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Let the California Department of Justice and the courts make the determination for them so they aren’t “hunted”.

  9. heyhey
    September 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    This is al fine an good. But not allowing them in or near crisis centers/shelters during man-made/natural disasters seems kind of over the top.

  10. September 12, 2012 at 11:53 am

    The constitution was violated last night in a most egregious way. It is disheartening to hear citizens cheer on those who besmirch the very foundation of our civilization.

    • Tina Marie
      September 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      you stupid feminists always amaze me! you claim to have done all of these things for us women all of these years and now you want to abandon us and our kids to predators. Have you ever been raped or sexually assaulted Janice? Ever had a gun put to your back while you had every bit of humanity in you stripped away? know what that’s like Janice? I pray to God you never have to find out because then you would know what kind of evil there is in this world!

      • Haverford
        September 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm

        @Tina Marie – sorry for the bad things that happened to you. But I am curious as to how this ordinance would have protected you. Was your abuser a person registered under PC 290 (at the time of the offense)? Did this event take place in a park, library, movie theater, etc?

        I am asking since you brought it up.

        • Say What?
          September 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          If it only protects one innocent child, then it is well worth the “inconvenience” to a convicted sex offender.

          • Haverford
            September 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm

            What about the child victims of parental abuse (non-sexual) or victims of drunk drivers? Do we not care about them? What are we doing to protect them?

            Lets agree to disagree… you say ‘inconvenience’ – I say complete violation of Constitutional Rights. Round One goes to you. The courts will decide…

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm

            Actually, I am defending innocent children and you are defending convicted criminals. Round one? Hardly. I’d say it was more like Game, Set and Match to me.

          • Haverford
            September 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm

            Au contraire… as a parent I am always defending innocent children. But I am also defending the Constitutional Rights of all citizens, and will do so until my last breath. And that, like it or not, includes convicted criminals.

            Game, Set and Match to you? That proves without a doubt that you are completely detached from reality.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm

            The problem is the “IF-factor” and it’s only an IF-factor (imaginary possibility), but it’s that IF-factor that this whole BS ordinance is based. The part that isn’t an IF, but a fact is the harm to the registrant, their families and children! Those people that have served their time and paid their debt. WHAT PART OF THIS IS OKAY? I mean really?

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm

            When they can wipe away the life-long punishment they have inflicted on their victims then, and only then, will they have fully paid their debt.

            Or are you one of those that would have no problem selling alcohol to an alcoholic after he has served his time and paid his debt too?

            Sorry, this type of crime is so heinous that extreme measures are indeed justified in order to safeguard our children from these offenders.

          • sex offender
            September 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm

            Tell me, what is so heinous about a boyfriend and girlfriend? Just because a girl is 16, and her boyfriend is 21? I don’t condone it, I just fail to see it as HEINOUS!

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 10:35 pm

            It’s called life. We all live with the consequences – good AND bad – of our own actions and decisions.

            If you can’t live with that, well there is one clear option available to you to resolve your problem. Feel free to avail yourself of it at any such time you like.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 13, 2012 at 8:56 am

            Lets look at some of those completely innocent victims for a moment. In many cases there is a law suit that follows conviction where the victim recovers thousands of dollars. This can be just a scam against a business owner. About the children I’m there with you, but most cases don’t involve children. There are to many ways for people to get swept up in these sex laws because of the emotion involved. All you need is a charge to get convicted the burden of proof amounts to just a finger pointing.

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 6:43 pm

            BTW, I left one name off my earlier list:

            Kenneth Parnell

            On December 4, 1972, Parnell abducted Steven Stayner. On February 14, 1980, Parnell abducted five-year-old Timmy White. Parnell served five years of his seven-year prison sentence, thus PAYING his DEBT to society.

            In January 2003, Parnell was arrested again after trying to coerce his caregiver into buying him a four-year-old boy, whom he indicated his sexual intent for.

            And lets not forget the damage he did to Steven’s brother Cary. The kidnapping of his brother severely impacted him and screwed him up so bad in his head that in 1997 he murdered four women near Yosemite.

            So it appears it isn’t IF, but only a matter of WHEN, they will repeat after all.

            Tell me Bobby, what will you say to the next victim, when he/she stands before you bloodied and bruised physically, mentally and spiritually and asks you:

            “Why wouldn’t you let them stop this from happening to me?”

            Those supporting this ordinance can at least say we did everything we could.

            What will you say?

          • Tina Marie
            September 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm

            they will say that it made them feel all tingly inside and that they felt like they had to be “avant garde” about an issue to prove to their other STUPID LIBERAL friends how “progressive” they are at their next snobby bitch cocktail party in Santa Barbara.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 13, 2012 at 9:11 am

            Wait a minute. Out of 800,000 registrants out there a few re-offend and you scream damn the torpedoes! Take a list at random of any 800,000 people and examine their lives and see how many have exercised a sex registrable indiscretion (what guy hasn’t urinated outdoors?) Now go ahead and throw stones. It is humanly unreasonable to expect zero non-offenses from 800,000 regular citizen, but you put that standard on the registrant. If that’s the case then parks and other public places should be off limits to the general public. Our water rights are being bought up by big corporations and you people are focusing on this? Define STUPID.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 13, 2012 at 10:31 am

            One point not addressed isn’t that of registrants that are accounted for but those that are mentally ill.

            One of those individuals walked into a salon in Seal Beach and murdered my colleagues and several other people last year.

            Most of the horrible abductions, rapes and murders (though rare) are not from former sex offenders that have been through probation, therapy and time served, but from the mentally ill and family members and friends of family members in the home.

            These people usually have no reported history. Most new crimes are from people within your category not mine. FACT.

            So, should we outlaw families from going to parks and other public places as well?

      • sex offender
        September 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm

        Tina,
        Something terrible must have happened to you. I am not a feminist, but I am a wife, mother and grandmother.
        If something terrible happened to me, or better yet, someone I loved, I would want them to be punished.
        The problem is Tina, you want to punish everyone.

        How can we help you? We need to be open to communication to solve these issues. Name calling, living in fear of something you do not understand is not the answer.

        Tina, do you know that our ex-governor had sex with a 16 year old while he was in his late twenties? No, I didn’t think you did. How many people that are/were in government or entertainment industries do you know that are considered sex offenders today? (Although not on any list) How many of your grandparents would today be on the “list”?

        Tina, did you know that if a child is sexually abused by their parent, the parent is excluded from the “public registry”?

        That there used to be approx. 8 sex crime laws, and now there are approx. 134 laws on the books.
        There are so many issues that the public does not understand and we are trying to bring awareness to this issue. We do not want to make things worse for anyone, especially our children. We just want the public to gain knowledge, the truth about what is happening in the country. We want to protect children. We don’t want to be used by politicians anymore. We don’t want to be used by those that promote fear for financial gain.

    • Say What?
      September 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      Ms. Bellucci,

      Do the names Jerry Sandusky, Joseph Woller and William Ploof mean anything to you. Google them Ms. Bellucci and then tell us all again how sex offenders rarely repeat offend. And they are just three cases of far too many examples.

      How many children are you willing to sacrifice at the altar of your holy crusade? 5? 50? 100? 1000?

      Please tell us how much innocence must be destroyed before your heart bleeds for the victims as much as it does for these animals?

      • Haverford
        September 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        Jerry Sandusky was never a registered sex offender, and most likely never will be, as chances are he will never get out of prison. To be a registered sex offender one must have completed one’s prison sentence and released back into the community.

        The other two? Do you really think this ordinance would have prevented their (repeat) crimes?

        • Say What?
          September 12, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          Can you say without a doubt that it would not have? And those three are just a small sample of the hundreds of repeat offenders who do and will repeat offend unless action is taken.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm

            Repeat offender. Lets break that down. What constitutes a re-offense? If a registrant doesn’t register on time or while on vacation that is a re-offense. Driving someone else’s car while it’s not registered to the registrant is a re-offense. Now going to the park with your child is a re-offense, So those numbers of only 3 to 5 percent take on a whole new meaning. IF 95% of all sex crimes against children happen in the home by family members or friends of family members does that mean we should outlaw families from going to parks and other public places. This is a slippery slope people! There are over 800,000 registrants out there and just 1% re-offends that’s 8,000 a year. I seriously doubt that is happening because are police would be doing nothing but chasing after re-offenders, but if a few happen to re-offend it’s on national news everywhere! Most new sex crimes are by people in your group good citizens not mine. FACT!! My worry is more about what you let your child is doing unattended to online. Because of that I’m not sure I want my son playing with yours at the park anyways, but being with his dad is a right not a privilege!

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm

            If that is the rules that apply and they are known and the offender breaks them then that is solely on the offender and not society.

            As the old adage says – if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

            And I would most definitely NOT want the likes of you anywhere near my children or anyone else’s for that matter.

          • Stinger
            September 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm

            Yeah, yeah, yeah… Except that now YOU want to keep changing the punishment AFTER they did the time!

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 10:28 pm

            Stinger, you do understand the difference between punishment and consequences, don’t you?

            Prison was the punishment.

            Loss of certain privileges is the consequence.

          • Stinger
            September 12, 2012 at 11:48 pm

            Changing the consequences with a new law is ex post facto and illegal.

            I am not speaking about the relative merits of the cause of persons convicted of a sex offense. I am simply speaking about the ordinance having been poorly legislated.

          • realitycheck
            September 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm

            @Robert Curtis , let’s break down YOUR comments: “a registrant re-offends when he’s on vacation.” Oh…poor thing! OK,stop misleading the public. The first time you registered, the rules of 290 PC were explained to you, and you were told you must register within 5 days of your birthday. That is your screw up if you miss it. Next: “Just call it being at the wrong place at the wrong time. You people really don’t understand how easy it is to become a registered sex offender.” Really? Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time? To me, that means being in a bank when it gets robbed. Or being in an intersection when a drunk driver hits you. I’ve somehow managed 40+ years on this earth without committing a crime, and certainly avoided being a sex offender. Oh, and none of my friends or family are sex offenders. I guess we’ve all just managed to stay in the “right places at the right time.”
            April:you don’t catch a sex offender case by taking a leak on a deserted road.
            Stinker: as for you and your “…by definition…ex post facto…change the punishment after the crime….let me hug another thug” crap: everyone in this state has been, for years, well aware what happens when you get convicted of a sex crime. 99.9% of us decided not to commit those crimes. But those who did, chose that behavior, although they already knew it would suck to be a registrant. Their deviant desires got the best of them. Tough $hit if they don’t like how society is clamping down on them. They can move if they don’t like it. Oh wait, we should go back to all those law enforcement ideas from the 1700 and 1800′s you’re always touting, right? Where are your Peelian theories when you need them Stinker?!

          • Stinger
            September 12, 2012 at 11:46 pm

            I see that needsarealitycheck still believes that anything from the late 1700′s has no application to today, eh, needsarealitycheck?

          • Robert Curtis
            September 13, 2012 at 9:30 am

            realitycheck you state you have no one in your family and have no friends on the registry. First off my offense isn’t on a public registry but still registrable. In fact a great amount of registrant aren’t on the public registry (misdemeanors). So, you just might know someone on the registry and have a great deal of respect for that person as do many of my colleagues have for me. Much of what you’ve stated has been opposed by logic in this stream so I need not address it. Truth is a powerful ally and change is the only constant even for the sEX-offender. I seek only three things in life: Truth, Love and wisdom. May you do the same and not walk in darkness.

  11. sacryinshame
    September 12, 2012 at 11:08 am

    what about the sex offenders released under the AB109. They have almost NO restrictions. Are they going to be monitored in the same way or will they still have their probation officers blessing to be any place they don’t get caught!

  12. NIMBY
    September 12, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Way to go Lancaster City! Can’t wait to hear what the Hug-A-Thug supporters and Parris haters got to say about this. It’s unconstitutional! It’s racism! It’s unfair! We’re gonna sue! Blah Blah Blah! Boo Hoo Hoo!

    • Stinger
      September 12, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Here’s the funny part, NIMBY, most of the cases that have been brought against the City due to the various recent laws enacted out of ego instead of thought are going against the City. So, are you gonna tell us that all of the courts are all ‘hug a thug Parris haters’, too?

    • Robert Curtis
      December 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm

      Great point, but a ruling just rendered by a three judge panel disagrees with the Lancaster city council. Legal action will follow soon against Lancaster, count on it! These kind of harmful laws will help fund the fight against them. I’m sure sex offenders everywhere are dancing in the streets. The cost to the city of Lancaster will be be very high I’m sure. Good job people. These fear based laws come from a place of darkness not light and the sick thing is they use the children as an excuse for it! There’s no history to support any of these ordinances.

  13. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 6:08 am

    This is a great decision. It is appalling that these people would compare the “rights” of sex offenders to those of blacks and Japanese-Americans. Those were innocent Americans who were treatfully wrongfully. They were not criminals and burdens on society. These sex offenders are criminals, and it is disgusting that anyone said that they were been treating like blacks in the 60s.

    Way to go City Council!

    • Robert Curtis
      September 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      Two points in response. First off remember these citizens have done their time, probation and mandated therapy so they should be treated with the same rights as others. Unlike the woman caught in the act of adultery (a sex offender) she got forgiven by Jesus these people have paid their debt. The Constitution is to protect the rights of the few from the actions of the many. So yes it’s very much the same as violations of the passed like that of the blacks and the Japanese, Native Americans and even that of the Jews. Hitler used the same argument about protecting the children to violate the Rights of the gypsies and homosexuals. God, has and will judge this ordinance as disgraceful. Prov. 16:25 There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end there of is death. The grinder those registrants go through on in jail, probation and in therapy you have no idea!

      • Tina Marie
        September 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        did you find religion while serving time? how convenient. Jesus forgives. I don’t have to!

        • Robert Curtis
          September 12, 2012 at 1:43 pm

          I saved my son’s life twice because I was allowed to be there for him at the time. Oh about my son. A few months ago he saved a 4 year old boys life and received a metal from the police dept for it. I guess me not being there for my son might have made more loose than you or I could know.

          I’ve received a US Congressional award for community service for helping cancer patients and the homeless, but I guess a registrant isn’t suppose to have that kind of honor.

          • Say What?
            September 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm

            Robert,

            Tell us about your victim. What innocent life did you destroy to land you on the rolls of a convicted sex offender in the first place?

          • Robert Curtis
            September 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm

            My charge was a misdemeanor not involving a child 12 years ago. Just call it being at the wrong place at the wrong time. You people really don’t understand how easy it is to become a registered sex offender. Scary just how our ranks are growing due to ever increasing laws. Most of the new crimes are from people like you good citizens with no recorded history of offenses. It only takes an allegation, But like most Americans with their head stuck in the sand it doesn’t become real until it’s in your own backyard.

      • Say What?
        September 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        Robert,

        What about the life-long grinder the victim’s of these offenders have to go through? Have you no idea, no compassion for their life sentences when they committed no wrong other than crossing paths with an animal?

        • Say What?
          September 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm

          Judging from your thumbs down, I take it you have no thought or feeling for the innocent victims at all.

          • Robert Curtis
            September 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm

            If anyone of you good people spent half the time I spend helping out in the community and making a difference you wouldn’t be wondering how much I care. Caring is in doing good. Change is the only constant people. Even for registered sex offenders. What’s the worst thing you have ever done and would you like to be known for it?

      • otis
        September 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm

        So many attempted debate-points, so much so-called justification, too many misdeeds, far too much bloodshed, and so much hatred in “His” name…chances are, God disowned humankind ages ago.

        • Say What?
          September 12, 2012 at 6:31 pm

          Otis, he’s probably debating going the flood route again or smashing the lot with an asteroid as we speak.

          • sacryingshame
            September 14, 2012 at 12:52 am

            drought, famine and locusts and cockroches!

    • sex offender
      September 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      I am a retired teacher, a mother, a grandmother, married 40 years to a Viet Nam Vet who fought for your country and according to the Vice Mayor am a sex offender. Why? He told me last night that because I started dating my husband at 17 years of age, that he could have “his” deputies come and arrest my husband, who was over 18 at the time.

      If the citizen’s of this city really want this kind of government, I feel hope is lost for all.

      I have never witnessed such unprofessional behavior in my life.

      • Say What?
        September 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm

        I suggest you check the laws of the state you live in. As you freely admit, you broke the law. Now you must deal with the consequences of your actions and decisions – both the good ones and the bad.

        It’s called life sweetie, and it ain’t no Disney film either.

        • Stinger
          September 12, 2012 at 11:41 pm

          And ‘Say What’ believes that you are to be vilified forever, that he has the right to change any punishment at anytime – even 30 years after you have paid whatever debt to society that a judge may have given you and lived a blameless life thereafter, and that you have no rights whatsoever under the United States Constitution – as decided by any politically motivated local city council.

          Unbelieveable.

    • sex offender
      September 12, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      Chris,
      You’re right they were not criminals. However, people considered them to be. Tell me Chris, in what way has someone harmed you?

      Did my loved one harm anyone? No, he did not. He was sought out by a young women who lied about her age. She was the agressor, not him. She was upset when he found out, and would not talk to her. Why don’t you ask her if she has suffered?

      I feel terribly for anyone who has been harmed. But, so many on the registy are victims of our system. Punish those who commit the crime, but for society to punish all for the terrible crimes of a few is wrong.
      They are being punished for crimes that were committed by others.

  14. Michael Mattert
    September 11, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    I 100% support the decision that was made. One child or woman is too many. I’ll tell you this much, if anyone was to commit such acts on my daughter or wife. They better pray that the Sheriff gets to them before I do. Because then they won’t have to worry about their constitutional rights when I’m done with them.

    • Robert Curtis
      September 12, 2012 at 1:36 pm

      I can understand your point, but if that person has done his time, probation and mandated therapy he has the right to go home to his family and live a peaceful law-biting life. If we don’t allow such we become terrorist that are no better than Hitler himself. This ordinance is wrong in the worst way, because it harms more than it helps. That one might be saved child is a question mark, but the registrants children without a daunt will be harmed. If you say, ” well it was your choice to do the crime” that sir makes it punitive and that is unconstitutional in any court of law. I saved my son’s life twice in a public place, but a registrant would be disallow that right for his child. I would say that sir violates the child’s rights as well. Hitler would be very proud of this ordinance!

  15. ...
    September 13, 2012 at 8:39 am

    What’s the matter Ace? Does this new ordinance affect you?

  16. Jacky Johnson
    September 13, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    @… Why would you do that? Imply Ace may be guilty of sex crimes? Nothing more disgusting then implying someone is guilty of ANY horrific or serious crime because you don’t like what they say!!!
    I don’t agree with most ALL of Ace’s comments. But your implication is as offensive as anything he says. And is right along the lines of what God tells us NOT to do, and that’s bearing false witness.
    The remarks I see here tell me you’ve lost your argument. You don’t like another’s point of view, so they MUST be On welfare/Section 8/sexual offender/unlicensed/uninsured/on parole/criminal.
    I wonder how many of you go to church every Sunday? When you accuse others of doing wrong, when in reality, they are just trying to give their take on something. Particularly those who might want to make sure other people aren’t paying the price for crimes they aren’t guilty of.
    We used to call that justice. Back in the day when our goal WASN’T to overcharge! It always seems to be the ones who claim moral superiority to others. And then they bear false witness. Subtly planting seeds of doubt on those they disagree with. Shame on you!

Comments are closed.