Confusing sex-offender mandate stalled in its tracks
By: Tamara Barak Aparton
Examiner Staff Writer
March 26, 2009
 |
| The cost of safety: A Department of Corrections parole agent tracks the location of a sex offender parolee at Alamo Sqaure Park using a GPS device. Convicted sex offenders, required to wear the tracking devices by the state, are prohibited from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, according to Jessica’s Law. However, once sex offenders are finished with parole, local law enforcement agencies are required to enforce the rules with no help from the state. (AP) |
SAN FRANCISCO — A California law requiring a lifetime of GPS monitoring for sex offenders has turned into a logistical and budget nightmare for San Mateo County — and virtually every other jurisdiction in the state.
Named for a Florida girl raped and killed by a convicted sex offender, Jessica’s Law was passed by 70 percent of California voters in 2006. The law, also known as Proposition 83, imposes stiffer penalties for sex offenders and makes possessing child pornography a felony.
But it’s the legislation’s mandate of Global Positioning System tracking and the prohibition of any offender living 2,000 feet from a park or school that has local jurisdictions scrambling for answers.
In January, the Governor’s Office announced it was outfitting all paroled sex offenders with a GPS bracelet that can track their
movements.
But state officials concede that the tracking is mostly passive — that is, nobody sits in front of a monitor watching offenders’ movement. If they are suspected of a crime, however, the GPS records could help in court.
“Having a GPS device on every sex-offender parolee in California is an important public-safety tool that will hold these individuals accountable for their actions and whereabouts,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said.
Once terms of parole are finished, however, the continued monitoring and living requirements are the responsibility of local jurisdictions, according to lawmakers. The state offers no equipment, funding or other resources.
“[The voters] made it clear they want this population tracked and supervised in a certain way. That doesn’t mean all the answers are easy,” said Gordon Hinkle, spokesman for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
There are currently 797 registered sex offenders on the Peninsula, according to Sgt. Brian Raffaelli of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.
Jessica’s Law applies to those who have committed crimes since 2006, so the number of offenders who will need the equipment and monitoring is expected to grow each year as they are released from parole.
“In theory, the law was great. But in reality, since it was unfunded, it leaves a big void between what they expect us to do and what we can actually do,” Raffaelli said.
The state spends about $1,500 to set up the system for each parolee and about $6 a day per offender in monitoring costs, Hinkle said. How much counties and cities will need to spend is unknown.
Adding to the confusion is a lack of laws directing local jurisdictions on how to handle violations, and guidance on who’s responsible for the offenders: The county where they committed the crime or their county of residence.
The law’s requirement that offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school or park is also causing concern on the local level — something Raffaelli calls a “logistical nightmare.”
The state previously had more modest residency requirements: high-risk sex offenders on parole were required to stay 2,640 feet away from anywhere children gather. Jessica’s Law expanded the limits on those convicted of any sex crime, from distribution of obscene material to rape of a child, which reduced locations they could reside.
“We’re always scrambling to find a place to put these guys away from schools and parks. Once they’re off parole and probations, we can’t enforce that,” Raffaelli said.
The state’s Sex Offender Management Board — a 17-member panel created by the governor in 2006 — called for the repeal of residency requirements after reporting that the number of homeless sex offenders has “greatly risen” as a result.
In November, that board released a report called “Homelessness Among Sex Offenders in California.” It found that the number of sex offenders registering as transient had increased from 2,050 in June 2007 to 3,267 in August 2008, an increase of 60 percent.
Among parolees — who represent about 15 percent of all registered sex offenders and are the only population being actively monitored — the increase in homelessness rose more than 800 percent. In November 2006, before the passage of Jessica’s Law, 88 parolee sex offenders declared themselves transient. By June 29, 2008, that number had increased to 1,056.
“It can be no coincidence that the rise in homelessness among registered sex offenders corresponds with recent changes regarding residency restrictions among all registered sex offenders,” the Sex Offender Management Board report said. “Common sense leads to the conclusion that a community cannot be safer when sex offenders are homeless. In this case, the empirical evidence supports common sense.”
Board member Tom Tobin, a psychologist who treats sex offenders, said the law mandates that local jurisdictions should implement the program “if they can,” but offers no help. Only one city in the state — Fresno — has declared its intent to implement the law, he said.
However, Fresno’s plan hit a snag in mid-January after legal concerns were raised about city officials’ plan to use seized money from drug dealers to fund the ankle bracelets. Not only was the measure ill conceived, but there is no evidence it will make citizens safer, Tobin said.
“It seems to make sense — it’s very appealing — but there’s really no researched evidence,” he said. “There are just a lot of unanswered questions indicating this was not thought through.”
Investigation of sex crimes falls behind
In San Mateo County, economic belt-tightening has squeezed sex-crime detectives out of the Sheriff’s Office.
The office still responds to rapes, sexual assaults and child molestations, but investigating is done primarily by those working on property crimes.
The county’s sexual-assault unit disbanded April 8, 2007, with its lone full-time detective and three part-timers re-assigned to other departments. Since then, sex crimes have jumped from about 300 a year to around 400, said sheriff’s Sgt. Brian Raffaelli.
In addition to investigating all sexual assaults, the unit ran stings targeting offenders who used the Internet to prey on children.
“We spent years and years in training and actually doing the cases, and have a lot of expertise,” Raffaelli said. “And through no fault of our own, it’s kind of being wasted.”
Raffaelli chalked it up to tough economic times, but pointed out that sex-crime units are generally viewed as more expendable.
“Even when money is right, despite what people think, the sex-crimes part of law enforcement is not given the priority of narcotics and gangs,” he said. “It seems they have task forces for everything else.”
By the numbers
Number of sex offenders in San Francisco
1,025
Number of sex offenders in San Mateo County
797
Number of parolee sex offenders in California monitored with GPS by the state
6,110
