The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is living up to its name. Most sex offenders, a segment of the population that often evokes harsh condemnation by society, will get out of prison. Keeping them from committing a new crime and going back to prison is the goal of the CDCR.
In a recently released report the CDCR offered nine recommendations that have the potential to help sex offenders while they are under the supervision of the parole department.
The suggestions include one that is guaranteed to cause controversy. In 2006 California residents voted to pass Proposition 83, also known as the Jessica Lunsford Act. The law was originally enacted in Florida after the rape and murder of Jessica by a convicted sex offender. Outrage over the little girl’s rape and murder saw lawmakers propose new laws with harsher penalties, and added conditions to be implemented when sex offenders were released from prison. Included conditions forbid sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet from any place children might gather, such as parks, playgrounds and schools.
The problem with such limitations is that in large cities, such as San Francisco, areas where children might gather abound, and therefore released sex offenders become homeless. San Francisco now has approximately 2,100 homeless sex offenders, compared to 88 before Jessica’s Law was enacted. Two-thirds of California’s state legislature would have to vote in favor of changing the law if it were to be passed. Critics are already mounting a campaign to see that this does not happen, even while evidence can not be presented to show that the law is effective against a sex offender committing another sex crime. To the contrary, the CDCR report cited that the restrictions are cause for a rise in instability among sex offenders, which does not contribute to public safety.
The CDCR also made other suggestions which include:
Putting together a “containment model” which would include victim advocacy groups and lawmakers, and scheduling regular audits.
Reevaluating risk factors for recidivism. Employment, a support network and emotional well-being should be factored into the risk assessment evaluation.
Implementing more levels of supervision. The report claims that not every sex offender on parole falls into the only two supervision categories available, high or low risk.
Providing more monitoring of offenders with GPS devices. Being tracked every day instead of once a week gives the parole officer a better understanding of the client’s activities and whereabouts.
Building more monitoring centers. More monitoring centers would free parole officers to do other important parts of their jobs.
Using experienced parole officers to supervise sex offenders.
Reducing the caseloads of parole officers to a more manageable number. Hiring more parole officers would free up more experienced officers to supervise sex offenders, and reduce their case loads.
Increasing oversight. The Jaycee Lee Dugard case, in which a young girl was kidnapped by someone under parole supervision, but was not detected for several years, caused an uproar that initiated more oversight and evaluations of how to make sure if parole officers are effectively monitoring their clients.
Budget constraints and public opinion may cause some, or all, of the CDCR recommendations to be ignored, but the CDCR’s suggestions are timely and on target, according to some in the criminal justice system. It appears that people are listening. In early November a Los Angeles judge decreed that the law forbidding sex offenders from living in certain areas was unconstitutional in that city. Other cities might reconsider their restrictions, also.
Source: KALW News
|
|
|
|
