home

CA Banishment Law Enacted on Tuesday and Blocked on Wednesday

Banishment laws turn a problem into someone else's problem. More importantly, they inhibit rehabilitation, increasing the likelihood that the banished offender will return to crime. Keeping offenders under close supervision near their friends, families, jobs, and treatment providers is a better way to protect society from recidivists. TalkLeft discussed banishment laws in more detail here.

Laws that tell sex offenders not to live within 1,000 or 2,000 feet of parks, schools, and day care centers amount to banishment from urban areas. The laws have been challenged in Indianapolis and Iowa, while a proposed law was rejected in Covington, Kentucky. Yesterday, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a banishment law that was enacted via California's ballot initiative. The legal challenge to the law was filed by a former sex offender who has lived uneventfully in the same neighborhood for 20 years, but who may be forced to move if the new law stands.

The initiative prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In a lawsuit Wednesday, attorneys said that constitutes a new penalty imposed on ex-convicts years after they have been punished for their crime. The measure also is unconstitutional on due process grounds, the lawyers argue, because it would force offenders from their homes without notice.

Judge Susan Illston granted the temporary restraining order after concluding that the man who brought the lawsuit would probably win, and would be irreparably harmed if he were forced to comply with the law while the suit is pending.

Nearly all laws named after a crime victim are bad laws, and California's "Jessica's Law" is no exception. As this lawsuit demonstrates, uprooting people who aren't a threat to the community does nothing to promote the community's safety. And uprooting people who are a threat merely moves the threat. Offenders in Iowa who can't find a place to live that complies with the law have simply absconded from supervision, a consequence that has caused some Iowans to push for a repeal of the state's banishment law.

A recent report by California's corrections department — whose parole agents have been struggling this year to find housing for sex offenders just released from prison — suggested that the same could happen here, placing communities at greater risk.

Some supporters of Jessica's Law claim it wasn't meant to apply to the 85,000 registered sex offenders who already live in California. So those 85,000 can live near parks but new registrants can't? How is it useful to banish some offenders but not others?

Even if banishment laws are uniformly applied, there's no evidence that they work.

"These laws are popular because people assume sex offenders might be lurking in playgrounds, or watching children from their window, to gain access to victims," [Prof. Jill] Levenson said. "While that may be true in some cases, most molesters target children with whom they have a previous relationship, so residency restrictions really don't solve the problem of sexual abuse."

Knee-jerk laws like this are easy to pass. A rational approach to crime policy, relying on research and a thoughtful understanding of a law's impact, takes more time and patience. The time is worth investing.

< Thursday Open Thread | Vilsack Announces >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just for the record (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:12:36 AM EST
    The initiative prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

    By CA law, those sex offenders who are required to register are those deemed violent sex offenders, repeat sex offenders and those who prey on children.

    Here's a link to the first page of LA's RSOs.

    No 18 year old guys who had 17 year old girl friends, no guys who "mooned" someone, no public urinators, no skinny dippers, etc.

    you mean (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jen M on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    like in Georgia?

    It's just like addiction (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    No treatment. Just ignore it til they commit a crime, then send 'em to prison (if poor) or a swanky escapist rehab (if you're rich).

    except that drug addicts ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:28:45 PM EST
     ... don't assault and injure others.

      I don't think we want to be equating non-violent drug-offenders with sex offenders. that will only inure to the detriment of those with drug problems not to the benefit of sex offenders who have a deservedly tiny constiuency of support.

    By CA law (none / 0) (#5)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    It is very complex, SECTION 290-294. If you can understand it, please explain to us.

    So this is false: "By CA law, those sex offenders who are required to register are those deemed violent sex offenders, repeat sex offenders and those who prey on children."

    Leaving aside the alarmist wording of it, that may be a fairly good summery of those who are on the public registry, but it is NOT a good summary of those who have to register. The law as written applies to ALL registered offenders even if they are not listed on the public registry.


    Not only is the law complex... (none / 0) (#6)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    But we can't link directly to it to aid in comprehension.

    To find the law, click here, check the Penal Code box, type in "Section 290" for the search terms, then click the PENAL CODE SECTION 290-294 link. It's a few pages so it is not possible to post it all.

    Parent

    1980Ford (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 03:42:08 PM EST
    The law as written applies to ALL registered offenders even if they are not listed on the public registry.

    That's a good distinction and after some research I believe you are right - not all RSOs are required to be listed on public registery (Megan's Law registery?) yet all RSOs will be affected by this legislation.

    Here's Megan's Law:

    In response to the murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by a convicted sex offender living in her neighborhood, in 1996, California enacted Megan's Law. This law provides for the ability for police to notify neighborhoods and residents of the existence of serious offenders, and further provides for public access to sex offender information under controlled circumstances.

    It makes available to adults and organizations information on "serious" and "high-risk" sex offenders in their local community.

    Serious Offender:  Serious sex offenders are those that have been convicted of a felony sex crime or misdemeanor child molestation.  Certain information regarding serious sex offenders is subject to public disclosure.

    High Risk Offender:  High-risk sex offenders have been convicted of multiple violent offenses including at least one crime of a sexual nature. Certain information regarding high-risk sex offenders is subject to public disclosure

    So it sure sounds like your Public Registery (if that equates to the above Megan's Law registery) is a subset of, and generally the worst of, all the registered sex offenders.

    But, according to this on Prop 83...

    Proposition 83. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (continued)
    Limit Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live.
    This measure bars any person required to register as a
    sex offender
     from living within 2,000 feet (about twofi
    fths of a mile) of any school or park.

    ...Prop 83 does not seem differentiate between the RSOs required be listed on the public/Megan's Law registry and those who were convicted of less serious sex crimes who are on a non-public registery.

    So, if this analysis is correct, I don't support Prop 83.

    Parent

    The intended or unintended (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    consequence will be the movement of sex registrants to rural areas where law enforcement resources are already stretched thin.  If you live in a rural area, and this law is enacted, get ready for new neighbors.  

    Another rare instance where t-chris and I have some agreement.  

    Violent? (none / 0) (#8)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    Deconstructionist, are you saying that drug addicts are never violent but sex offenders always are? It would be interesting to know what brought you to that conclusion.

    What?... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    A sexual assault is a violent act...smoking a doobie or sniffing a line is not.

    Drug addicts may commit acts of violence...but then they have committed a violent crime they can be prosecuted for. For a pedophile their addiction is itself a violent act.

    That being said...once a sex crime convict serves their sentence...I don't think it's right to force them out of certain communities...that just passes the buck as noted above.

    Parent

    re (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:39:51 PM EST
      No, I'm not saying drug addicts are never violent. Some drug addicts commit violent crimes and those that do  should be prosecuted for those violent crimes.

      I meant that the "status" of being a drug addict is no indication of being a violent person or  a danger to others  whereas the "status" of being a "sex offender"   indicates (with some arguable exceptions where certain states criminalize sex between consensual between two young people relatively close in age) that the person is a danger to others.

       A guy down the block who is addicted to heroin or oxycontin is not the same as a guy who was convicted of molesting a child or forcible rape.

       That isn't by any means the end of the discussion as to the wisdom and fairness of registration laws let alone "banishment" laws but it is not an apt analogy to compare sex offensers and drug users.

    Parent

    another thing... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 02:46:53 PM EST
      Why would anyone accept that the sexual proclivities of child abusers are amenable to "treatment" as if they are  something that can be cured or at least managed to prevent behavior resulting from the proclivities when we find that notion of classifying homosexual proclivities as a mental illness so wrong?

      Other than current social acceptability what is medically, biologically or psychologically different about being sexually attracted to children as aopposed to adult members of the same sex. If homosexuality is neither a "choice" or a "disorder" but merely a natural phenomenon (and i believe that to be the case) what basis is for thinking pedophilia is a treatable disorder where treatment can cause different choices?  

    Treatment (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    If homosexuality is neither a "choice" or a "disorder" but merely a natural phenomenon (and i believe that to be the case) what basis is for thinking pedophilia is a treatable disorder where treatment can cause different choices?
     

    Its a good question, but there is a flaw in its logic. We can come to a scientific conclusion that our sexual make-up is biological and there is no treatment for changing it. However, we can still teach consequences for bad behavior and a criminal could, in theory, be rehabilitated. One cannot treat a homosexual, but there might be a program for conditioning someone not to act on certain impulses. If society does not accept and makes sex with children a crime, the rehabilitation part of a sentence for this crime would be aimed at treating conditioning an individual not to act on these impulses. It would not have to be a treatment aimed at making the impulses go away.

    Likewise, I suppose, if society came to a consensus (God Forbid) that homosexual acts were a crime, the treatment would be aimed at making a homosexual not act on these sexual impulses, but not at making a homosexual no longer have the impulse opr attraction to members of the opposite sex.

    There are many, if not most, supposedly normal adults, who have been sexually attracted to an underage person--a child. Most of us do not act on these sexual impulses because we understand the psychological harm it can cause a developing child. The idea of treating a pedophile is to condition them to not act on these impulses. I think there could be treatments that are effective  with this goal in mind.

    Parent

    Good point Decon (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    If "treatment" would teach, say, pedophiles, to not act on their desires, I guess that's an improvement, no?

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#23)
    by aw on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 09:37:20 PM EST
    what is medically, biologically or psychologically different about being sexually attracted to children as aopposed to adult members of the same sex.

    Well, with adults it's called rape when that "attraction" is forced on one without consent.  So I guess it's about the consent.  Most men manage to not be rapists, so I guess men could learn not to be molesters (we won't know unless we keep trying and learning).

    Parent

    re (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 04:01:48 PM EST
      You both make good points and seem to recognize when I pose as Socrates playing Devil's advocate.

       Of course, behavioral modification treatments almost universally emphasize the importance of controlling one's environment to eliminate or at least minimize exposure to things that might trigger the impulse to engage in the proscribed behavior.

      Alcoholics are told not to hang out in bars with their former drinking buddies thinking they will be satisfied with a soda. Compulsive spenders are not told to go to the mall with a wallet full of charge cards and help their friends make shopping choices. Compulsive eaters are not advised to go to the all-you-can-eat buffet and have an undressed salad and a glass of water.

      It would seem that any remotely viable "treatment"  aimed at causing those attracted to children to abstain from acting on the attraction would include the directive to stay away from children.

    Hard to argue (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    with your logic, Decon.

    Parent
    Serious and High Risk (none / 0) (#16)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one, only an expert can understand it! Those with addresses listed, I think, committed the offenses we would normally think of as more serious sex crimes, violent or against younger minors. On the other hand, some can be listed for two indecent exposure offenses against adult women. That could be what you call "repeat offenders." While indeed sex offenses, that is not what we would normally think of when we think of Jessica's Law, the rape and murder of a little girl. To really understand these listings, it would almost be necessary to know the Court's definitions of the offenses, which would require reading Court opinions.

    For example, what would you think the 647.5 offense of "Annoying or molesting a child" would be? In practice, it could be anything from something verbal, no touching at all, to indecent exposure when the victim is 17, to what we think of as child molestation. See, "molesting" is a synonym of "annoying" in this legal context, and they mean the same thing. So "Annoying or molesting a child" might not be "child abuse" at all. That has to confuse a lot of people who visit the public site. So though your summary is technically correct, it is alarmist only because the news, and therefore the knowledge of the law, is alarmist. The law itself is much more complex and carries with it many shades of gray.

    The big question for me is, Since the authors of this proposition knew this, why did they mislead? The only answer I can come up with is GOTV politics.

    Sexual assault = violent act? (none / 0) (#18)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    kdog, what is your definition of a sexual assault? Is it the same as the legal definition under California law? I'm asking because most people might think of rape or something like that and it would help if we shared the same definitions when discussing the law.

    1980Ford (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    Well, since you asked, here's the (loooong) list of offenses that require registration in CA:

    Registerable Sexual Offenses

    207 KIDNAPPING TO COMMIT 261, 286, 288, 288a, 289
    207(B) KIDNAP CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS TO COMMIT LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS
    208(D) KIDNAPPING PERSON WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE (PRIOR CODE): KIDNAPPING VICTIM UNDER 14 WITH THE INTENT TO VIOLATE SECTIONS 261, 286, 288, 288a, OR 289.
    209 KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM TO COMMIT 261, 286, 288, 288a, 289
    220 ASSAULT TO COMMIT RAPE, SODOMY, OR ORAL COPULATION OR TO VIOLATE SECTIONS 264.1, 288 OR 289.
    220/261 ASSAULT TO COMMIT RAPE
    220/261(2) ASSAULT TO COMMIT RAPE BY FORCE OR FEAR
    220/664.1 ASSAULT TO RAPE IN CONCERT WITH FORCE OR VIOLENCE
    243.4 SEXUAL BATTERY
    243.4(A) SEXUAL BATTERY
    243.4(B) SEXUAL BATTERY ON MEDICALLY INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSON
    243.4(C)PC (PRIOR CODE) SEXUAL BATTERY INVOLVING RESTRAINED PERSON
    243.4(C) SEXUAL BATTERY VICTIM UNAWARE-FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION.  
    243.4(D) SEXUAL BATTERY INVOLVING RESTRAINED PERSON
    243.4(D)(1) (PRIOR CODE) TOUCH PERSON INTIMATELY AGAINST WILL FOR SEXUAL AROUSAL/ETC
    261 RAPE: NOT SPECIFIED
    261(1) RAPE: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT
    261(2) RAPE BY FORCE OR FEAR
    261(2)/264.1 RAPE IN CONCERT BY FORCE
    261(3) RAPE OF DRUGGED VICTIM
    261(4) RAPE: VICTIM UNCONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE ACT
    261(6) RAPE BY THREAT OF RETALIATION
    261(A)(2) RAPE BY FORCE OR FEAR
    261(A)(3) RAPE OF DRUGGED VICTIM
    261(A)(4) RAPE: VICTIM UNCONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE ACT
    261(A)(6) RAPE BY THREAT OF RETALIATION
    261.2 (PRIOR CODE) RAPE BY FORCE OR FEAR
    261.2/261.3 (PRIOR CODE) RAPE WITH FORCE AND OR THREAT
    261.3 (PRIOR CODE) RAPE BY FORCE OR VICTIM INTOXICATED.
    261.4 (PRIOR CODE) RAPE BY THREAT OR RAPE OF A DRUGGED VICTIM.
    262(A)(1) RAPE SPOUSE BY FORCE OR FEAR (FELONY CONVICTION)
    264.1 RAPE IN CONCERT WITH FORCE OR VIOLENCE
    266 ENTICE MINOR FEMALE FOR PROSTITUTION
    266C INDUCE INTERCOURSE OR SEX ACTS BY FALSE REPRESENTATION WITH INTENT TO CREATE FEAR
    266I(B) PANDERING WHERE PROSTITUTE IS UNDER 16
    266J PROCUREMENT OF UNDER 16 FOR LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS
    267 ABDUCT MINOR FOR PROSTITUTION
    269(A)(1) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 TO VIOLATE PC 261(a)(2)
    272 CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR (LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BEHAVIOR)
    285 INCEST
    286 SODOMY
    286(A) SODOMY; GENERAL CATEGORY AND PUNISHMENT SECTION
    286(B)(1) SODOMY WITH PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS
    286(B)(2) SODOMY WITH PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS
    286(C) SODOMY WITH PERSON UNDER 14 YEARS OR WITH FORCE
    286(D) SODOMY IN CONCERT WITH FORCE
    286(E) SODOMY WHILE CONFINED IN PRISON OR JAIL
    286(F) SODOMY: VICTIM UNCONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE ACT
    286(G) SODOMY: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT
    286(H) SODOMY: WITHOUT CONSENT OF VICTIM AND DEFENDANT IN MENTAL FACILITY
    286(I) SODOMY WITHOUT CONSENT: DRUGGED VICTIM AND DEFENDANT IN MENTAL FACILITY VICTIM INTOXICATED.
    286(K) SODOMY BY THREAT OF AUTHORITY TO ARREST OR DEPORT
    288 LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNDER 14 YEARS
    288(A) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS
    288(B) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS WITH FORCE
    288(C) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD 14 OR 15 YEARS OLD
    288A ORAL COPULATION
    288A(A) ORAL COPULATION
    288A(B)(1) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS
    288A(B)(2) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS
    288A(C) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14 OR BY FORCE  
    288A(D) ORAL COPULATION IN CONCERT WITH FORCE OR FEAR.  
    288A(D)(1) (PRIOR CODE) ORAL COPULTATION IN CONCERT WITH FORCE OR FEAR
    288A(D)(2) ORAL COPULATION IN CONCERT BY THREAT OF RETALIATION
    288A(E) ORAL COPULATION WHILE CONFINED IN PRISON OR JAIL
    288A(F) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM UNCONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF ACT
    288A(G) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT
    288A(H) ORAL COPULATION: WITHOUT CONSENT: VICTIM AND DEFENDANT IN STATE HOSPITAL
    288A(I) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM INTOXICATED
    288A(K) ORAL COPULATION BY THREAT OF AUTHORITY TO ARREST OR DEPORT
    288.5 CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
    288.5(A) CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
    289 SEXUAL PENETRATION BY FOREIGN OBJECT
    289(A) (PRIOR CODE) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT WITH FORCE
    289(B) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF CONSENT
    289(C) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: NO CONSENT: VICTIM AND DEFENDANT IN MENTAL INSTITUTION
    289(D) SEXUAL PENETRATION: FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM UNAWARE OF NATURE OF ACT
    289(E) SEX PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM DRUGGED
    289(F) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM BELIEVES IT'S SPOUSE
    289(G) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: AUTHORITY THREAT ARREST  
    289(H) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM UNDER 18 YEARS
    289(I) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM UNDER 16 YEARS
    289(J) SEXUAL PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT: VICTIM UNDER 14 YEARS
    290 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION STATUTE
    311.1 (PRIOR CODE) INDECENT EXPOSURE
    311.1(A) ADVERTISE OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING MINOR.
    311.10 (PRIOR CODE) ADVERTISE OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING MINOR
    311.11 POSSESS OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING CHILD UNDER 14
    311.11(A) POSSESS OBSCENE MATTER OF MINOR IN SEXUAL ACT
    311.11(B) POSSESS MATTER DEPICTING MINOR IN SEXUAL ACT WITH PRIOR CONVICTION
    311.2(B) DISTRIBUTE OBSCENE MATTER DEPICTING MINOR FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION
    311.2(C) POSSESS OR DISTRIBUTE OBSCENE MATERIAL DEPICTING MINOR (MISDEMEANOR) MATTER OF MINOR TO MINOR WITH PRIOR CONVICTION
    311.2(D) DISTRIBUTE OBSCENE MATTER OF MINOR TO MINOR
    311.3 (PRIOR CODE) SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD.
    311.3(A) DEPICT SEXUAL CONDUCT OF MINOR
    311.4 EMPLOYMENT OR USE OF MINOR TO PERFORM PROHIBITED ACTS
    311.4(A) EMPLOYMENT OR USE OF MINOR TO PERFORM PROHIBITED ACTS.  
    311.4(B) EMPLOYMENT OR USE OF MINOR TO PERFORM PROHIBITED ACTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.  
    311.4(C) USE UNDERAGE PERSON FOR OBSCENE MATTER
    314.1 INDECENT EXPOSURE
    314.2 ASSIST ACT OF INDECENT EXPOSURE
    647A ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILDREN
    647A(1) ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILDREN
    647.6 ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILDREN CHILD UNDER 18.
    647.6(A) ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILDREN CHILD UNDER 18.
    647.6(C)(2) ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILDREN CHILD UNDER 18.
    653F(C) "SOLICITS ANOTHER TO COMMIT 261,286,288a SOLICITING COMMISSION OF 264.1, 288, OR 289 BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE"
    702 WIC (OLD PRIOR CODE) CONTRIBUTE TO DELINQUENCY MINOR (LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS FINDING)
    5512 MENTALLY DISORDERED SEX OFFENDER COMMITMENT UP TO 90 DAYS
    6316 COMMITMENT (90 DAYS) AS A MENTALLY DISORDERED SEX OFFENDER  
    286(C)(1) SODOMY WITH PERSON UNDER 14 YEARS
    261(A)(1) RAPE: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT
    288(B)(1) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS WITH FORCE
    288(B)(2) CARETAKER, SEXUAL ACT ON DEPENDENT ADULT WITH FORCE
    288(C)(1) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD 14 OR 15 YEARS OLD
    288(C)(2) "CARETAKER, LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS ACTS ON DEPENDENT ADULT"
    288A(D)(3) ORAL COPULATION IN CONCERT: VICTIM INCAPABLE OF CONSENT
    288A(F)(1) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM WAS UNCONSCIOUS OR ASLEEP
    288A(F)(2) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM WAS UNCONSCIOUS AND NOT AWARE OF ACT
    288A(F)(3) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM NOT AWARE DUE TO PERPETRATORS FRAUD
    286(J) SODOMY WITHOUT CONSENT: BELIEVE PERSON IS SPOUSE
    288A(J) ORAL COPULATION: BELIEVE PERSON IS A SPOUSE
    266H(B) PIMPING WHERE PROSTITUTE IS UNDER 16
    269 AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 OR 10 YEARS YOUNGER THAN PERPATRATOR
    209(B)(1) KIDNAP FOR RANSOM WITH INTENT TO COMMIT 261, 286, 288, 288a, 289
    269(A) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 OR 10 YEARS YOUNGER THAN PERPETRATOR
    269(A)(2) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 TO VIOLATE PC 264.1
    269(A)(3) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 TO VIOLATE PC 286 BY FORCE OR FEAR
    269(A)(4) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 TO VIOLATE PC 288a BY FORCE OR  
    269(A)(5) AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH CHILD UNDER 14 TO VIOLATE PC 289(a)
    289(D)(1) SEXUAL PENETRATION: FOREIGN OBJECT, VICTIM UNCONSCIENCE OR ASLEEP
    289(D)(2) SEXUAL PENETRATION: FOREIGN OBJECT, VICTIM UNAWARE
    289(D)(3) SEXUAL PENETRATION: FOREIGN OBJECT, VICTIM UNAWARE BECAUSE PERPETRATOR'S FRAUD
    311.3(B) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: DEPICT MINOR IN SEX ACT
    311.3(B)(1) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
    311.3(B)(2) SEX EXPLOIT MINOR: PENETRATION BY FOREIGN OBJECT
    311.3(B)(3) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: MASTURBATION
    311.3(B)(4) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: SADOMASOCHISTIC ABUSE
    311.3(B)(5) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: EXHIBIT GENITALS
    311.3(B)(6) SEXUALLY EXPLOIT MINOR: DEFECATE, URINATE FOR VIEWER STIMULATION
    311.3(D) PRIOR CONVICTION: PUNISHMENT
    288A(C)(2) ORAL COPULATION WITH FORCE OR VIOLENCE
    286(C)(2) SODOMY WITH FORCE OR VIOLENCE
    286(C)(3) SODOMY WITH THREAT OF RETALIATION
    288A(C)(1) ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 14
    288A(C)(3) ORAL COPULATION WITH THREAT OF RETALIATION
    289(A)(1) SEXUAL PENETRATION, FOREIGN OBJECT WITH FORCE
    289(A)(2) SEXUAL PENETRATION, FOREIGN OBJECT WITH THREAT OF RETALIATION
    288.2 HARMFUL MATTER: SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
    288.2(A) HARMFUL MATTER: SENT WITH INTENT OF SEDUCTION OF MINOR VIA PHONE
    288.2(B) HARMFUL MATTER: SUBSEQUENT ARREST SEDUCTION OF MINOR VIA MAIL/INTERNET
    243.4(E)(1) TOUCH PERSON INTIMATELY AGAINST WILL FOR SEXUAL AROUSAL/ETC
    261(A)(4)(A) RAPE: VICTIM WAS UNCONSCIOUS OR ASLEEP
    288A(F)(4) ORAL COPULATION: VICTIM NOT AWARE - FRAUD. MISREPRESENTATION
    288B PRIOR CODE-ORAL COPULATION IN CONCERT WITH FORCE/ETC
    647.6(C)(1) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN W/PR
    261(A)(4)(D) RAPE: VICTIM NOT AWARE - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
    289(D)(4) SEX PENETRA: VICTIM NOT AWARE - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
    647.6(B) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILDREN:ILLEGAL ENTRY

     



    Parent
    Layman 's term (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:02:25 PM EST
    I'm not an attorney...so when I say sexual assault I mean a physical assault of a sexual nature.  Rape, forcible touching...that sort of thing.  The common definition if you will.

    I have no idea what it means under Cali law.  Sorry if I gave the impression I know what I'm talking about in a legal sense:)  

    Parent

    That's one long list. (none / 0) (#20)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    Some are obviously "violent" and I'm not sure how many of them are not. At least some, though. Pick one you aren't sure about if you want and I'll search for a Cal Supreme Court case that defines it. We'll see how many years the defendant got. In the mean time, here's one about sexual assault. This guy got over 80 years. Sometimes these are not easy to read, ugly stuff, but that's the only way to know what these laws are.

    Does anyone know what they are talking about? (none / 0) (#22)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:39:37 PM EST
    I don't, just Google educated. :) TalkLeft probably does, as do the lawyer types. As you will see at the sexual assault link if you read it, the touching does not have to be violent. If the child is under 14, or maybe 12, depending on the state, it is automatically considered violent for legal purposes. Since a child that young can never consent, it is always forced. The normal touching a parent might do could be sexual assault if a sex offender does it, because of the intent. Though it is probably most often more flagrant than that.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, and am not arguing for or against the guy getting 80 years. No, only trying get us working off of the same definitions, because, well, because we vote on this stuff and politicians will always take advantage of us if we let them.

    back to "banishment" (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:15:33 AM EST
      I think we can all probably agree that "banishment laws" targeting sex offenders should not be "arbitrary."

      We might not all agree on what "arbiitrary" means. I think that  "banishment" should not be based upon only the fact of a conviction under a very broad laundry list of statutory offenses many of which are very broad and somewhat vaguely defined.

      It would be an improvement if conviction under specified statute was merely a necessary prequisite for a petition to be filed requesting a court order prohibitng a person from residing or frequenting certain specified places. After a petition was filed the court would be required to hear evidence and argument and make particularized  findings that:

    1. The person's offense involved conduct that included certain specified acts (e,g., violence, threat of violence, use of incaplicating drugs, victims below a certain age with a a certain age differential, etc.)

    2. There is a reasonable degree of probability that the person remains a danger to the community as a result of his prior conduct and current mental state

    3. That no less restrictive measures exist sufficient to protect the community.

      This would not eliminate the fundamental philosophical concerns some people with the whole idea of "banishment," but it would address the more commonly shared concerns that such laws are too broadly written to encompass people where it is not needed and that due process is not afforded.  

       While some will surely say this would be expensive and require too much "red tape," I'd say the expense and procedural hurdles would encourage authorities to target their efforts on those who pose the most danger. Certainly, thhat raisess the risk of underestimating the risk some pose and failing to seek "banishment" orders against people who will ultimately offend again but by narrowing the scope it would also make it moire likely that there are sufficient resources to monitor the compliance of those against whom oders are issued. after all, laws that cannot be adequately enforced provide little real protection.