U.N.I.O.N.
United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect
 

Letters to Editors
Vote No 83




 
 

John is published.  GREAT WORK JOHN! 

 http://www.egpnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&id=3&pageid=4783 

Letter to the Editor 
Re: Vote Yes on Proposition 83 (Oct. 26, 2006) 
Wow, I am in disbelief at what your voter recommendation is for Proposition 83. This is just another conveyor belt type law that will plague our prison system. This propositions’ intentions are to banish all sex offenders from our society and that is wrong. 

We all know that not all sex offenders are child molesters. Senator Runner has taken the focus away from the child molesters and sexually violent predators and he wants us to believe that at some point in life a registered sex offender will abduct and sexually assault a child. That notion of his is preposterous. Since when do we banish people on presumption alone. 

Thousands of sex offenders here in California are in compliance with P.C. 290. Thousands are one time offenders that made a mistake when they where younger. This proposition will affect thousands of young men and women that have to register as sex offenders. This proposition will not protect our children from molestations because almost all of the child molestation cases are perpetrated by someone the child knows. This proposition would not have been able to protect the Pages from Rep. Foley (R). 
 
You still have time to do more research to see that this proposition isn’t about protecting our children. And Urge a NO vote on this proposition. This is a political battle between the Republicans and the Democrats and the special interest groups that will prosper if this proposition passes. Legislation acted several months ago when Senate Bill 1128 was signed and approved by all parties. Senator Runner doesn’t want to bow down in defeat to the Democrats.The Dems are the ones that acted and got SB1128 signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. By the way SB1128 is a new sex offender “LAW” that will impose longer prison sentences for child molesters and does not include the horrid and controversial zoning restrictions. No on prop 83, help keep our children safe. 83 will have horrible consequences.
 
John Caballo 
Los Angeles, CA 



Subject: No on Prop 83! 
To:  letters@dailybreeze.com

    Your Yes on 83 opinion is wrong and all the information you have gathered is based on lies. We don't have an epidemic of convicted sex offenders molesting children. The 2000 foot restriction will do more harm than good. Iowa is the best example yet. Florida's residency restrictions apply only to convicted child molesters and repeat offenders, not to every convicted sex offender. There are thousands of offenders in our state that have a spouse and children that they are caring for and raising. It doesn't seem like anyone is concerned about what the ramifications to them will be. I do and our family is going to vote NO on this poorly written law. 

You need to do more research before you post opinions like this. The molestations and murders of children is horrible but it doesn't happen as often as we think. Drunk drivers kill more children annually than a sex offender does. Just the other day a news report aired and it said that 75 children are killed annually by their own parents, at home because of child abuse.

Visit  http://www.1union1.com/Jessicaslaw...Noway.htm  to get more facts and real stories from family members that will be devastated by this terrible law.

The Governor recently signed SB1128 which has all of the provisions of Prop 83 but without the horrible zoning restrictions that have critics worried. L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley is still opposed to the initiative because of the zoning restrictions and the fact that the law was so vaguely written that it could be made retroactive. If this law passes and is made retroactive it will end up in Federal Courts. Not something we need to fight when we already have new laws in place to help protect us.

Fred Lopez

Los Angeles, CA 



Subject: Jessica's Law-NO WAY! 
To:  letters@uniontrib.com, letters@dailybreeze.com

    I have come to a conclusion that, despite the fact that we had two new sex offender laws signed into place last week, that Prop83 has now become a science experiment to the politicians and you editors that continue to back it. You want to see what will happen when all of the law abiding registered sex offenders-that have already paid their debt to society-start losing everything they have worked very hard for. When they start to lose their families (spouses and children), jobs and homes. When they have no where else to turn, then the politicians might get what they want. People going on mass murder sprees because now they have nothing to live for. 

We can not allow the state to conduct such an experiment. Prop 83 does not guarantee the safety of our children, it will endanger their lives more. The prop is too vaguely written and cast a huge net over people that are not child molesters. It will create a false sense of security, we don't need that. Voting NO on Prop 83 is the smartest thing Californians can do. 

John Caballo

Los Angeles, CA 


Subject: No on Prop 83 is a more intelligent choice 
To: letters@dailybreeze.com

    Dear  Editor, 

    Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed  robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from  prison.

     The high  recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually  accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates  for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice  Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in  1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after  their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study  released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of  the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex  crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender  rate.

     In the largest  and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice  Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study  of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation  found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all  other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose  the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are  unlikely to re-offend. 

     If sex  offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers,  there seems little justification for the public's fear, or for the monitoring  laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near  schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those  living elsewhere.) I urge you to put out a NO vote editorial. California has too many registered sex offenders, with families to allow this law to pass. SB1128 was signed into law last week. This new sex offender law is identical in nature to Prop 83 so there is no need to pass it. Now, if this whole push is because it has Jessica's name on it, then change SB1128 to Jessica's Law.

Brad Abrams

Los Angeles, CA


Subject: No, No, No on Prop 83! 
To:  letters@uniontrib.com
 

    Dear  Editor, 

    Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed  robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from  prison.

     The high  recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually  accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates  for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice  Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in  1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after  their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study  released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of  the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex  crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender  rate.

     In the largest  and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice  Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study  of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation  found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all  other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose  the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are  unlikely to re-offend. 

     If sex  offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers,  there seems little justification for the public's fear, or for the monitoring  laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near  schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those  living elsewhere.) I urge you to put out a NO vote editorial. California has too many registered sex offenders, with families to allow this law to pass. SB1128 was signed into law last week. This new sex offender law is identical in nature to Prop 83 so there is no need to pass it. Now, if this whole push is because it has Jessica's name on it, then change SB1128 to Jessica's Law.

Brad Abrams

Los Angeles, CA



Subject: Jessica's Flaw! 

To:  dflansburg@redlandsdailyfacts.com

    We should all be opposed to laws that will banish people from our society. These draconian type laws have no place in California let alone on a November ballot. This law if passed next month will have a horrible impact on the lives of all of the women, children and parents that have ties to a sex offender. Zoning restrictions didn't work in Iowa and they wont work here in California. They will create more harm than good.

    Registered sex offenders are already having trouble finding housing. This kind of banishment law will make it even more difficult for them to find housing. Then lets consider all of those that currently have housing. Those that have been living in their homes for years and years without incident. What will they do?

    My family and I are praying for them every night. Many of these people are not child molesters. Many are one time offenders that made a mistake when they were younger. Everyone has a right to a second chance in life, no one is perfect.     It would be wrong for the state to make this law retroactive. Those that have already paid their debt to society should be left alone. 

If the state only applies this law to parolees and new offenders, the cost associated with this will be much less than projected. But since the law isn't written that way, our family will vote NO on this Prop and we urge you to do the same. Governor Schwarzenegger signed two new sex offender laws that give California the strictest sex offender laws in the nation. With those two new laws in place, who needs Prop 83...Vote NO!

Brad Abrams
Los Angeles, CA



Subject: Prop 83 and Mr. Lunsford 

To:  sherendeen@modbee.com

        I'm very sorry for the loss Mr. Lunsford daughter. She was taken from him by a mentally ill sex offender. He was not in compliance with his registration requirements but thousands here in California are in compliance and I don't believe that out of 89,000 registered sex offenders, a quarter of them are missing.     I am appalled that Mr. Lunsford would exploit his daughters name to help, Ill minded politicians running for office, pass laws in their states to be used against people that had nothing to do with her disappearance and death. How much is he getting paid to come here to do this?

     Your article had a law enforcement official praising the initiative for what it contains, closes loopholes in the system, he said. Well lets not forget, and you can kindly remind him, that those loopholes where closed a couple of weeks ago when Governor Schwarzenegger signed two new sex offender bills into law.

     We don't need overlapping laws that will cost us millions of dollars to enforce. The zoning and gps restrictions of all convicted sex offenders is wrong and has to be unconstitutional. The zoning and gps restrictions might hold up in court If the state only applies the restrictions to offenders that have committed new sex crimes. The Three strike law was upheld in Federal Court as being constitutional but let's not forget, it was not made retroactive. Making this proposition retroactive would cause too many problems-Ex-Post Facto violations. We can not banish people from society because of something that one person did in Florida. We have two new laws on the books now that are identical in nature to proposition 83 so we don't need prop 83. Vote NO on prop 83 and let poor Jessica rest in peace.

Fred Lopez
Los Angeles, CA



To:  letters@uniontrib.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:20 AM 
Subject: NO, on your endorsement of Jessica's Law 

Jessica's Law Blatantly disregards the United States and California Constitutions! It is driven by fear-mongering, opportunistic politicians and will do nothing to actually protect children. Jessica's Law will place severe restrictions on ALL people sentenced to even minor offences. There are many different types of sex offences. Most, do not involve children. 

This law will disrupt and destroy many families who are not sexual predators and are not any threat or danger to our communities. 

We all want to protect our children. But, under our current laws many people would be considered a sex offender. My grandfather, who was 20, and met my grandmother who was 15, would have been considered a sex offender. Can't we find a way to seperate the real "child molesters" from the thousands of people who may have made a mistake by having an underage girlfriend. Why must thousands pay for the horrible crimes commented by just a few sick monsters. Does no one have the guts to tell the truth about what this law really means. 

It sickens me that you would endorse such a law. JBuchanan 
5th generation San Diegian 

 


 Jessica's Law - No Way!

 U.N.I.O.N. Home