Proposition 83 is an interesting expression of how public sentiment and hundreds of years of legal principles can butt heads. The rule of law generally holds that if you were to behave in a manner that is explicitly outlawed, you are subject to the punishments proscribed at the time of that behavior. If you violate the speed limit, you are subject to fines as described in the various traffic laws. If you steal somebody’s television, you are subject to certain maximum or minimum jail sentences as proscribed in the criminal statutes. Proposition 83 seeks to retroactively lay a series of punishments onto a subspecies of criminal: sex offenders.

Look far and wide, you’ll find little to no sympathy for sex offenders amongst the voting public. These are people that society does not want to accept any more, but does not have the will to jail permanently or execute. This means that after the proscribed prison terms, they are returned to the general population. Recidivism rates for sex offenders is alarmingly high, and we are frequently exposed to anecdotes of recently-released sexual predators doing terrible things. Proposition 83 seeks to protect the public from criminals that have already done their time.

(-) Proposition aims to do this through a number of ex post facto changes to the handling of certain criminals:

• Requires GPS devices for registered offenders. Parolees are already subject to this, at the option of County officials, but once the parole is done, offenders cannot be required to wear such devices. To add insult to this, prop 83 allows the CDCR to collect fees from the individual offenders to cover the cost of implementation.
• Limit where registered offenders can live. Under existing law, sex offenders cannot reside within ¼ mile of a school. Under prop 83, this would be expanded to 2,000 feet of any school or park. Considering that most cities in California undertake a great deal of effort to build schools and parks right near or inside residential areas, this severely restricts the housing options of people who have already served their time. Today the Press Democrat published maps showing the areas restricted in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Rohnert Park under this proposition. Note that there are roughly 8,000 people convicted of sex offenses every year in California. We’re basically looking at creating sex-offender ghettos here.

(+) Proposition 83 also makes changes to the criminal law that would expand the ability of the state to classify soon-to-be-released convicts as “Sexually Violent Predators,” which allows for the commitment of the convict to a mental hospital instead of being released back to the general public. Current law requires that somebody be convicted of attacking at least two victims before becoming eligible for commitment to a mental hospital. It also broadens the definitions of several sexual offenses and toughens up some of the punishments.

Prognosis

It seems to me that, barring an effective treatment system by which recidivism can be reduced, the only truly effective way to reduce the threat of repeat sex offenders to society is to remove them from society. Proposition 83 does not accomplish this, aside from the loosening of SVP requirements. This lone kernel of “good idea” is lost amongst a sea of challenges to the notion of the rule of law, specifically that there can be no crime, and there can be no punishment, without a prior law outlawing the crime and proscribing the punishment.

I’ll be voting “no” on prop 83, though I strongly suspect that public sentiment against sex offenders will carry the day, passing it by a comfortable margin.