Easy Voter Guide For new or busy voters (in 7 languages) Smart Voter Your Ballot & Poll Place On Propositions Ballot Measure Analysis Easy Voter Guide Pros & Cons Prop 1A Prop 1B Prop 1C Prop 1D Prop 1E Prop 83 Prop 84 Prop 85 Prop 86 Prop 87 Prop 88 Prop 89 Prop 90 PDF In Depth Prop 1A Prop 1B Prop 1C Prop 1D Prop 1E Prop 83 Prop 84 Prop 85 Prop 86 Prop 87 Prop 88 Prop 89 Prop 90 About Ballot Measures Background Bond Financing How to Evaluate The Initiative Process Other Absentee Voting Register to Vote

SEX OFFENDERS. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS.
PUNISHMENT, RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND MONITORING.
Initiative Statute.

QUESTION

Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?

BACKGROUND

Currently, sex offenses are punished according to the offense and its severity. Penalties range from a year in jail, fines, and prison terms up to life. Offenders are required to register with local law enforcement agencies. Since 2004, when Megan's Law was adopted in California, the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders has been made publicly available.

Certain convicted sex offenders are barred from residing within one half mile of a school. The Global Positioning System (GPS) monitors those parolees considered high risk (about 1,000 statewide).

Some offenders are classified as Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) and are committed to mental hospitals (725 statewide).

THE PROPOSAL
(From the LAO analysis)

Increase Penalties for Sex Offenses. This measure increases the penalties for specified sex offenses. It does this in several ways. In some cases:

• It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses. For example, the measure expands the definition of aggravated sexual assault of a child to include offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim, rather than the ten years required under current law.
• It provides for longer penalties for specified sex offenses. For example, it expands the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison to include assault to commit rape during the commission of a first-degree burglary.
• It prohibits probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
• It eliminates early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses (for example, habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape).
• It extends parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.

These changes would result in longer prison and parole terms for the affected offenders.

Finally, this measure increases court-imposed fees currently charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.

Require GPS Devices for Registered Sex Offenders. Generally under this measure, individuals who have been convicted of a felony sex offense that requires registration and have been sent to prison would be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives.

The CDCR would be authorized to collect fees from affected sex offenders to cover the costs of GPS monitoring. The amount of fees collected from individual offenders would vary depending on their ability to pay.

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 two-fifths of a mile) of any school or park. A violation of this provision would be a misdemeanor offense, as well as a parole violation for parolees. The longer current law restriction of one-half mile (2,640 feet) for specified high-risk sex offenders on parole would remain in effect. In addition, the measure authorizes local governments to further expand these residency restrictions.

Change SVP Law. This measure generally makes more sex offenders eligible for an SVP commitment. It does this by (1) reducing from two to one the number of prior victims of sexually violent offenses that qualify an offender for an SVP commitment and (2) making additional prior offenses--such as certain crimes committed by a person while a juvenile--"countable" for purposes of an SVP commitment. The measure also requires that SVPs be committed by the court to a state mental hospital for an undetermined period of time rather than the renewable two-year commitment provided for under existing law. As under current law, once an offender had received a commitment as an SVP, he or she could later be released from a state hospital by the courts if (1) DMH determined the individual should no longer be held or (2) the offender successfully petitioned a court for release.

The measure also changes the standard for release of SVPs from a state mental hospital. For example, current law generally requires DMH to examine the mental condition of a sex offender each year. This measure specifically requires DMH, as part of this annual review, to examine whether a person being held in a state hospital as an SVP still meets the definition of an SVP, whether release is in the best interest of the person, and whether conditions could be imposed at time of release that would adequately protect the community. The impact of these changes on the number of SVPs is unknown.

FISCAL EFFECT

The increase in prison population due to convictions for more offenses, longer sentences and decreasing parole, could be a significant expense, both in extended time and possible capital outlay for more facilities. Increased populations in jails and prisons would also impact local governments.

The cost of universal GPS monitoring will be considerable. These costs include the devices for an estimated 90,000 sexual predators now living in California (all crimes, for the past 70+ years) and the cost of tracking offenders in the community. This could be upwards of $100 million annually. [LAO Analysis p. 4 #3] It is unclear if some of these costs would be born by local governments. New court and parolee fees would offset some of the costs.

Additional costs would be attributed to referrals of Sexually Violent Predators, evaluations and additional incarceration in Mental Health facilities. Additional costs could come from the need to build more such institutions to accommodate the overflow.

Court costs for additional SVP commitment and possible increased arrests would fall on state and local governments. This may be offset by a decrease in arrests due to longer sentencing.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means that the state would increase the penalties and fines for sexual offenses and provide GPS monitoring for every resident convicted of a sexual offense.

A NO vote means that the state would continue using present laws regarding monitoring and punishment of sex offenders.

SUPPORTERS SAY

Proposition 83 will:

• Ensure mandatory minimum sentences of 15 to 25 years to life
• Ensure sex offenders serve their full sentence
• Electronically monitor sex offenders for life (GPS)
• Strengthen the sexually violent predator program
• Create predator-free zones

OPPONENTS SAY

• It will cost taxpayers an estimated $500 million and will not increase our children's safety.
• Other states have found that similar laws have proven ineffective, too costly and a drain on crucial law enforcement resources.
• It will impose both lifetime residence restrictions and lifetime GPS monitoring on thousands of people who have lived law-abiding lives for decades.
• Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90 percent of sex crimes against children, because a relative or an acquaintance of the child commits those crimes.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Official ballot arguments in support are signed by the following: Goernor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney, San Diego County; Harriet Salarno, President, Crime Victims United of California; Monty Holden, Executive Director, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS); Steve Ipsen, President, California Deputy District Attorneys Association; Sheriff Gary Penrod, President, California State Sheriffs Association

Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by the following: Carleen Arlidge, President, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Supporters

Campaign for Child Safety, 916-443-2024, www.83yes.com

Opponents

California Attorneys For Criminal Justice, 916-448-8868, www.cacj.org

Web Resources

Analysis by the Legislative Analyst's office

Voter Information Guide (ballot pamphlet)

Reports of campaign expenditures for ballot measures