CORRESPONDENCE_50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The referenced statements In the Police Chief s report as well as in the proposed ordinance arc also inconsistent with recent data, including data from a 2010 report of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. According to the data of that agency, the recidivism rate for "registered sex offenders"' is 3.25 percent while on parole and 5 percent overall. (see California Sex Offender Management Board ("CSOMB^) report, August 2011, pages 10 and 21, which can be found online at www.casomb.org). These rates are is significantly lower than the recidivism rates for most other crimes including armed robbery and burglary. (See CSOMB report, August 2011, page 10). Paragraph E of Section 1, in particular, appears to base its incorrect assertion that °sex offenders' have a high recidivism rate on an outdated 2003 report from the Department of Justice, Bureau of statistics. The ordinance's references to that report are fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, the ordinance cites one statistic from that report out of context, that is, "released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a new sex crime". The proper content for the statement is a reference to violent sex offenders and not everyone required by PC 290 to register. Second, the ordinance fails to note two important subsequent findings in the same report: (1) only 5.3 percent of all released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime and (2) only 3.3 percent of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child. It is significant to note that the City does not propose to prohibit those convicted of crimes for which there is a much higher recidivism rate, such as armed robbery and burglary, from the same activities listed in the draft ordinance. The disproportionate appliation of the proposed prohibitions to only "registered sex offenders" could be construed as a violation of the civil rights of registered sex offenders° and thereby expose the Clty of Santa Ana to future legal challenges. The proposed ordinance is also flawed because it is inconsistent with existing state law which prohibits some, but not all, "registered sex offenders" from entering parks where children gather without express permission. The scope of that state law, Penal Code §3053.8, is limited to "registered sex offenders" who are on parole after serving in prison for certain offenses in which one or more of the victims was under 14 years old. The City's passage of the proposed ordinance could be Interpreted as an illegal and unenforceable preemption of that state law. The orooosed ordinance is based upon faulty logic Most sexual assaults do not occur in parks or other public places The purpose of the proposed ordinance, as stated in section 10-700, is to "reduce the potential risk of harm to children of our community"' by limiting the ability of °sex offenders to be in contact with unsuspecting children in locations that are primarily designed for use by..., chidren". Tlxse locations include public parks, schools, child care centers and public libraries. The proposed ordinance is based upon faulty logic because most sexual assaults of children do not occur in parks or other public places. A recent study, in fact, concluded that sex offenders do not meet or perpetrate offenses in public or semi-public locations with great frequency. Instead, only 6.8 percent of