The student media organization of California State University Northridge

Daily Sundial

The student media organization of California State University Northridge

Daily Sundial

The student media organization of California State University Northridge

Daily Sundial

Loading Recent Classifieds...

After doing time, should sex offenders be monitored?

My fellow Americans, it’s about that time again for you to cast your votes to elect some politicians to government positions, take some politicians out, and change the law that we abide by. Every November an election takes place where people go to the polls and cast their votes.

By now, people who are eligible and registered to vote have received their voters’ information guide where it provides explanations of what is going to be on the ballot so you can go to the polls prepared and knowledgeable. Granted, the guide does help people to be prepared but on the other hand, the language is very confusing.

As I was skimming through the propositions one caught my attention: Proposition 83 also known as Jessica’s Law. Proposition 83 is dealing with sex offenders and is named after a 9-year-old girl named Jessica Lunsford. Lunsford was kidnapped, assaulted and buried alive by a convicted sex offender. The sex offender failed to report where he lived.

If Prop. 83 is passed, it would increase the penalties and fines, reduce probation, eliminate early release, increase parole, monitor registered sex offenders and charge offenders with a misdemeanor for living within one-half mile of a school or a park.

Sex offenses are just awful. Why would grown adults want to damage and/or destroy the innocence of a child? Children are so precious and to take advantage of their innocence and to negatively impact their childhood is so wrong. This law can save children from what occurred to Lunsford.

Proposition 83 should be passed, but for every argument there are two sides. The primary opposing argument to Jessica’s Law is that it’s going to cost too much money. We as people should do all that we can to protect our children.

We can throw millions and millions of dollars to put speed bumps on the streets or to build Starbucks at every corner but we can’t invest that kind of money in our children’s safety? That just doesn’t make any sense.

Another argument against the proposition is that if it were passed, sex offenders who have led law-abiding lives after their sentence is completed would be monitored using the Global Positioning System. To that I have no sympathy, because if one becomes a sex offender then there is a high risk that the person will commit another crime.

Of course, there are people that have been reformed but what about the thousands that refuse to learn that lesson. Are we willing to take that chance letting convicted sex offenders roam free, giving them the opportunity to hurt children again? These people need to be monitored.

Besides, if these convicted sex offenders have become reformed then there should be no problem if they are monitored. They shouldn’t have an issue with it if they are not planning to commit future crimes.

Misdemeanor sex offenses, on the other hand, need to be judged case by case. There should be the maximum amount of punishment for sex offenders who commit heinous crimes, but misdemeanor sex offenders should be given the benefit of the doubt based on the seriousness of the crime.

A misdemeanor sex offender could include a 19-year-old man who is arrested and charged with a misdemeanor sex offense for engaging in sexual intercourse with his 17-year-old girlfriend. That to me is ridiculous especially if the girl gave her consent to the man and willingly had sexual intercourse.

What drives a person to assault a child is beyond my understanding but the punishment should be endless because children are precious and do not deserved to be assaulted by any person. You have the opportunity to make that choice on what punishment sex offenders deserve. On November 7th, vote YES on Proposition 83.

More to Discover