AgdaPkt 2010-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1 F Page 11 enforcement officials af�er the offender is xeleased from cvstody. Another inno�ative approach was registering undocumented sex offenders before they were released fxorn jail. Previously, US �nmigration and Customs Enfoxcement agents (ICE) would deport the offenders before they r�gistexed as pex Ivlegan's Law. If they retunned to the Uni#ed States, there was no method of tracking �hem. Of the 196 sex offenders cuxrently on probahon in San Mateo County, 76% committed crimes against children, including 49 who were convicted of havi.ng sex with a minor under the age of 14. Sex offend�rs have an lustoric recidivism rate of 60% or rnore. Up to now, the San Mateo County Frobation Department reports lower recidivism rates than the national average because of continuing, rigorous training and officer contact with probationers. The County Probation Department faces a$9.1 million annual reduction in budget from 2008-2011. In the future, the Probation Depar�ment will no longer be able to fund a dedicated sex crimes unit and the personnel wi11 be folded into general enforcemen� In 2006, Californians approved Proposition 83, referred to as Jessica's Law. The pro�visions of the Iaw were to ensure that sex offendexs could not xeside within 2000 feet of a school or park and to mandate Globat Positioning Supervision (GPS) fvr Iife. California leads the x�ation in tracking sex offenders with GPS technology. California has more than 6,b00 sex offenders equipped vvith GPS including alI active sex offender parolee�s in the county.'" The State's Department of Corrections and Rehabzlitation took the ballot ini�ia#�ve a step farther by attachir�g GPS unxts to those sex offendexs convicted pxiox to the 2006 meastue.� The California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is, tasked ��rith mo�itoring alI the State's sexua.l offenders' GPS unifs. Jessica's Law is not enforced anywhere in California once the sex affender completes probation or parole. The Law was not funded to provide GPS tecbnology to the local Iaw enforcement age�.cies afte�r the three or fzve year parole and/or probation was completed. The cost variss from $4,380 to $9,500 per year for a 24�7 monitoring service. Z4 Additionally, tt�e I.aw did not provide penalt�es associated. with nat wearing a GPS monitor onc� sex offenders complete probation or parole. The GTand J'ury surveyed aIl San Mateo County cities' police depariments as to their success in monatoring sex offenders and educating their cammunities to recogcuze predatory behavior. Written responses were received from ali 19 poli�e chiefs and the Sheriff. In man� cases law enforcement practices changed significantly compared to #hose employed duru�g the 2003-2a07 � period when there was coun�y-wide coord3nation through par�icipa#ion in SAFE. In the absence of a county-wide plan, lacking inteme# investiga�[on expertise, and shrin.king resouxces, each city devised its own approach. Today, law enforcement prac�ices vary widely amor►g cities as reflected in. the rat�.ge of wrifiten responses to the Grand Jury questzoxuz.aire (illustr�ated in Table 2.} 21 httv�l/www cder ca.�ovlPa.role/Sex Offender Facts/Jessicas Law.html#stats � htt»:I/www.cder.ca.�ovlParolelSex Offender � www.csmonitor.com/USA1Z00911106/np2s04-us�n.html 2 � httvJ/�vsmonitoring.cam/blo�1?v=762 and "State to expand tracldng af parolees with GP S": htt��llwww sf�ate comle�i-bin/article.c�i?f=/e/a12010l01/24lMN9F1BI81D.DTL 8