he Orange County Register
March 19, 2010
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/17/one-of-five-oc-sex-offenders-violate-requirements/53355/
 |
| Bretzing |
Nearly 20 percent of sex offenders in Orange County are in violation of their registration requirements, according to state records.
Translation: 369 of OC’s 1,876 sex offenders should be reporting their whereabouts to law enforcement — but they are not.
They are people like Max Orson Bretzing, whose offense was annoying/molesting children. He has been in violation since 1996.
And Raul Torres Contreras — whose offense was also annoying/molesting children — who has been in violation since 2000.
There are about 66,000 registered sex offenders statewide,and 14,468 were in violation as of March 2, said Evan Westrup, spokesman for the California Department of Justice. That’s nearly 22 percent — a bit higher than Orange County’s where-are-they-now? rate.
The Attorney General asks that anyone with information on the whereabouts of these people contact a local law enforcement agency. But we wouldn’t hold our breath.
The ever-vexing debate over what to do about sex offenders has begun anew, with the wrenching deaths in San Diego of 17-year-old Chelsea King and 14-year-old Amber Dubois. A sex offender — who could have been put in prison for violations — is suspected in both deaths, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.
No one in Orange County will soon forget 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, killed by a man who had previously been acquitted of molesting two girls.
 |
| Contreras |
THE LAW
In 1947, California became the first state to require the lifetime registration of convicted sex offenders, according to the Attorney General. The registration process remained virtually unchanged until the mid-1990s, when several legislative mandates reshaped California’s sex offender registration requirements:
* Sex offenders are now required to update their registrations at least annually, and to provide more detailed information.
* Violent offenders are required to report in every 90 days.
* Transients are required to check in every 30 days.
And in 2006, strict new restrictions on where sex offenders could live were adopted — barring sex offenders from living close to schools, parks, day care centers and the like.
But has that helped, or hurt, the state’s quest to keep a close eye on offenders?
The California Sex Offender Management Board would say it has hurt, and urges the state to reconsider the strict residency requirements.
“The vast majority of evidence and research conducted to date does not demonstrate a connection between where an offenders lives and recidivism,” says a recent report by the board. “Since the expansion of residency restrictions for sex offenders in 2006, the availability of suitable housing for sex offenders has plummeted. As a result, the number of sex offenders registering transient has dramatically increased.”
And then, of course, there are the ones who don’t register at all.
“The body of literature and research to date indicates that a lack of stable and appropriate housing can contribute to recidivism,” the report says. “In the interest of public safety, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has been spending millions of dollars in efforts to provide stable housing to sex offenders on parole, and still the number of homeless sex offenders continue to rise. It seems unwise to spend such resources as a consequence of residence restriction policies which have no track record of increasing community safety.”
Last week, dozens gathered outside a Huntington Beach hotel with KFI radio hosts John and Ken to protest five registered sex offenders living there. Brea police were investigating the backgrounds of five registered sex offenders living at a hotel there as well.
The public spotlight led to all of them leaving the hotels. But where did they go? And will they tell offiicals where they are next time?
This is a problem. And this might not be a bad place to start when looking for a fix:
The California Sex Offender Management Board recommends that the California State Legislature, Governor, and local governments reconsider residency restrictions to create an offender housing and supervision solution that balances three essential concerns:
Public safety – Community sex offender management strategies should promote proven public safety strategies. Residency restrictions that preclude or eliminate appropriate offender housing can threaten public safety instead of enhancing it.
Fair Share – Offender populations should, as dictated by statute, return to their county of conviction. No jurisdiction, county or city, should be forced to accommodate a significantly disproportionate number of offenders due to the residency restrictions in adjoining jurisdictions.
Local Control – local governments, in collaboration with state agencies, should collaboratively identify not only areas where offenders should not reside or loiter but also a sufficient number of areas that are suitable and appropriate for offenders to live.
Expect to see new laws growing out of the San Diego tragedies. Hopefully, they will help, rather than aggravate, the situation. We’ll be keeping an eye on the debate going forward.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.