**
RELATED COMMENT:

(Please see previous articles on teen sex, “What Have We Wrought?” and “What We Have Wrought,” posted on November 19, 2008.)

Okay, so enough of “wroughting.” What’s done is done, the die is cast, and all that.

We now have in America millions of indisputably sexualized-before-their-time teenaged girls who don’t just fantasize about sex as in times past.

If they would ever admit it, their grandmas and great grandmas probably had similar if not as graphic fantasies about sexual encounters (or, more discreetly, love relationships), with Rudolph Valentino, Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Marlon Brando, or Paul Newman.

As for grandpas and greatgrandpas, they may have swooned, (did males ever swoon?), over such sexpots as Jean Harlow, Betty Grable, Brigitte Bardot, and, God forbid, Jane Fonda. The male of the human species always had natural and normal outlets for their sexual drives, outlets not readily or natually available to females, which allowed for the taming of the male beast.

The beast within the female of the species, while not as beastly, now has alternatives.

The chief difference today, in 2008, between kids, girl teenies, then and now is that today they don’t fantasize, or swoon, over a male figure. They just get down and dirty and do it with virtually any male available.

The more adventurous, known as groupies, seek out and bed, or elevator, or backstage-room, a rock or sport star, freely presenting their bodies so they can say they somehow hooked up with fame, with any famous dude.

More typically, sweet little Suzie next door, the fifteen year old you may see at church every Sunday looking innocent and demure,…
(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)

I got the solution. If we cant keep them away from schools, maybe we can keep them close to the judges house? After all, they got no problem with these people creeping around OUR neighbourhoods.

and I support Jessica’s Law and VERY, VERY long sentences for child molesters, it is almost impossible in a high density urban area to enforce a 2,000 zone around schools.

And, FWIW, no sex offender should ever be homeless.

My day job (that in a good world shouldn’t be necessary): I install and program surveillance systems. The company I work for has the contracts for two counties down here in South Flori-duh for surveillance and access controls.

Most of the time, I’m working in elementary schools……..that’s because I love kids. I don’t have any of my own, so this is my little way to help keep everyone else’s kids safe.

All my friends know this about me: If I EVER see anyone trying to take, touch or hurt a little kid, that person is dead. Period. End of sentence.

This bit about allowing “those who have forfeited their rights as humans” being allowed to live at all, let alone near a school is beyond enraging to me.

If even one s.o.b. on the street (who quite honestly should have been executed long ago) goes after a kid, each of those judges should be charged as an accessory.

I haven’t seen the decision, but based on what the article posted said, I have no problem with it.

…the court said the judge’s order would have been valid if the Prop. 83 requirements were simply non-punitive measures to protect the public. But because they have an “overwhelmingly punitive effect,” the court said, they can be imposed only after a jury trial and conviction for a sex crime. That also means the restrictions can’t be applied retroactively.”

Which also means a convicted child sex predator can now legally live across the street from schools and parks again, although key provisions such as mandatory GPS monitoring remain in place.

*
No, it doesn’t.*

State law previously prohibited only convicted child molesters from living within a quarter-mile of a school. Prop. 83 makes most densely populated areas of California off limits to paroled sex criminals, including nearly all of San Francisco.

The old limits are still in place, and apply to all convicted child molesters.

In the case pending before the state Supreme Court, the four parolees say the residency restrictions are an unconstitutional retroactive punishment and an unreasonable parole condition. They say the limits should be applied only to those who committed crimes against children.

The state was attempting to apply the law to anyone convicted of a sex crime, whether agaist a child, a 19 year old caught with his seventeen year old girlfreind, or a drunk idiot relieving himself in public. Or even against those aquitted..

In Wednesday’s ruling, the appeals court overturned the residency restrictions on an Anaheim man, Steven Lloyd Mosley, who was convicted in 2007 of assaulting a 12-year-old girl four years earlier but acquitted of committing a lewd act. The trial judge nevertheless concluded that Mosley had committed a sex crime, ordered him to register with police as a sex offender and barred him from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

*
And for the record, the law wasn’t overturned, they just said the state couldn’t apply it retroactively (that pesky Constitution.)…*

The ruling leaves the law in effect but could limit its application. The U.S. Constitution forbids laws that retroactively impose criminal penalties or increase punishment for past offenses.

*A little more reading comprehension, a little less hysteria.
*

State law previously prohibited only convicted child molesters from living within a quarter-mile of a school. Prop. 83 makes most densely populated areas of California off limits to paroled sex criminals, including nearly all of San Francisco.