World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

How Jessica's Law turned Antioch into a paedophile ghetto

Antioch is one of the few places in California where convicted sex offenders can legally reside. Was the strain of monitoring them all too much for the local police?

By Guy Adams

Antioch, outside San Francisco, is home to 122 registered sex offenders

ALAMY

Antioch, outside San Francisco, is home to 122 registered sex offenders

They have called it scruffy, cheap and unloved. They have sneered at the wire mesh fences and unmowed lawns and the rusting trucks in almost every driveway. And in time, when the media writes the final chapters of the appalling story of Jaycee Lee Dugard, they may very well conclude that in Antioch, her story was simply an accident waiting to happen.

A staggering 122 registered sex offenders live here, in a small, blue-collar city in northern California that has suddenly found itself at the centre of an international media storm. More than 100 of them – 102, to be precise – live in the compact zip-code area containing the suburb that Jaycee Lee's alleged kidnapper, Philip Craig Garrido, called home.

Two convicted rapists reside on Vine Lane, the street next to Walnut Avenue where Jaycee Lee's imprisonment and sexual abuse went unnoticed for almost two decades. On Viera Avenue, less than 200 yards away, is the home of Henry Lee Mickens, a 46-year-old man who recently served time for "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old".

Dozens of other paedophiles can be found within walking distance. A mile and a half from Garrido's front door is Gragnelli Avenue, where the occupant of No 420, one Shayne Patrick Gaxiola, was convicted of molesting a 12-year-old girl and impregnating her in 1994, when he was aged 20.

Gaxiola was also found guilty of giving marijuana to a string of pubescent girls. He then took indecent pictures of them. In 2000, three months after his release, he was sent back to prison for violating parole after being caught with cannabis and a stash of pornographic magazines.

In a town full of such men, the activities of Philip Garrido seemed simply to slip below the radar – despite the awful track record that has emerged since he and his wife, Nancy, were arrested and charged with 29 counts related to Jaycee Lee Dugard's abduction, imprisonment, and serial sexual abuse over 18 years (to which, it must be stressed, they have so far pleaded not guilty).

Court papers released yesterday from Garrido's 1977 trial for the kidnap and rape of a young woman in Nevada portray him as a dangerous sexual predator. During a psychiatric evaluation, he admitted to using LSD and cocaine as sexual stimulants and said that he would often masturbate in public, by the "side of schools, grammar schools and high schools, and in my own car while I was watching young females".

There is, however, no shortage of similar stories in Antioch. That is perhaps why, after Garrido was released in 1988, 10 years into a 50- year sentence, he and his wife were able to slip virtually unnoticed into the fabric of this community, which stretches for roughly four miles along the Sacramento River.

At first glance, Antioch may look like any other small American city. Its 100,000 residents are largely white and working class. Some work in industrial plants. Others are commuters, unable to afford the cost of living in the San Francisco Bay area. In keeping with most of California, about 10 per cent are unemployed.

Yet as police continue to investigate Garrido's past – and look into potential links to 10 murdered prostitutes and three missing girls (on Monday they announced the discovery of a bone fragment in his garden) – the city is being forced to confront a grisly truth: for reasons largely beyond its control, it has become a paedophiles' ghetto.

At fault are laws governing America's treatment of sex offenders, which control where they are allowed to live and how much information the public should be given regarding their whereabouts. These laws were passed with the laudable intention of protecting children. But their actual effect is open to debate.

The most prominent is Megan's Law, which requires the public to be given access, usually via an internet site, to the names, addresses and "previous" of every man and woman convicted of a sexual offence. It is a well-intentioned exercise in open government. But in practice, critics say, it was introduced in such a way as to be of little help to anyone but the voyeuristic. "Thanks to political pressure, they made the criteria for including someone on the registry so wide that it has become totally ineffective," says Michael Risher, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It doesn't just carry details of violent rapists but also people who, say, lost their temper during a road rage incident and flashed at someone, or an 18-year-old boy convicted of statutory rape for sleeping with his 17-year-old girlfriend."

In California, the Megan's Law website contains 90,000 entries. Given this extraordinary statistic, it isn't hard to see why the residents of Walnut Avenue – who had 121 other convicted sex offenders in their city to worry about – might have allowed a man with Garrido's dubious profile to pass largely ignored.

The second group of laws that make Antioch a magnet for paedophiles governs where they are allowed to live. In California, as in many states, voters have in recent years endorsed Jessica's Law, which bans paedophiles from residing within 2,000 feet of a school or a park where children regularly play.

This has driven sex offenders out of major cities and conurbations, where they have access to rehabilitation and treatment facilities, and into suburbs and secluded rural areas, where they don't. In some smaller cities, they have now become concentrated in such large numbers that parole and law enforcement officers are unable to properly vet them.

This may explain why local authorities never noticed that Garrido was apparently keeping the kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two small children concealed in the elaborate series of sheds and tents in his back garden. Thanks to the influx of offenders to Antioch from major cities, they were simply too overstretched to do their job properly.

It may also explain – but not necessarily excuse – the fact that a police officer dispatched to investigate claims of children living in Garrido's garden in 2006 seemingly did not have either the time or the wherewithal to thoroughly research his suspect's background.

"If you look at maps that show where offenders are actually able to live under Jessica's Law, there's almost nowhere in the whole of Los Angeles and San Francisco where they can now legally settle," Mr Risher adds. "Everywhere is within 2,000 feet of a park or school. So they all end up in places like Antioch."

Even police admit that this leaves them struggling to cope. Daniel Terry, from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, which oversees Antioch, has about 1,700 registered sex offenders in his jurisdiction. His station is responsible for about 350 of them, or "349 more than the number of detectives I have dedicated to monitoring these people."

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times this week, he said that the region's concentration of sex offenders was "significantly higher" than other areas in California and the rest of the United States."This is the reality. These people are walking amongst us everywhere." Adding to his woes are wider problems in the cheap parts of Antioch where Garrido and many other convicted sex offenders live. In the ramshackle area around Walnut Avenue, petty theft is rampant, drug abuse endemic – the favourite local tipples are crystal meth and crack cocaine – and lawns are littered with junk.

The city, which grew prosperous on the proceeds of the 1849 gold rush and then the steel mills and concrete factories that allowed it to ship the building blocks of San Francisco down-river during the early 20th century, is now among those caught in the storm of America's economic downturn.

Nearly 2,500 homes, roughly 5 per cent of the city's stock, are in foreclosure, with 699 new homes entering arrears last month. Property values have dropped 40 per cent in the past year and unemployment is soaring. Garrido's bungalow, a four-bedroom home built on a large plot of land between the wars, is worth just $100,000 (£61,800).

Against this background, and helped by laws that encourage ghetto-isation of sex offenders, it now seems that a man known as "Creepy Phil" by neighbours was able to take a little girl hostage, hold her for 18 years, father her two children, and even take them to community events, while barely raising an eyebrow.

In January, Zion Dutro, a convicted child rapist who lived on Alpha Way, not two miles from Walnut Avenue, appeared in court to plead not guilty to performing rape, sodomy and "lewd acts" on at least eight small girls. He faced 21 counts; his wife, a co-defendant, faced four.

In any other town, this kind of case would have sparked a mixture of shock and outrage that would be heard across the world. In Antioch, it merited no more than a few paragraphs in the local newspaper – a reaction which suggests that Jaycee Lee Dugard may not be the last grisly secret that the city reveals.

Sex offenders' register: Megan's and Jessica's laws

Megan's Law requires the public to be given details regarding the identity, whereabouts, and criminal record of convicted sex offenders living in their midst. It was named after the New Jersey schoolgirl Megan Kanka, who was kidnapped, raped and killed by a serial sex-offender in 1994. Today, it's being enacted to varying degrees in every US state.

Like any law passed in response to a public tragedy, the law has been dubbed knee-jerk by opponents, who say it encourages vigilantism and is an infringement on the civil liberties of ex-offenders. A study last year concluded that the law achieved no demonstrable reduction in child sex offences.

Jessica's Law prevents convicted sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, parks, and other areas where children gather. It was first adopted in Florida in 2005 after nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was snatched from her home, before being raped and murdered by a convicted paedophile. Today, a version is in force in 42 US states. Critics say it has made major cities off-limits to offenders, forcing some to declare themselves homeless, and ghettoising others. There is little evidence that it works. Many police forces say it has the opposite effect: stretching resources and doing nothing to prevent paedophiles travelling to commit crimes.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

cikaris
[info]cikaris wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:46 am (UTC)
If pedophiles need a place to live and Jessica's law does nothing to prevent them from traveling to commit crimes there is an obvious solution to the problem. Lock 'em up in prison where they can get the psychiatric treatment they obviously need! And as in Garrido's case, how about convicted sex offenders actually serving the entirety of their prison term? Also, if they serve their time and get help in prison and they get out and do it again, the answer is even more obvious at that point! Lock 'em up and throw away the key! Better safe then sorry.

To sum up: Prison with help, then release when done, and when necessary prison again (indefinitely).

Easy as following the directions on a shampoo bottle.
Re: cikaris
[info]fulkehunke wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 07:30 am (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not that simple. You cannot just undo someones sexual orientation. A shrink could neither make a heterosexual man into a homosexual man, nor can they make a pedophiles into anything else. The fact is if we live in a society that bases it's laws on the protection of children and we view pedophilia as a violation of those laws, then the protection of children must be the priority. To that end treatment is a waste of money, why not allow the shrinks to admit defeat and if we as a society are brave enough, terminate those accused of such crimes, or why not spend the cost of treatment on the permanent incarceration of such offenders. I for one would pay a child protection tax each month out of may wages to keep them off the streets, it's not just governments,the police and other agencies problem, it's everyone's. You cannot judge the success or not of Megans' law and Jessica's law because you cannot determine how many children it has protected you can only point out the failure rate. Permanent solutions require tougher laws and lots more money.
Re: cikaris
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
I agree, it is a very difficult issue, unlikely to be solved in the space afford by a Daily Mail headline.

They are in a real sense incurable but we do not lock sick people up. However, perhaps we need some more creative way of handling this. Perhaps hostels or asylums?

We do not want to go back to the Turing approach (jail or oestrogen).
Re: cikaris
[info]cikaris wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
Wow! I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek here and I did not expect such thoughtful responses! It’s a shame we have just these little boxes to make our comments but we have to live with it.
Just a few quick points. Re: fulkhunke, I do not think it is fair or correct to lump in pedophilia with homosexuality. What consenting adults do, even if we do not prefer to do the same, is not at issue. Granted, pedophilia does constitute a kind of ‘orientation’, it is not normal or healthy for anyone, least of all the pedophile’s victim. As far as treatment is concerned, apparently some mental health experts believe that even if the orientation of the pedophile might not be capable of being changed his behavior can and the thought process that leads to the molestation of a child can be consciously avoided. To put it bluntly, if you avoid looking at pornography you avoid quite a bit of sexual arousal. In other words, as the old saying goes, the patient can change but he has to want to. If a convicted pedophile knows and feels that he has done something wrong and is willing to change his pattern of thinking and feeling that leads up to or stimulates the act of molestation then he can do it. So change is possible.
Re: Jessica, Megan, and Adam Walsh laws. So far the courts have upheld them which is why they are being enforced. How effective they are is debatable but if even one child has been spared then I would say they are worth it. But we have to ask why were these laws enacted in the first place! Because the legal establishment was (and clearly still is) not doing what they should – protecting children properly from these predators. People want to know if there is a pedo in their neighborhood because the police clearly don’t know or care as shown by the case of Garrido. The neighbors complained years before and the police didn’t know who or what this guy was and just let him be!
Bottom line: Ordinary, decent, law abiding parents are worried and angry and they have a right to be and should be. If the politicians and police do not do their job it is only a matter of time before people take the matter in their own hands. If the authorities don’t want that they had better start doing their job. Again, why was Garrido sentenced to 50 years and only served 11 years?! Incredible. Prison, hostel, asylum - call it whatever - they must be removed and isolated for evaluation, treatment (if possible) or else life imprisonment. As for executing the more violent murderous offenders, that should be left up to each state (as it presently is). Society has a right to defend itself.
Re: cikaris
[info]fulkehunke wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
To be clear I was not "lumping" anything in, I was merely demonstrating sexual orientation, unfortunately you have lost sight of the issue and muddied the water. By introducing what we already know is a lawful activity into the debate takes the emphasis off child protection. Political or religious views should not count in the protection of children. The fact is there is only one way of stopping a pedophile from re-offending and that to separate him from society. If a university or a shrink wants to pay to study pedophiles in incarceration then let them, if the righteous want to pray for them then let them,however the tax payer should only pay for them to be separated from society. This isn't about punishment or retribution its about child safety,I don't care if they have a disco with jelly and ice cream every night, It's a solution that can be implemented very quickly and have instant results. Ian Brady has killed no other children since he was locked up. Politicians don't want this because of the costs involved. Politicians need to stop listening to shrinks who think they have the answer and look at the practical basic solution.
Re: cikaris
[info]cikaris wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)
Just to be clear: "the tax payer should only pay for them to be separated from society"?

How long should they be separated? For life? The could get quite expensive!

I believe in second chances for non-violent offenders. The violent ones will have to separated for life.

As for the murderous ones who have killed who cannot be separated safely and are likely to kill again, they obviously will have to terminated with extreme prejudice.

Re: cikaris
[info]fulkehunke wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 04:11 pm (UTC)
your man Garrido got a second chance? Yes they should be separated for life. Yes it costs a lot of money.Yes you will pay more tax. In the long run most of these offenders will re-offend, costing money in police,courts etc, it all works out the same in the end.
It's time for tough choices, no pedophile commits his crime in front of a police officer or in full public view. They choose to commit offenses in such a manner as to evade detection. Non of them enjoy the thought of incarceration for life. Therefore once caught and convicted of a sexual crime against a child, then no second chances. You become the property of the state on the assumption based on the statistics that you will re-offend. No expensive treatment programs, no silly ideas of castration. You stay isolated from society for the protection of innocent children no matter what the cost. It's not punishment it's protection.
Re: cikaris
[info]cikaris wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:16 pm (UTC)
My man Garrido? The man is a violent offender! I just said that "violent ones will have to be separated for life." So we agree in his case and similar cases.

But we disagree in other cases. I do believe that non-violent first time offenders should be evaluated for the possibility of treatment. There are a range of offenders and offenses that deserve careful consideration.

It would not be fair or right to treat everyone the same. But judging by some other comments many people would like to do that to an extreme, e.g. the barbaric suggestion below to "kill them all..."

I could see a time when the public is so frustrated that they will demand to "kill them all." But I would not want to live in such a society. I think we agree on that as well.

But we agree to disagree on the non-violent offenders. Yeah? We'll just to have to leave it at that.

Thanks for the give and take. Cheers.
Re: cikaris
[info]acidpen wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:56 pm (UTC)
its not a difficult issue at all, kill them all, why waste time and money on the lowest of all scum on earth, in fact we should auction the job of killing them to the highest bidder and give the money to the victims families. Or we could just use them for medical tests and experimentation.
Sex offenders' register: Megan's and Jessica's laws
[info]west129 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:35 am (UTC)
The article correctly points to the problems with laws that are pushed by do-gooders playing on emotions rather than the use of rational reasoning.

The law is a nightmare and enforcement is a waste of resources. The definition of "sex offender" is so encompassing that a lot of us would be qualified to carry that label. You are one of them if you ever needed to use the bathroom and since there was none you relieved yourself behind a car or bush and someone from the public saw you. Did you ever "moon" anyone? Worst of all, if you were 17 years old and had sex with your 16 year old girlfriend that is ok in some of the states while in other states you are required to register as a sex offender.

Welcome to the USA the nation of puritans where you can’t just wee-wee when you feel your bladder is busting. You just will have to wet into our pants because this is socially more acceptable.
Reform needed, but Jessica's Law still effective.
[info]ydef wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 04:47 am (UTC)
Jessica's law has been a boon in removing immediate threats of repeat offenders from metropolitan areas by simply banishing them all. Yes, there needs to be more longsighted reform, such as fixing the sex offender register to be more focused and opening up more rehabilitation and psychiatric services for released sex offenders in more remote areas.

It's true that it doesn't necessarily stop offenses because offenders can simply travel to commit their crimes in city metropolitans, but it does remove the threat of offenders in the immediate vicinity that are prone to commit spontaneous, spur of the moment offenses in a temporary heat of the moment weakness that would not happen should the offender be required to premeditate a lengthy travel arrangement to plan a kidnapping. There have got to be some offenders that fall in the former category that are precluded from becoming a repeat offender due to Jessica's Law and for this reason alone it has been effective, but too narrow in its affectiveness perhaps to metropolitans. Though this is where a far greater number of people reside.
These Laws DO NOT WORK
[info]cajajo5 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
The Jessica, Megan and now Adam Walsh Act are unconstitutional, useless, and endanger far more children than they protect. People lump all 'sex offenders' into one category - a pervert with an insatiable appetite for children. The media feeds their fear with their sensationalized stories on the extremely rare crime of stranger abduction. Never do you see the US Dept of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics figures about 'sex offenders', namely that they have the lowest recidivism rate of any crime except murder and your child is least safe in his/her own home, where over 90% of offenses against them are by family members or trusted friends. The laws are now such that if you piss someone off, they can yell 'rape' or 'he touched me' and you can count on the rest of your life being ruined. 95% of all cases end in pleas and hearsay evidence is allowed for the 'victim' while the defendant isn't allowed to produce evidence in his defense. Land of the Free? My ass.
Re: These Laws DO NOT WORK
[info]lima_charlie wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
Yup - The image of the predatory paedophile, prowling the streets, waiting to abduct and abuse children, is one that is endlessly repeated in the media because it plays to some of our worst fears. While I would never go so far as to say such people don't exist, it's important to remember that the majority of sexual abuse that takes place against children is committed in the home by family members or close friends of the family. We shouldn't let disproportionate fear rule our lives (and laws) and where vigilance is required, it should be focused on where it matters most.
I do not get it?
[info]gloriapower wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:52 am (UTC)
I disagree. Perhaps if a neighbor had watched the site the people would have busted before the poor woman had two children.
No cure for pedophilia?
[info]twellian057 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
How about chemical (or physical) castration?
Re: No cure for pedophilia?
[info]sharksharp wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 07:03 am (UTC)
Yes indeed! Castration should be added to sentences for the ones which have been proved guilty! And who the hell would integrates sick people like these back into the society? It is like trying to make an insane serial killer with drive for massacres with "little voices in his head that say: kill, crush and destroy" into a kindergarden teacher. I am also not against branding most serious offenders so that they can always be distinguished and children could be taught never to go anywhere near people with, say for instance big "P" on the forehead.
No cure for paedophiles. A solution is needed
[info]prof_use wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)
I first read about Paedophilia in 1977 in the Sunday Times. As a young person I read about PIE, the paedophile information exchange which was there to enable abuse networks to form. This was way before the internet and I think there was a big scandal in England. I remember almost laughing in that PIE had an age catagory for sexual interest 0-3 years old! What was up with these people? Freaks. I don't think I appreciated how dangerous they were

During the following years we heard more about child sexual abuse. Whenever the news stories arrived there was usually a string of convictions attached to the abuser or a recent release from jail.

Now over 30 years later having met psychiatrists during the intervening years I have come to accept that the paedophile will always be one. Both physical and chemical castration are ineffective. Their brains are wired up wrong and it's a power thing driven by a malfunctioning innate sex drive. We can't cure it. It also seems that the authorities are incapable of looking after them in the community, UK and USA.

I would always have a reasonable doubt about the security of girls and boys with a paedophile about. I can not see an effective care in the community solution. So what am I suggesting? Well I suppose on conviction you could put them in jail until they die, kill them or put them in an inaccessible community somewhere. Maybe we should put them on an isolated island where they can subsist and just leave them there.

None of the solutions sound very good but the alternative is even worse. We can't have these people left in our communities without adequate supervision. Adequate supervision doesn't yet exist so we need to do something until then. Anyone got a better idea?
Re: No cure for paedophiles. A solution is needed
[info]vgnwtch wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC)
Circles of Support & Accountability is a very effective programme for sex offenders. Of course, it relies on volunteers, as any government proposing such an evidence-based approach would be branded a child-hating, victim-blaming, criminal-loving monster. We love to take difficult issues and over-simplify them to the point where we can lump a group together and pour out our bile upon them; it's much easier in the short term than actually investing in creating a safer, fairer, more sustainable society. Policy - and general public debate - is not driven by evidence, but by macho posturing in which the topic of discussion is boiled down to a simple choice between Loony Left and Punitive Right, with the latter positioned as the only moral choice.
Re: No cure for paedophiles. A solution is needed
[info]fulkehunke wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 06:18 pm (UTC)
Very admirable, however it still places children at risk. Multi agency approaches are also very expensive and rely on to much communication between individuals from different agencies and the offender. We all know one set of personalty clashes in a work based environment causes many problems, personality clashes between groups who all want the upper hand and assume they are correct leads to mistakes. All of society wants pedophiles to be rehabilitated and lead normal lives in the community, but the reality is to do so they need constant almost childlike supervision and they still pose a risk. To eliminate that risk you need to isolate them from society, it's effective from day one. The truth isn't political, but it is hard to swallow sometimes.
Now the tourists attraction just wait a see we all want to know we are snoopy and gossipers and we w
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:25 pm (UTC)
Guy Adams Walnut Avenue Now the tourists attraction just wait a see we all want to know we are snoopy and gossipers and we will go there with the camersa nd tapes to listen to all the others to tell our families who will in turn want to go and so the population booms This place is turning money and FBI and CIA will one day be pleased
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it" we will do more then that we will bring this place up, restaurants and all will go boom buses loads a and taxis not available
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
[info]jamesregal wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC)
No offense to victims and families of violent sexual offenses by sexually dangerous persons such as the case in this article, but GPS monitoring and registration under the current and potential legislation is INSANE! Please read on...

Readers, you may find this difficult to believe, I did at first, but as debated in this article, there are kids as young as 10 on the sex offender registry for “playing doctor” no violence involved; Kids as young as 12 for pinching another kid on the butt just joking around; a long and rapidly growing list of teens for “consensual sexual activity” (statutory rape), and men for public urination on the golf course; think about how many men will this one put on the registry and wearing GPS devices!

How many people, including kids as young as 14, will we allow to be prosecuted, incarcerated, subjected to barbaric and abusive treatment (see Plethysmographs, Masturbatory Satiation, Arousal Reconditioning, Cognitive Restructuring of juveniles) and then forced to register as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives before we bring an end to this insanity and enact sound legislation that protects our kids from violent and sexually dangerous persons?

The current legislation, although very well intended, has seriously failed the true victims of violent sexual assault crimes and their families! And, it has resulted in what a growing number of citizens believe were unintended consequences for potentially over 95% of all youth and young adults, "including young girls" who are being tried and convicted as sex offenders at an alarming rate across our nation (see Aug 6th Economist cover story: America’s Unjust and Ineffective Sex Laws).

A growing number of concerned Citizens are joining in the effort nation-wide to immediately bring an end to this insanity before an entire generation is lost and registered as sex offenders.

Legislators, please, please reconsider and change/enact legislation immediately to stop this insanity and re-write legislation that truly protects our children from violent and sexually dangerous persons!
number of offenders
[info]jaysheckley wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
this link here
http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Antioch-California.html
says
"According to our research of the California and other state lists there were 96 registered sex offenders living in Antioch in May 2009.
The ratio of number of residents in Antioch to the number of sex offenders is 1044 to 1.
The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this city is near the state average."

san francisco has over 200 sex offenders listed, at half the resident ratio above but likely more per block or square mile.
quite a few also in berkeley ca where i live, and where the local university police met this particular creep parading his two daughters by his enslaved captive

counselors are available in all 3 cities.
Sentencing in the USA
[info]vivienclare wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:03 pm (UTC)
Bernie Madoff who never physically hurt anyone, but cheated them of their money, got 150 years in jail. Garrido got 50 years in 1977. He served 10 and was released. Why? If he had served 50 years how many children would have been safe? It is the same in the UK. Crimes against property always seem to attract heavier sentences. A person who has raped children should be kept in jail as long as possible for the protection of the population. Let's concentrate on the rights of the innocent and less on the rights of the guilty.
Re: Sentencing in the USA
[info]zantafio wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
That's a good point... if he was in for 50 why on earth was he released after 10...
Easy To Criticize When You Don't Live There
[info]davisfreeberg wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
This article is terrible and completely misrepresents the city of Antioch. First off, the area that you're referring to isn't even within city limits. It's government by East Contra Costa County. This more than anything allowed Garrido to get away with lax supervision. The officer that came to his home wasn't from the Antioch PD, they were from the sherriff's office which is responsible for a very large area. Secondily, the astronomically high number of sex offenders in 94509 that you cite is actually pretty normal for the area. A mere 20 miles away in Concord, there are over 100 offenders living in their city. To make it seem like Antioch is trying to attract them misrepresents the scope of the problem. How can you have 90000 sex offenders in California and not have at least 100 of them in your neighborhood? While you're correct in pointing out that this list is so large that it's hard for people to stay on top of it, to somehow blame "minor" sex offenses seems really misguided. Giving more information to the public won't hurt them and while flashing a bunch of school kids may not sound like a big deal, I'll point out that Garrido admitted that his perversion started in the same way. As far as the local news is concerned, what you've printed is outright lies. The East Contra Costa Times has provided extensive coverage as has the Antioch Grove. I'd also point out that the Antioch press has provided prompt updates as well. To pretend that the local residents aren't just as shocked and outraged by this shows a deep ignorance of our local culture. While this event is terrible, you're classifying Antioch as a pedofile ghetto is both misguided and wrong. While I know it's tempting to try and blame others for the sickness of one guy, it's wrong to slander an entire city when you're facts are so obviously suspect.
Re: Easy To Criticize When You Don't Live There
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 05:09 am (UTC)
Easy To Criticize When You Don't Live There
THE REPORTERS AND TV GET THE BREAD OUT OF SADDAM, DEAD FEET OUT, HIS HEAD DOWN TOES SHOWING LIKE A DUCK DEAD. BUT THAT IS LIFE. IT TAKES ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE TO MAKE THIS WORLD A BEAUTIFUL PLACE
Real Men Do Wear 'Pink'
By Colin M. Graham By dressing ourselves in high-end fashions are we to become nothing more than walking advertisements, eager to announce to the world 'this is where my clothes are from' as if that actually says something important about the wearer? At this rate, people will be seen walking the streets looking like a professional race car driver, but instead of being dotted with patches announcing the driver's affiliation with Mobil, Bridgestone and Lowes, they'll announce that your underwear is made by Armani, sandals by Cole Haan, jeans from J. Crew and sunglasses by Prada - your shirt will not need any explanation however, the pomegranate sized polo pony will say it all.
As I was dressing, I decided to pull one of the two new Thomas Pink shirts I got for my birthday off my closet rack and take it out on an inaugural run as it were. It was a nice looking shirt with a few interesting touches that caught my eye: the fabric was a pink check with the Thomas Pink logo (a sitting fox for those that don't know) on the left breast embroidered in the same light blue thread that attached the buttons and accented the button holes on the cuffs and the very last button on the shirt tail, but it wasn't until I went to roll up the double button cuff that one particular addition caught my eye: on the inside of the right cuff was embroidered the word “Pink" in pink thread.
http://www.hamptons.com/Hamptons-Style/After-Shave/8665/Real-Men-Do-Wear-Pink.html
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla

how can s.o get pregnant from molesting ?
[info]kimberly177 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 06:33 pm (UTC)
The article states that "Gaxiola, was convicted of molesting a 12-year-old girl and impregnating her". How does that work ? IMHO, if a 12-year-old child gets pregnant, you call it rape. Does the author of the article not know the difference between rape and molestation ?

As to sex offenders: they have proven thousands of time, that they don't change. Lock them up forever or kill them. And that so-called "human rights activists" in the face of these atrocities DARE to oppose laws designed to protect the victims because of the rights of the offenders .... that just sheds light on the moral constitution of such activists. Apparently, the rights of sadists and monsters are closer to their hearts than the rights and the lives of schoolgirls.
Sickening.
Is the law at fault?
[info]1maia wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:08 pm (UTC)
The article starts by asking whether Jessica's law&Megan's law are the problem, before suggesting two solutions by implication, 1. more officers or a specialised force in the area, (if it is a paedophile ghetto), and 2.drastic editing of the paedophile database list, restricting it to more serious sexual offences. It would have been interesting if the article could have discussed evidence/issues for and against these.
From Stuart Masters' 'a life backwards' it seems that, scarily, some children abuse others sexually without any precedent, in which case it is innate.
Re: Is the law at fault?
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 05:16 am (UTC)
Is the law at fault?
YES THEY COULD HAVE FOUND HER IN 2006 AFTER FINDING HER IN 2009 I THINK IS INSANE UNGRATEFUL LAZY TO EAT UNLESS WE CHEW AND FEED THEM BY STRAW BUT I LIKE THE NEWS. THIS PLACE HAS BECOME POPULAR WHY YOU SPOIL THE FUN? LET ME TAKE YOU THERE AND SHOW YOU THE BONES I FOUND NO LAW ON THAT IS THERE?
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
sex offenders
[info]barb3000 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 11:15 pm (UTC)
I have one answer for these men. Neuter them just like you would a male dog/cat or other male animal on the first offense. This will remove the uncontrollable sexual urges that drive these men to commit such crimes as these. There is no rehabilitation on earth that works. Once they are turned loose they always repeat. The reason this is not a law already on the books is that most judges / lawyers and prosecutors are male and the idea of doing this to another male is repugnant to them. This would save the tax payer millions in the long run and save a lot of lives along the way.
Liar reporter
[info]alphabionic wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 02:36 am (UTC)
What a piece of crap fluff article. Bad reporter! The parole agents or any of the others that were suppose to monitor this rapist were dferelect in their duty. They should all be fired and then prosecuted, but they won't be because of their powerful unions that own the states politicians.
NEUTERING DOES NOT WORK
[info]everyonesxwife wrote:
Friday, 4 September 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
Hello Barb3000,

I'm sorry, but castration does not work.
The sexual impulses that drive child molesters and rapists are not hormonal, like normal sexual desires in "normal" people. It has nothing to do with testosterone, etc.
They are driven by sick, depraved mental desires.
Desires to control, to dominate. to seduce, to own, to destroy.
It has little to do with sex itself. That is why "normal" men and women do not suddenly become rapists or molesters. They don't just wake up one day and think, "Maybe I'll try abduction and rape today, just for somenew new..."

I was molested and raped for 14 years by a man in his 60's (when I was a baby, toddler, small child, then pre-teen). As he aged he lost the ability to become erect and to ejaculate, but he found new ways to assault me. He raped me with other parts of his body (fingers, toes, hands, etc.) and objects, even used his pets to sexually assault me.

EVERYONE needs to understand that CASTRATION DOES NOT WORK. DRUGS DON'T WORK. TREATMENT/THERAPY DOES NOT WORK. They are compelled by deviant sexual desires and mental images and will persue their chosen victims until the day they day. THEY ARE NEVER SAFE.

Thank you.

"paedophile ghetto" ignores facts
[info]allan_f wrote:
Friday, 4 September 2009 at 03:05 pm (UTC)
The article is not only misleading, but completely non-factual, in spite of all the references. Consider facts which are easily verifiable:

1) The California Megan's law website provides information on over 63,000 registered offenders. California's total population is 36,800,000. So the rate of offenders is .17%.
2) Antioch's population is about 100,000 with 122 offenders. Rate: .12% So Antioch is well below the state average for registered sex offenders.
3) In spite of Mr. Swisher's claims, Megan's law has not made major cities off-limits to offenders:
Los Angeles .08% (that's 3,228 offenders!)
San Jose .13%
Oakland .14%
Sacramento .33% (that's not a typo, and this is the state capital)
4) In spite of Mr. Terry's claims, there are only 933 registered offenders in Contra Costa County (rate .09%).
I'm not saying that you've just made things up. However, all the sources you quote are unreliable and have their own biases. The LA Times bias is obvious (it's a Northern vs. Southern California rivalry). With so many offenders in LA, they have nothing to talk about. The Sherriff's department is embarrassed because Garrido was in their jurisdiction (the incorporated part of Antioch is covered by their own police force).
Mr. Swisher's bias is most glaring, and his exaggerations the most obvious. The ACLU wants to overturn the Megan's laws, and will say whatever seems to bolster their case. However, if there's "almost nowhere in the whole of Los Angeles and San Francisco where they can now legally settle", how do 3,791 offenders manage to live there?
Fact checking is a good thing!
The Registry is a Farce but a Boon to Opportuistic Politicians and Sound Bite Media
[info]suetiggers wrote:
Friday, 4 September 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
WHO’S ON THE REGISTRY???

The truly dangerous make up between 1% and 5% of the total population (and growing) of people forced with the label and stigma of sex offender. Most do not deserve the label just as many who are in U.S. prisons don't belong there either. The prison system, esp. the Super Max system has become a for-profit business, which gives more political power to a state but also brings in additional funding. It is one of the main reasons that prisons are as overcrowded as they are. Crimes that in the past would have gotten a fine or short stay in jail now are putting people in prison for much longer periods.



MEN WHO ARE NOT DANGEROUS DO NOT BELONG ON THE SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRY

People on the registry (far too many innocent or not dangerous) have been murdered, committed suicide, had their homes set on fire, been evicted, lost their jobs,etc.. Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life. One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.
Eighty-seven percent of people who were arrested for sex crimes had not previously been convicted study.of such an offense, according to a 1997 study. Just 14 percent of all sexual assault cases involved strangers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Who is on the Registry?
1. Romeo and Juliet liasons, false accusations of vindictive teens against an older teen (18 or 19)
2.False accusation by vindictive parents in child custody cases and/or family feuds- There are more of these than most people would believe. There are many reports of people who admit to having lied about being molested when they were younger. Now they would like to have the person wrongly convicted on their testimony set free.
3.mutual consensual sex- but being 3 yrs. and 1 day older than the willing teen (can bring and has brought multiple felony indictments)
4. Sex between consenting teen prostitute (who looks older and even may have lied about her age) with an adult male
5. Criminal charges that later are dropped for insufficient proof but not appealed in time, so still on registry
The number of true dangerous pedaphiles is relatively small. But check out the registry. You're liable to see people who look like your mailman, grocery clerk,etc.etc. And ones who look like they fit the profile could be the least guilty and vice verse. But the numbers are growing exponentially. And as long as politicians and the media can make hay (or reputations) out of this issue, it will breed fear and hysteria and ruin men (mostly) and their families lives who do not deserve to have this happen ! Where are the churches on this issue? Where are people who say they care about justice? Watch MSNBC’s documentary, Witch Hunt brought to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the way the laws have changed and are now abusing innocent people or people who are not dangerous by Sean Penn and two courageous filmmakers. .
To learn more, go to RSOL (Reform Sex Offender Laws ) or F.A.S.T. (False Allegation Support Team) http://false-allegations-team.com/fasthelp.html http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/index.php
[info]lutrian wrote:
Saturday, 5 September 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC)
I believe cities such as Antioch should sue the state to either have Jessica's law invalidated, or to require that the state provides the funding that they need to properly handle the influx of registered predators. I also feel that Megan's law should be narrowed in scope to only require registration of violent sex offenders, and crimes against children which fall outside of the normal statutory rape criteria. I believe programs must be funded, not dumped on other communities and turned into their problems.
Rubbish
[info]muscledude wrote:
Sunday, 6 September 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
This story is complete rubbish. Neither Megan's Law nor Jessica's Law caused these isolated pedophile "towns", they existed before the laws were even enacted. Megan's Law as enacted in 1994 (3 years after Jaycee's abduction) and Jessica's Law was enacted in November 2006. That it would create rural pedophile townships was certainly an argument against it at the time, but there's no evidence that it has had that effect. Again, these scumbags have congregated well before the laws even existed. Furthermore, there has not been ONE SINGLE incident of vigilantism from Megan's Law in the 15 years it has been around. However, it has proven to be a very useful tool in determining who to watch out for. Where I live, there is one registered sex offender nearby who has on numerous occasions attempted to approach teenage boys, and knowledge of his history has absolutely kept him in check. So, if we're not going to incarcerate these offenders for life, for which the recidivism rate is extremely high, then at the very least we have the right to know who they are and where they're at.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date