A 2017 California law that reducing mandatory penalties for youthful offenders applied to all crimes, including non-capital murders, except for violent sex offenses.
That law was challenged and an appellate court struck it down. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “Although sex crimes can be horrific and worthy of severe punishment, “there is no crime as horrible as intentional first-degree murder” and no rational basis for treating rapists more harshly than murderers, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco stated in a ruling that, if it stands, will require earlier parole hearings in all such cases.”
The Court’s opinion stated, “While a sentencing scheme can rationally express the public’s distaste for sex offenders, it cannot limit their opportunity for eventual parole more harshly than it limits those who commit intentional first-degree murder.”
This is an opinion that registrants should keep in their pocket, specifically if popped for registry offenses or SO parole / probation restrictions. And coming from a female judge, no less…
When some see the term ‘sex offense’ they automatically relate it to violence, which of course is usually not the case. I asked a dear lady friend of mine one day if she would rather have a carjacker put a gun to her head or have someone ‘cop a fee-lie’? The carjacker lost in that contest. While no sex offense is justifiable, there are other crimes that are much more violent and have much longer standing impacts on people’s lives. This is why decisions on punishment and restoration must be made based on the circumstances and not a legal term established by some legislative process and applied to a whole range of acts.
he will get a walk it is clear no video no breath test no case
https://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/sex-offenders-moved-from-bayside-hotel/article_c9e633cb-ed10-51a2-a3e9-74b616dfb52f.html