California's Proposition 64 Discriminates Against Sex Offenders.
As a criminal justice advocate, I am strongly in favor of bills that scale back harsh and overly punitive laws. Knowing how difficult it is for a “felon” to find a job and housing, it was exciting to read about California’s Proposition 64 that would allow people convicted of certain drug felonies for possession, transportation or cultivation of marijuana to petition to have those felonies reduced to misdemeanors.
Recently, Californians voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. To accompany that and offer a remedy those convicted under the harsh laws created during the “war on drugs”, Proposition 64 would allow those convicted while it was illegal to petition to have that conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.
It seemed a reasonable measure, until I read on to discover the bill would exclude sex offenders. Huh?!?! What’s the connection? The Proposition doesn’t distinguish “sex offenders who used drugs to impair their victims” or “sex offenders who provided marijuana to children”. It excludes all persons required to register as sex offenders from relief under this bill.
Can anyone find a rational connection?
It does not have to be rationale when regarding sex offenders. Rationalization is not used at all…
Find a rational connection?……..in the South it’s known as Jim Crow laws. Seems the same mentality has migrated to the west. coast. You can be sure though that the real reason for excluding Registered Citizens has EVERYTHING to do with a politician wanting to get votes for himself/herself.