«
»

Barry Levinson, the driving force of Fullerton’s sex offender ordinance discusses the despicable behavior of The Fullerton City Council in repealing Fullertons sex offender ordinance.


, , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on February 25, 2017, 11:07 am and is filed under Agenda 21, Are they turning their backs on the children?, The twighlight's last gleaming, The Way. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  1. #1 by Fullerton on February 28, 2017 - 12:42 pm

    Some questions for Barry:

    1. Wouldn’t you agree that a pedophile need not be convicted of a sex crime against children to be a pedophile? I’m sure there’s a scary number of individuals with the same desires. The only difference is they haven’t (yet) acted on those desires, or if they have, they were never caught and convicted. For this group, the ordinance you helped create is completely useless for protecting children.

    2. People of sound mind who harm children know full well in advance that their conduct is illegal. They had NO regard for the law in the first place. What makes you think that a municipal ordinance dictating where they live: (a) protect children, (b) make convicted pedophiles law-abiding citizens again?

    3. Children and adults alike congregate all over the place, often nowhere near their homes, or parks, or schools. How did that ordinance make you feel any safer about child safety?

    4. How do you feel about *other* types of felons (who need not register as offenders) living within x distance of parks and schools and other places where children congregate? I’m not disputing that sex crimes against children are especially heinous. At the same time, I don’t want my kids around anybody convicted of dealing meth, cocaine, or heroin either. That type of addiction can destroy a person’s life, if not end it prematurely, much the same way a sex offender could. How do you reconcile the myopia on sex offenders?

    5. Like you, I believe in limited government. Do you honestly have faith that government is competent enough to enforce such an ordinance? I, for one, do not. They can’t even keep track of sex offenders, so there’s no chance an ordinance such as this one has any teeth.

    I look forward to your responses.

    Reply Quote

    • #2 by Barry Levinson on March 4, 2017 - 5:01 pm

      I would like to answer all of Fullerton’s questions above.

      Question No. 1: I think the premise of your question misses the point. Your argument is that since some pedophiles have not yet been arrested and convicted, the law does not protect children. No law is perfect and added protection from those that have already been convicted of a sex crime against a minor is much, much better than no law at all!

      Question No. 2: Your conclusion that this or any other law will make them law abiding citizens of pedophiles is not what I am claiming at all. Previously convicted child sex offenders know the law and the criminal justice system better than the vast majority of citizens. If there is no legal restriction to live near a park or school in all surrounding communities, which place do you think they would feel most comfortable to live in…those cities with no residency restrictions or the one city Fullerton that has criminal penalties if they live within 2,000 feet of a school, park or day-care/nursery center. The ones where they are free to choose to live adjacent to a school, park, etc. would obviously be their first choice. The statement that they know the laws impacting them much better than the average citizen was not my conclusion but the conclusions of experts in the field, including experienced police officers.

      Question No. 3: I have learned from experts that there are two types of pedophiles. The ones that know what they do is wrong and could care less about that fact and the ones who have the urge to offend but are trying to fight their sick urges to reoffend against a child. The ones who are trying not to reoffend are the ones who would never choose to live in very close proximity of a school or park. Like a “recovering” alcoholic would try to stay away from bars where people are drinking alcohol all around him/her. A pedophile who is fighting his sick urges to reoffend would want to stay clear of places where there are many children around. Those pedophiles who purposely choose to live next to or close to a school or park are those who want to reoffend and have no moral qualms about it. These are the worst kind of pedophiles and the ones our law was trying to keep away from those areas where kids regularly congregate and many times with little or no adult supervision.

      Question No 4: Again no law is perfect but our law only dealt with child sex offenders not all sex offenders. Your question about dupe dealers impacts all citizens everywhere. It was based on the state law passed in Nov. 2006, called Jessica’s Law, which dealt with all sex offenders but had no penalties attached to it making it worthless in most situations.

      Question No. 5: I do not have a whole lot of faith in our government in general or our police department specifically. But I do know that child sex offenders are very savvy about the law as it impacts them. They will live in cities that are the safest for them. They do not for the most part want to end up back in prison. The statistics of per capita sex offenders in 2014 when our law was amended (last time I checked) showed that Fullerton had the lowest per capita population of sex offenders of any of our neighboring cities. I believe the passage of our law in 2010 had an impact on those statistics.

      Quote

    • #3 by Anna on March 5, 2017 - 12:32 pm

      Barry, you are a stand up guy and thank you for your hard work fighting for our children’s safety. Where are the rest of the dads? This is ludicrous!

      Quote
1 2 3 4 5 … 14
(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!