AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORECoach Doc Rivers a “fan” from way back of Jazz’s Jordan ClarksonYet even with Jessica’s Law on the books, State Corrections Secretary James Tilton told Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Sex Offender Management Board in October that his department was removing GPS devices from 500 ex-convicts who had completed parole – regardless of the lifetime monitoring requirement. And 160 more ex-parolees have been freed from monitoring since then. Not only are the whereabouts of these offenders unknown, but the state’s ability to enforce Jessica’s Law’s residency requirements is severely undercut. The reason, according to the governor’s board, is that Proposition 83 was too vague about certain key details. First among them: Which authorities – state or local – would be responsible for monitoring the offenders? And, by extension, who’s responsible for paying the $7 to $33 a day it takes to keep tabs on each one? The board says it’s trying to come up with an answer to those questions. Meanwhile, offenders who complete their parole can carry on as they have before. Apparently the politicians who wrote Jessica’s Law – state Sen. George Runner and his wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, both R-Lancaster, did a great job coming up with tough-sounding promises, and a less impressive job of codifying them into law. There are, as of last count, about 660 convicted sex offenders wandering free around California, not wearing the monitoring devices that Jessica’s Law requires. And state officials say there’s nothing they can do about it. That ought to come as a shock to California voters, who overwhelmingly approved Jessica’s Law at the polls last year – under the promise that the state would finally get tough on child predators. Turns out we were had, again. Proposition 83, its proponents told us, would stiffen penalties for sex offenders. It would prohibit released sex criminals from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. And it would require them to wear satellite tracking devices for the rest of their lives. And countless other state politicians – from the governor and the attorney general all the way down – happily backed the measure because it was “tough on crime,” even though it was light on details. Voters don’t read the fine print or the legal mumbo-jumbo on ballot initiatives, nor should they be expected to. It’s reasonable to expect that a measure does what it’s designed to do, and that the politicians, their lawyers and their staffers will take care of the logistical questions. In this case, the voters did their job, but the politicians have not. And the result, as usual, is a “reform” that’s a far cry from what the politicians advertised.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!