Punishing sex criminals: a conversation with the author of Chelsea's Law

California sends about 2% of its imprisoned sex offenders to Coalinga State Hospital for rehabilitation, even after their sentences are complete. However, most sex offenders are released on parole once they’ve served their prison term. This system has been heavily criticized since registered sex offender John Gardner pled guilty to raping and killing two teenage girls a few years ago in Southern California.

In the wake of those murders, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, a Republican from San Diego, introduced Chelsea’s Law, a bill named after one of Gardner’s victims, Chelsea King. The bill was signed into law last September and took effect immediately.

Chelsea’s Law does a few things. It gives judges the option of sentencing someone to life without parole in the case of a forcible sex crime against a child. It increases the time some released sex offenders must spend on parole. And it creates a risk assessment system for identifying which sex offenders need more treatment and supervision.

In this interview conducted after Chelsea's Law was passed, KALW’s Rina Palta called up Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, to discuss why it was necessary.

*     *     *

NATHAN FLETCHER: Well, let's go back to John Gardner. John Gardner comes out of prison, he has a mental health evaluation when he's released that says, "Do not let him out – he will reoffend, he will hurt young girls again." That was the mental health evaluation, but they didn't have a choice – they let him out, they put him on parole. While he was on parole, he has seven parole violations. You know, seven different times he violates parole, and a lot of them are things that when you talk to experts in the field, are indicators. Marijuana possession, who he's hanging out with, these types of things. So his risk assessment should have gone up, and he should have been afforded more attention and more resources, where someone who is in full compliance and doing the right thing, you probably don't need as much attention or as many resources.

So with a dynamic risk assessment, what we're really trying to do is allow corrections to really focus and prioritize on the people that are most likely to reoffend.

RINA PALTA: On that note, has there been any talk around the capitol of perhaps reforming some of the laws regarding sex offenders that are already on the books that tend to come in the way of CDCR? Like Jessica's Law, obviously the 290 categorization, I think is well-documented that it's overly broad. Has there been any talk about cleaning up these old laws that are on the books?

FLETCHER: Yeah, a number of things came up as we went through this process. One, the initiative is hard because some things you have to go back to the voters on. We aren't writing a bill for all sex offenders. There's nothing in my bill that deals with the 18-year-old or the 17-year-old girlfriend. There's nothing in my bill that deals with the guy that gets drunk and pees on the sidewalk or in the alley. We really tried to focus our efforts specifically who violently, sexually go after young children. So there were conversations about it but at the end of day, a lot of the laws were strengthened but they weren't really addressed or cleaned up.

PALTA: Similarly, I just want to get a sense from you how much you think this bill is going to accomplish. We have thousands and thousands of sex crimes, something like 9,000 a year in California, and our recidivism rate for sex offenders within five years is remarkably lower than one would think – it's only about 4%. So it seems like we are targeting a very small number of people in this bill. What do you think about the amount of resources that is going to have to be dedicated to this bill versus what kind of dent it's going to make in these kinds of crimes that are committed?

FLETCHER: I think it's a very fair question. On the resources question, you know I've talked about how we've offset the costs, but it's still a question – you are going to spend resources. I really think that somebody that violently, sexually goes after a young child is just a different category criminal. And I think it's just a different level of evil. I think that you should focus your attention on those people, so I think the life without parole option, while it may not apply to a large number of people, is certainly going to apply to a category of people who unfortunately I just don't think we can let back out into society. I think it's a good thing to do.

In terms of the increased parole periods, what you're doing is taking people that you fear are likely to reoffend. All of those are forcible, violent sex crimes against children under the age of 14, which is particularly heinous. All of the parole increases are only if the victim is under 14 because we drew that as a point at which we think it's a greater offense because the child is so much younger. And we really just said, "How do we provide the resources to focus to get them when they get released to monitor them and track them and get them the treatment that they need?" And while some stats may point to low recidivism rates, when you look at the number of sex crimes that go unreported, it's staggering. One estimate I read had 85% of them go unreported. In 2001, the Department of Justice did a study of Florida where they did polygraphs on sex offenders who had gone after children, and they found that on average, those people had been committing offenses for 14 years before they got caught the first time and had something like 200 victims. I mean it was staggering, it was really shocking, the DOJ study.

So, the recidivism rate may be low, but I think when you look at the number of unreported crimes that go, it's still a very, very serious thing.

PALTA: I just sort of wonder, and I'm not sure if this is true or not, if these laws do give people a false sense of security and make them less alert to the signs of their child being abused...

FLETCHER: Sure, there's nothing in our bill that stops the first offense. And so, I think parents have to be really vigilant in terms of watching their kids, where they go, who they're around, and knowing the signs. I think what we can do is when you have the proper warning that someone's going to reoffend, then you have to do everything in your power to prioritize that person and focus on that person and keep them away from kids, and that's kind of what we're trying to do.

Listen to the extended version of Rina Palta’s interview with Nathan Fletcher here.