Watchdog Watch, Day 3
Yep: Day 3. There was no Day 2 because this blogger wasn’t feeling too well.
If you’ve not been following this whole deal, we’ve been urging the Watchdog Institute (the nonprofit investigative reporting off-shoot of the San Diego Union-Tribune) to correct false information in a story published on Nov. 29—specifically information contained in the lead and in accompanying charts. Here’s the lead:
More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.
That’s not correct. Jessica’s Law, which restricts where some sex offenders can live, applies only to sex offenders who were released from prison after the law was passed. There are roughly 430 individuals in San Diego County who fall into that category and all of them are complying with Jessica’s Law according to Adult Parole Operations. If any are found to be living too close to a school or park (they’re all being monitored by GPS), they’re arrested.
Why do we want this story corrected? Because it had a very far reach. It was picked up by the AP, TV news stations, major daily newspapers, legal blogs, discussion groups. It’s an example of how fast and far wrong information—especially hot topics like sex offenders—spreads these days. It wouldn’t have taken very long for any news organization to verify the story’s accuracy.
I ran the Watchdog Institute story and my story past the state Attorney General’s Office today and received this reply from Deputy Press Secretary Dana Simas:
I’ve spoken with our expert prosecutor of sex offenders about the retroactivity of Jessica’s Law, and you are correct. Jessica’s Law only applies to sex offenders who violated the law after the law was passed, unless they violate the law again and it becomes part of their new requirements.
So, there ya go. Watchdog, U-T: What say you now?
Update: CityBeat contributor Justin McLachlan wrote a good overview of this whole sitch on his blog. Here’s a well-put bit from it:
On one hand, we’re going to be real bold and grab headlines and say 70 percent of sex offenders are committing crimes just by virtue of where they live, but then on the other hand we’re going to spend how many ever x column inches telling our readers that, well, actually, the law is too vague and no one really knows how it should currently be enforced or if that 70 percent statistic is really accurate.
Isn’t there a more interesting report – the AVAILABILITY of housing that meets jessica law requirements? I know I am less interested in whether or not the UT got it wrong or right than the long term viaiblity of the policy. Consider the broader implications – that 70% of sex offenders WOULD be violating JL _IF_ it applied to them why? What are the long term implications of that (i.e. over time a higher percentage of sex offenders WILL be subject to the law and thus will have to live where the law abiding 430 are living)? Is isolating offenders in the more rural parts of our county (if that is the case) a good recipe to avoid/reduce chances of recidivism? Stop beating up the already dead horse. The UT NEVER did good watchdog journalism and we shouldn’t believe it ever can even if they are in a new non-profit.
This is the point, and where the story should probably have gone, maybe even where it was vaguely trying to go, with all the problems the law has created thus far. It just fell far short of that mark and irresponsibly promulgated false information far and wide.
The law in question says:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.”
The issues CityBeat has brought up appear to have been considered by the Watchdog Institute and its reporters. CityBeat’s articles appear to highlight differences in interpretation of the law and how it is applied, but that does not mean the institute’s article is wrong.
Voters passed a law in 2006 that says registered sex offenders cannot live in certain areas. Three years later, despite the law being OK’d by voters, it appears about 70 percent of San Diego County’s registered sex offenders live in areas the law says they cannot live – based on a strict reading of what the plain language of the law appears to say.
In the story, the institute’s reporters wrote the law is “nearly impossible to enforce.” If courts have ruled this law cannot be applied retroactively, that would appear to be one major reason why it is “nearly impossible to enforce.”
CityBeat appears to take the position that convicted sex offenders cannot violate a law that it says doesn’t apply to them. I applaud CityBeat for their research and tenacity on this subject. They have helped me understand this issue from another viewpoint. But again, that doesn’t mean the institute’s story is wrong.
Which interpretation of the law and facts of this case are correct? I believe readers are smart and they can weigh all sides of this issue and then come to an informed decision. So they can do that, here is the original report from the institute: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/29/jessicas-law-too-vague-enforce/
Readers do not have to agree with the Watchdog Institute’s report. But I want them to understand that the institute is aware of the issues CityBeat has brought up, and they were discussed in that story.
Also, I’d like clarify the relationship between the U-T and the Watchdog Institute. The institute was not started by the U-T, nor is it part of the U-T. It is run by a former U-T reporter, who quit her job to start the institute. The U-T provided startup money, and by doing so the U-T became the institute’s lead partner. The newspaper has never hidden this relationship. For more information, please visit: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4819
I am an employee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, but I am not a spokesman for the company. Nor am I a spokesman for the Watchdog Institute.
- Rob Hopwood
Rob, laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They are interpreted by our courts. If laws were not open to interpretation, mixed-race marriages would still be illegal and sex between two men would be considered sodomy. Thank god the courts clarified those two laws, right?
A year or so ago, I interviewed a guy who’s a registered sex offender. But he committed his offense prior to Jessica’s Law. He lives within 2,000 feet of a school. Guess what. He’s not breaking the law. He. Is. Not. Breaking. The. Law. Maybe he’s breaking the Law According to Rob Hopwood and Lorie Hearn, but he’s not breaking the law according to the state’s top prosecutor, the governor, the law’s author, or anyone else with any legal authority to enforce laws in the state of California.
One correction: I refer to the Watchdog Institute as a nonprofit. It’s not. Lorie Hearn confirmed to CityBeat contributor Justin McLachlan that they’ve not yet filed their paperwork to become a nonprofit.
Rob–
Can you please point out specifically where all the people who say the Watchdog’s interpretations of the law is wrong were mentioned in the story that the UT ran or addressed? Like I said, your credibility is suffering.
Who has to say the law isn’t retroactive before the Watchdog’s 70 percent are violating the law claim is proved wrong?
And I still would like to know why its so important for you all to distance yourselves from the Watchdog. The UT did chose to run this story, didn’t it? Does that mean nothing?
To Hmmmm: You’re absolutely right. And many cities—like San Diego—have municipal ordinances that further restrict where sex offenders can live (SD added amusement parks, arcades and libraries to the list). Sex offender laws are based on false assumptions, too—that SO’s have high recidivism rates when, in actuality, they have some of the lowest (if not the lowest).
All that aside, bad journalism shouldn’t be tolerated. A nonprofit journalism org that seeks public funding should be held to the highest standard.
Rob –
It continues to amaze me that you don’t see the sloppiness and inaccuracy in the story. They didn’t “consider” it as you suggest, except in the sense that they may have intentionally ignored it.
Let me put it very clearly for you.
You write: “Three years later, despite the law being OK’d by voters, it appears about 70 percent of San Diego County’s registered sex offenders live in areas the law says they cannot live”
This is accurate, but that is not what the Watchdog wrote. This is their lede:
“More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.”
This is not the same thing. There are two problems. First of all, it’s inaccurate. Law was found not to be retroactive. Secondly, it implies that sex offenders are thumbing their noses as the law when they are in fact complying with the law as it is applied and has been determined by a judge.
You may be right when you say that readers, when presented with the arguments, can make up their own decision. The key here is when they’re presented with it. The Watchdog’s explanation of the issue was false, no two ways around it.
This statement of yours: “If courts have ruled this law cannot be applied retroactively, that would appear to be one major reason why it is ‘nearly impossible to enforce,’” is completely fallacious. That’s like saying the rights of slavers are nearly impossible to enforce because they were repealed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Something can only be “impossible to enforce” when somebody is actively attempting to enforce it and failing, not when it’s been ruled not to be legal.
Finally, I’d like to go over some other major journalistic lapses in judgement in the story.
#1 In the story, the Watchdog Institute writes, “Attorneys for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation say voters intended to create ‘predator-free zones,’ so the law applies to all registered sex offenders.”
Not only do they not properly attribute this source or quote from them, but it is false. So far, CityBeat has directly quoted multiple Corrections department sources from this story all of whom contradict this line.
#2 The only sources the Watchdog Institute cites to back up the claim that the law is vague is a psychologist (not a lawyer or elected official) who happens to sit on the Sex Offender Management board and a police captain in Chula Vista.
If you read the other quotes carefully, at no point does a single official source confirm the Institute’s premise. Why’s this a problem? Because if they had included these sources–the Corrections Department, the Attorney General, Sen. Runner–their premise would have fallen apart.
Ultimately, the point here is that the U-T and the Watchdog Institute need to go back and reinvestigate this story, re-interview sources and do a proper determination of whether the piece was accurate and ethical.
So far, you’re the only person responsible enough to speak up about it and, no offense, but you don’t seem to get it.