The Milken Roar

Comments (7)

Comments are Closed.
All The Milken Roar Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest
  • 2

    23200Dec 2, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Dear “Alex”,
    I can clearly see that you are passionate about this issue. If you are so willing to debate about this, I ask you to please discuss this with me during school. Considering you decided to look up more than enough data for one comment, I assume you wouldn’t mind discussing this in person. In the end, you can throw as much information at me as you please, but this is my opinion, and your data and “reassurances” are not going to change my opinion. Since you are so into this discussion, why not write a counter article? I’m sure the students and the parents at Milken would love to hear your view about this very serious issue.
    And Heythere, if your comment is published, I’m glad that my discomfort is humorous to you. Thank you for being sensitive to my opinion and to the opinion of many others who agree with me on this topic. When it comes to my safety, I think it’s fine for me to be a little paranoid about it, and I’m glad you find that my worries and my dad’s worries are “hysterical”. And I don’t know if sex offenders live in Bel Air, because I don’t live in Bel Air (you really shouldn’t assume these things). I’m not saying sex offenders can’t live in Bel Air, that’s a completely different topic that you’ve just brought up.

  • H

    HeythereDec 2, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    I was laughing as I read this article. Obviously sex offending is a horrible thing, but this article is ill-informed, paranoid and hysterical.

    Good thing Sex Offenders can’t leave there homes, and where they live is exactly where they’re going to be at all times….

    As far as the homelessness thing, obviously impoverished sex offenders are not going to live in Bel Air. But this is actually a real thing. It does happen.

  • 6

    62313Dec 2, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    this is a great article. thank you for shining some light on this very serious issue. i know my parents are worried about this as well, isn’t it scary to think that a sex offender could be watching me eating lunch at school?

  • M

    Milken StudentDec 2, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Good article, good information. I was not aware of this law and I’m glad it was brought to my attention

  • 2

    23200Dec 2, 2010 at 8:11 am

    I’m not saying sex offenders can’t “live in the community”, I simply don’t understand why they need to live so close to a school or how that makes them homeless. 2,000 feet is not a long distance, THAT is what scares me. I admit I might have mixed up some amendments, or whatever it is you are calling me out for, but that’s not my main point. My main point is that, as a teenager, I don’t feel safe anymore. We can’t assume that every sex offender has turned his or her life around, we can’t assume that they no longer want to hurt children. We can’t assume that they want to live “peacefully” in our community. Maybe they do, but the point is that children and parents are uncomfortable with this. I know my dad is (not about the safety at Milken, but in general, this is just a scary thought).
    I’m not saying that sex offenders need to be locked away from the world, I’m not saying they need to be kept out of public places, I’m not saying all sex offenders are evil people. I’m simply stating that I don’t see how allowing them to live within 2,000 feet of a school or a park will make them homeless, because that was one of the main reasons why the ban was uplifted. I just don’t see how it’s a valid reason. Particularly with Milken, Berkely Hall, and Curtis, there aren’t many homes that are 2,000 feet or closer to these schools that I know of, clearly showing that no one really wants to live so close to a school.

    • A

      AlexDec 2, 2010 at 8:08 pm

      You said that you don’t understand how the restriction makes sex offenders in LA homeless. Allow me to shed some light on the situation.

      Los Angeles is home to about 490 schools, 476 parks, 4 beaches, and countless other places where the “2000 feet rule” would be in effect.
      According to the California Secretary of State, Los Angeles is made up of 490.3 square miles.
      Of those 490 miles, approximately 220 of them are approved for residential use.
      Of those 220 square miles, about 140 of them are partially, if not completely covered by the “2000 feet rule”. (It’s because people like living near pretty things like parks and schools). That leaves just 14% of the city that sex offenders could live in.

      You mention the area surrounding Milken as an example of the fact that “no one really wants to live so close to a school”. The reason that the area surrounding Milken is so void of houses is because that section of the Mulholland Corridor is not zoned for residential use unless the home-builder follows incredibly strict rules.

      Also, the law was over-broad. It covered all sex criminals. According to studies done by the Guttmacher Institute, 1/2 of high school students have consensual sex before turning eighteen. That makes them, and their partners, a member of the class excluded from living near the restricted areas. As a result, half of students attending college would not be able to live on campus, because universities count to the government as schools.

      You claim that you are “uncomfortable” with the elimination of the rule. The First Amendment is designed to protect things that make people uncomfortable. If it wasn’t, abortion would be banned in the US, gay marriage would be universally banned (in the US), and there would have been no protests in for Israel. After all, those things make people uncomfortable too.

      I mentioned earlier that it’s a slippery slope between this ban, and other, more extreme bans. I’d like to know, irrespective of the current discussion, where is the point where we stop?

      If it makes you feel any better, there are no houses within 2000 feet of Milken and the nearest sex offender is 11,000 feet away, so the law never really affected us anyway.

  • A

    AlexDec 1, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    While I support the right of people to feel secure, I take issue with many of your points. You talk of your Second Amendment rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. There is no such text in the Second Amendment (in fact, the Second Amendment deals with firearms), it’s in the Declaration of Independence, a document that carries no legal authority within the US. While we’re on the topic, at what point are you constricting the First Amendment (expression) rights of sex offenders? Courts have ruled time and time again that choice of housing is expressly protected by the First Amendment. It’s for good reason. Where is the boundary between prohibiting certain housing for convicted criminals and prohibiting those same people from visiting public places because there may be children there? It’s a slippery slope, and I don’t think that it’s in our best interest to start the slide. That portion of Jessica’s law was clearly unconstitutional, and there need be no argument on that. Also, you assume that everyone convicted of sex crime want to repeat there action. Is there no room for teshuvah? I mean, not every criminal returns to a life of crime. In addition, you claim that “now that sex offenders are allowed to own homes nearby, they have a private place into which to bring children so the attack is no longer public”. In the city of Los Angeles, there are an enormous amount of private places. In no way does the lack of a home within half a mile prevent a rapist from conducting an attack in private. There is no good reason to bar convicted criminals from living peacefully in the community, and as a result, I applaud the courts ruling.