There is more to Proposition 83, "Jessica's Law," than protecting children from sexual predators. This "Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act" is getting wide support and endorsements for imposing stricter prison sentences for sexual crimes, monitoring released criminals with GPS, and creating "predator free" zones that confine released violators mostly to rural areas.

What is not so well publicized is that Proposition 83 would also amend several sections of California's Penal Code, including changing section 667.5 to treat nonviolent sodomy and "lewd and lascivious acts" as if they were violent felonies, imposing longer prison sentences and prohibiting probation. The terms " lewd" and "lascivious" are vaguely defined, so it is possible that engaging in consensual acts in bathroom stalls, mooning a train, or making a rude hand gesture seen by a child could land people in prison. For the enhancement of prison terms for some acts, the words "by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person" are deleted from the code.

As noted by the rebuttal to the argument in favor of 83, Iowa in 2001 enacted legislation similar to Proposition 83, and now the Iowa County Attorneys Association (ICAA) advocates its repeal because it has been ineffective, has created a drain on law enforcement resources, and has inflicted excessively high costs on taxpayers.

If Proposition 83 is passed, a 19-year old boy who has consensual sex with a 17-year old girl would be subject to lifetime GPS monitoring, even though he is not really a threat to children. Clearly we can deplore and seek to deter such acts without treating such offenders as though they had committed violent and forceful rape.

The ICAA statement refers to research showing that there is no correlation between residency restrictions and a reduction of sexual crimes against children. Moreover, Proposition 83 would not protect the children who are harmed by family members. And statistics show that most sexual crimes against children are committed by relatives or acquaintances with a prior relationship and access to the child.

The ICAA proposes that instead of this costly and excessive law, legislation be passed that would protect children more effectively and at a lower cost. For example, schools and childcare facilities should be safe zones. The law should also better protect children who are victims of assault and harm from family and household members.

Proposition 83 would move the criminals to rural areas where they would not obtain employment, where housing is not readily available, and where local law enforcement would be unduly burdened keeping track of former criminals and responding to false alarms. And prohibiting them from living in most urban areas could be challenged as violating the Constitutional protection from "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The many changes to criminal law made by Proposition 83—striking out, amending, and adding many clauses—is much too complicated for the average person to understand, as one would have to study sections of the code referred to by other sections. I am not an attorney, so I don't claim to understand all the legal ramifications, and that is precisely the main problem with this proposition. Even a voter who seeks to be well informed cannot know the full effects of this law without legal knowledge and research.

If such complex changes in law are considered, they should be made by legislators, including legal experts, not by voters who have many propositions to wade through along with numerous candidates. Indeed, this law was first attempted in the state legislature; seeing that it would not pass, the proponents put it on the ballot. But then on September 21, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1128 and SB 1178, which did include many of the sections of Proposition 83, making much of 83 redundant. Under the new legislation, high-risk criminals have to wear electronic monitoring devices, while under Proposition 83, low-risk offenders, convicted of lewd but nonviolent acts, often long ago, will also be treated this way.

If we wish to confine and track more criminals via a proposition presented to the voters, then the wording should suggest a simple, concise change to implement only that idea and not also expand criminal law or expand penalties for nonviolent offenses. This law seeks to do too much and is vulnerable to unintended consequences. There is no urgent reason to adopt it. Vote no, and let them go back to the drawing board to design legislation with a lower cost and better focus.