The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (Yes, that's a thing) claims that state prison officials have undermined Prop 57's parole process, by not including sex offenders for consideration for early release.
Attorney Janice Belluci, who represents the Alliance and an inmate, said:
“We want the benefits of Proposition 57 to be provided to people who have been convicted of ‘non-violent’ sex offenses. It is a basic rule of law that regulations cannot be broader than the law that they are implementing.”
"Non-violent sex offenses." What is that?! How can anybody take the side of the person committing a sex crime? It doesn't matter if the crime was "violent" or not. There is still a victim, and the victim is the only person who matters.
But batty Belluci argues that Prop 57 doesn't take into consideration people charged with crimes where there was no sexual contact with a victim.
She's worried about the 18-year-old convicted of public indecency for streaking in high school, or a 16-year-old sentenced for child porn after distributing nude photos of herself.
What about the 35-year-old slob in his mom's basement distributing child porn? That's technically "non-violent" and there was no sexual contact with the victim. Should he get early release too?
This makes no sense! Why did you voters approve this evil bill?!
No court date has been set in the Alliance's lawsuit, but California corrections officials have until the end of May to respond.