State Representative Legislative District 18
Issues discussed here: HB2569 Immigration Education/School Choice Transportation Spending Taxes Family Values...... HB2569:
In response to the numerous emails, phone calls and letters received concerning HB2569, which pertains to the sex offender registry, I am posting herewith my response so that those who have expressed their concern may understand what this bill is about and why I sponsored it.
When one
hears the word “sex offender” it is not unusual to conjure up images of rapists
or child molesters. And indeed,
these are among the worst, most evil and pernicious criminals in our society. I agree with all of you who do not want
to see the law go easy on any of these deviants, who generally deserve to be severely
punished and watched for the rest of their lives. The harm and damage they
inflict on their victims and their victims’ families is immeasurable. The recent California case of Phillip
Girrado, who kidnapped young Jaycee Dugard and held her in secret captivity for
18 years, is an example of the kind of sex offenders for whom there should be
no relief. If these kinds of
offenders were the only sex criminals under our law, there would be no need to
qu estion the current laws.
But
suppose your 18-year-old son or daughter had a romantic relationship with
someone more than 2 years younger?
Or suppose your senior in high school “moons” someone as a practical
joke, and ends up getting charged with indecent exposure. Under certain situations, these could
also be charged as sex offenses, with the resulting consequence of lifetime
registration as a sex offender. It is a
serious thing to charge someone with a sex crime. In the first place, these
charges carry such severe penalties that in some cases the right to trial is
completely abrogated. I once
observed the sentencing of an 18 year-old mentally slow young man who had been
involved sexually with 13 and 14-year-old boys. Neighbors at the sentencing related that the 13 and 14-year-old
boys were more likely the aggressors, and likely had not been traumatized by
the behavior. Yet, the 18-year-old
boy accepted a plea offer of 10 years in prison, because if he had chanced going to trial and lost,
he would have died in prison of old age. The
risks were too great to risk a trial. In the
case of consensual sex, alleged victims usually do not suffer any physical
damage and in many cases any do not suffer psychological damage. In a society
that permits the display of sex in every venue, including movies, sports,
television, magazines, and nearly every other communication, including cell
phones and iPods, it is hypocrisy to be severely punitive when youth cross the
line. The case
that shocked me about the registration practice was that of a young man, 18
years old, who had a romantic relationship with a 14-year-old girl. This relationship was condoned by her
parents. When as a 15 year old she
went to the hospital for the birth of their twins, the authorities arrested him
the next day and charged him with two counts of a sex crime. Although some minimal leniency was
shown, he was still given lifetime probation and required to register as a sex
offender. Although he married the
girl, and they lived happily for a number of years until she and the twins were
killed in an accident, the young man was treated as a pedophile, and to this
day, as a 43 year old man, he must still register as a sex offender. Over the years when he has changed
residences or work, he has found fliers posted in the neighborhood indicating
that a sex offender lives in the neighborhood. In my
opinion, this is wrong. If you
disagree with me, then that is your right. However, I believe our society has an obligation, a solemn duty,
to see that justice does not become a travesty. Occasionally, people get away
with murder. But sometimes, our
justice system can over-reach and the innocent suffer, or perhaps the guilty
are too harshly punished. It makes
a difference if this is happening to unnamed criminals that you see or hear
about on TV, but when it’s a family member or friend, it makes you question
whether anyone cares. I care.
First, let’s be clear. I am in favor of legal immigration. Most US citizens either are immigrants themselves, or descend from immigrants. Even Native Americans are alleged to have immigrated from Asia. Immigrants remain the life-blood of our country. Many make significant contributions to our society. But legal immigration is not the issue. The issue that challenges Arizona is illegal immigration, and I am firmly against illegal immigration for three principal reasons.
- First, as a matter of national security, we need to know who is coming into our country. It’s not a matter of race or national origin, it’s a matter of background, character, affiliations, and health concerns.
- Second, it’s a matter of economics. We simply cannot afford to provide free social services, free education and free health care to non-citizens. Our tax base is already overloaded providing far too many many government services to our own citizens.
- Third, it’s a matter of the rule of law. We cannot expect our own citizens to obey the law while allowing millions of illegal aliens to ignore it. If people want to change the laws, then let them do so. In the meantime, we must enforce our laws.
Obviously, our country has neither the means nor the public support to simply deport everyone. To do so would be too costly, and would unnecessarily disrupt families. However, I am not in favor of amnesty. To grant amnesty as we did under President Reagan only rewards illegal behavior, and encourages future misconduct.
The contribution that Arizona can make is to continue to eliminate the attractions that bring folks across our border by the thousands every day. By withholding free services, public benefits, employment, and other benefits that are granted to citizens and legal residents, we remove the motivation for illegal immigrants to come to our state. Once these things are withheld, they will look elsewhere and move elsewhere.
We also have a responsibility to ensure that our state's employers have adequate employees to continue growing and strengthening our economy. We need to remain engaged with those industries that rely on guest workers to ensure their continued success.
Education/School Choice:
At the beginning of our nation, most schools were operated by either private or religious organizations, with exclusively local control. We have come a long way since then. And it has been a rough road.
Besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one of the things that has made our country great is the competitive spirit of Americans. I believe this applies in education as well. I favor school choice, insofar as it can be done without jeopardizing the existing public school system. Having home-schooled two of our children for a couple of years before returning them to the public schools, I believe that parents should have a multiplicity of options available, and do whatever is best for the child.
On the other hand, there should be a level playing field if there is to be competition. If charter schools are to receive public funds, then they need to operate under the same burdens as public schools. By that I mean that they must take problem students just as public schools do. The curriculum of a charter school should meet state requirements so that we are assured that the education students receive is either comparable or better.
Transportation:
All existing roads and highways must remain free (non-toll) roads. As far as the new construction of roads and highways is concerned, all options are on the table. Toll roads work successfully in many parts of the country. Many times, toll roads not only take you to new destinations more quickly, but by relieving the congestion on existing roads, they facilitate traffic movement throughout the grid.
It would be nice if we did not need toll roads. Unfortunately, there is insufficient funding for the roads we need. If given the choice between having a toll road built now, which is privately financed, or waiting twenty or thirty years for a publicly financed highway, most of us, including businesses, would prefer the immediate solution.
According to Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), Phoenix is the 23rd most congested urban area of 85 rated areas. Tucson is the 28th. With our two fast-growing metropolitan areas, Arizona must do something soon. One way to do it without raising taxes is to use private funding.
Spending:
My son is a resident in the emergency room of L A County Hospital. When a patient comes in who has been seriously hurt, the first thing they do is stop the bleeding. A similar tactic should be employed by state government. We must first stop the bleeding, stop the spending.
All too often legislators are persuaded by lobbyists that some new program is necessary for some new special interest group.
All new programs requiring increased spending should be reviewed in the context of government’s responsibilities under the constitution.
The state must live within its means. Just like a family, the state should not be spending more than it’s taking in. There should be no new entitlement programs. Existing programs and services should be reviewed to determine whether they continue to be necessary, and whether or not they are authorized under the constitution.
From my personal experience as a government employee for ten years, I know that there can be a great amount of waste in public employment. It is up to each department head to control this waste. They should be held accountable to reduce their overhead, just as managers in the private sector are required to tighten their belts. Although this is chiefly the responsibility of the executive branch, the checks and balances of our system of government allow the legislature to make the laws and establish the budget. The check on the executive can help to control spending.
Taxes:
When Linda and I lived in New York, we continually rode with taxi drivers who had come to New York pursuing the American dream. Many had found it. They had come from oppressive regimes where there was little opportunity to reap the rewards of personal effort. The concept that individuals get to keep what they earn is the American way.
Lowering taxes generally stimulates the economy. We need to provide a business friendly environment in Arizona, and reduce the tax burden on families. “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The better the economy is, the better for everyone.
Income redistribution should not be the state’s policy. If you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the vote of Paul, but sooner or later, Peter will be broke, or else he will go away or do something else.
Family Values:
Families are the foundation of our society. As Governor Romney said during his campaign, “We strengthen our nation by strengthening our families.” That begins with adherence to the following principals:
While we must be tolerant of diversity, and respectful of others views, the state is not obligated to encourage lifestyles that are contrary to the state’s long-term interest. People will live how they choose to live, but the state should set policies that encourage strong families.
For two and a half years, my wife and I have represented families at the United Nations, a venue that is quite hostile to families. I am prepared to continue the effort to promote the family in the state legislature.
