For the more than 30 convicted sex offenders living within a 2-mile radius of SF State, and the estimated 85,000 living in the state of California, the passage of proposition 83 would have meant further restrictions and harsher penalties.

But they won’t have to worry about it this time.

The proposition was voted down in Tuesday’s election and SF State students seem to be in agreement with the outcome.

Saira Hussain, 32, said that the new law is unrealistic, and voted against prop 83. Hussain said that the 2000-foot stipulation in the law would essentially ban sex offenders from major metropolitan areas, thus transporting them to rural regions.

"It seems to me that if people are going to get help they need to be closer to city centers, and if you gerrymander them out to the farthest reaches of the state they are not going to get help," said Hussain, anthropology major at SF State. "Additionally, you’re going to create pockets where there are sex offenders sort of concentrated in one area which seems much less safe for the people living in those areas."

Proposition 83, also called Jessica’s Law, is derived from Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was abducted and murdered in 2005.

The proposed law would have restricted convicted sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of school’s and parks, and will also require registered offenders to wear a GPS tracking device for the rest of their lives.

It would have costed a couple hundred million dollars annually, with several tens of millions of dollars for the GPS devices and "supervision staff,” who would track offenders, according to the Official Voter Information Guide.

According to the Megan’s Law website there are 648 registered sex offenders living in San Francisco. Some SF State students were divided on whether the new law will prove effective in reducing sex crimes.

"I ended up voting yes on 83 mainly because I am concerned about the availability that sex offenders have to school age children in elementary and junior high,” said Danielle Russell, 25, a history major at SF State, who pointed out that hours after the release of John Carr, he was seen at a middle school. "I don't think the law is perfect, and I don't expect them to catch everybody. But, I do feel it is necessary."

Tory Patterson, 19, who voted for the first time in yesterday's election, said that she the law would have been a waste of time. Patterson said that she had no idea there were more than 30 sex offenders living near SF State -- according to the Megan's Law website. Although shocked, Patterson said that sanctioning sex offenders out to different areas is not the answer.

"It concerns me," said Patterson, a finance major at SF State who voted no on proposition 83. "I think its kind of ridiculous. What areas do you move them to? What communities will be affected by this?" she said. "You can't just put them all in one area, because I remember reading somewhere that it would put a strain on law enforcement."
Although students disagree over whether the law will prove effective, all agreed that something needs to be done to combat sex crimes.

"Know one likes sex offenders. Know one likes that it happens," said Hussain. But I think the only way to really control it is to give them the help that they need," said Hussain.

SF State Reflects on No-limit Campaign Spending

In Tuesday’s election, the people of California voted against Proposition 89, which would have limited large campaign contributions.

SF State political science lecturer, Ari Laskin, said the results show how the corporate world has an affect on politics.