To persuade voters to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1787 wrote in the Federalist Papers, "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." There are many values embodied in a legitimate government, but none is more foundational than justice. Justice does not end at the victim's door. It extends to all members of society, including those accused and convicted. The problem with obtaining justice in areas of conflicting interests is that politicians and interest groups deliberately obfuscate issues with emotional appeals and misleading language.

Proposition 83 on the Nov. 7 ballot is a Revenge Law that violates the constitutional protections of due process and against cruel and unusual punishment. It does this by requiring involuntary indeterminate civil commitments at state mental hospitals for sex offenders after they complete their prison term and eliminates their current right to a review of their civil incarceration every two years by jury trial. Prop. 83 denigrates human beings to the level of an animal by requiring electronic GPS monitoring for life for anyone convicted of a registerable sex offense. These new 1984 Big Brother-type repressive penalties are adorned with a cute, emotionally laden title - Jessica's Law.

Under the guise of protecting children, the Department of Corrections is sponsoring this proposition to acquire more customers for its overcrowded prisons. Its motive is to justify building more prisons and expanding its politically powerful bureaucracy. In addition to billions of dollars of construction costs for new prisons, which the Legislature has already wisely rejected, the measure will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with no limit on escalating cost.

Consider backers' claims that sex-crime sentences are too short. Under current law: Penal Code, Sec. 261, consensual Statutory Rape, 3-8 Yrs; Sec. 269, Aggravated Sexual Assault of a child under fourteen, 15 Yrs. to Life; effective 9/20/06, 25 Yrs. to Life; Sec. 667.61, a 2 nd Lewd Act conviction, Life; Sec. 207, Kidnapping to commit sexual penetration, Life. Now, if you think sex-offender laws could never apply to you or your children, consider that a "Sexually Violent Offense" includes Spousal Rape, Sec. 262, defined as sexual intercourse against a person's will or if asleep, 3-8 Yrs. Think of the accusations for purposes of leverage that could arise during a divorce.

Existing law requires registration for life for any of these felony sex violations. Prop. 83 changes the definition of "Sexually Violent Predator" from acts against two or more victims to one victim, which creates "Predator" status from the claim of only one person in the classic "he said, she said" situation. This is not what the public considers to be the definition of the term "Predator" in common usage. Thus, it creates confusion in the mind of the voter as to many of those actually targeted by this proposition.

Prop. 83 could even affect your property value. It calls for the relocation of all registered sex offenders to areas that are not within 2,000 feet, about 40% of a mile, of any public or private school or park. Additionally, municipal jurisdictions may enact local ordinances that further restrict where registered sex offenders and their families may live. This means that thousands of registered sex offenders-- most of whom have never touched a child under 16-- and their families will be required to sell their homes in most major cities and move to suburban and rural areas that satisfy the 2,000 feet restriction law. If you live in a suburban or rural neighborhood without a school or park within 2,000 feet, Prop 83 may force them to move into your neighborhood. Since their addresses will be posted on the internet, a real estate agent can use this information in determining the value of your home. This proposition negatively affects everyone.

The Iowa County Attorneys Association that is currently dealing with the ramifications of their own versions of a 2,000 feet residency restriction law said, "there is no correlation between children's safety and an ex-felon-free zone (according to the U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 94.7% of ex-sex offenders are never charged with a second offense, less than 10 % of sexual abuse is done by strangers and around 95% of sex abuse cases are "new offenders" not repeat offenders). The problem is more will go underground and fail to register, some have become homeless." The last thing we need in California is to force reformed, employed ex-sex offenders into bands of homeless, unemployed outcasts roaming public streets looking for a place to sleep.

Space limitations preclude covering all the reasons why Prop. 83, with definitional enhancements, is a dangerous step towards prosecutorial overreach, incarceration abuse and lifetime societal ostracism. The day we buy into arguments that people cannot learn their lesson in prison or control their impulses or that society should punish people for "likely" future acts is the day we relinquished our country's founding principle of justice. We cannot allow our disgust at sex offenders' behavior to cloud our judgment on sound public policies, any more than we can allow our revulsion to certain kinds of speech to weaken our defense of free speech.

We cannot allow politicians to compete for sponsoring "the toughest laws in the country" without sacrificing justice. As Jeanne S. Woodford, acting head of the state Corrections Department, who resigned in frustration, explained, "California criminal-justice policy has developed haphazardly, through laws passed by politicians whose chief goal was to appear to be tougher on crime than their opponents."

Will Prop. 83 benefit 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was raped and murdered last year? No, death cannot be reversed, but her tragic death offers insight. Consider the causational relationship between excessive penalties and some sex offenders' rationale for avoiding excessive punishment by killing the only witness - the victim. We shouldn't provide a rationale for murder by failing to make penalties fit the seriousness of crimes. Perhaps Jessica Lunsford, JonBenet Ramsey and countless others would be alive today if society had the courage to demand reasonable prison terms based on justice instead of revenge.

The problem with revenge is that, no matter how much one gets, it's never enough. In China, 550 B.C., common punishments included castration, branding, slicing off the nose, chopping off the feet or toes, cutting leg tendons and breaking knee caps. Barbaric public policy begets barbaric public behavior. By voting No on Prop. 83 you will be preserving our civilized way of life and perhaps protecting yourself, the next time you get a traffic ticket, from being required to wear a GPS monitor to ensure your court appearance. Future applications are endless.

Finally, let's save hundreds of millions of dollars every year that would needlessly expand and reward the 31,000 member state prison guards' union.. Vote No on 83 and take the first step towards saving the life of the next Jessica.

Prop 85 is not about a minor's right to an abortion, nor requiring parental consent. Abortion rights were settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade three decades ago and the California Supreme Court ruled there is no requirement for minors to obtain parental consent in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, in 1996. Prop 85's only issue is whether parents should be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion in California. How do we evaluate the merits of this proposition and its consequences?

First, disregard rhetoric that it's anti-family or pro-family, left or right, as these characterizations bias objective evaluation. Similarly, disregard arguments that teens cannot get an aspirin from a school nurse, as they can legally buy aspirins at supermarkets. There are numerous regulations that shouldn't exist, so using one to justify another is not a valid argument. The real issue is teenage girls, past puberty, 13 to 17 do consensually have sex with their boyfriends and sometimes become pregnant. This may be due to a lack of sex education or deliberate choice. Naturally, reasonable, responsible parents desire to know if their teenager is dealing with this kind of life-changing emotional experience and want to provide their personal counsel and support. The problem is that not all parents are reasonable or responsible.

The issue is whether parents are justified in turning to government to create new rights and regulations to deal with what should be a very private matter. Sure, everyone desires the opportunity to influence others. Many think their own opinion should apply universally to everyone else, like a moral Kantian categorical imperative. In practice this approach fails because it disregards circumstances or if it took all circumstances into consideration it would no longer be universal. Additionally, turning to government to solve all of our problems or grant all of our desires is not the way rational Americans choose to live.

Contrary to some beliefs, children are not the property or possession of their biological parents or society. Hegel argued in The Philosophy of Right, 1821, that parents do not own their children, contrary to early Roman law. The only justification for parents' limited authority over children, Hegel asserted, "is to educate and benefit them." One educates a teenager by using reason and logical arguments supported by valid principles and facts; not by authoritative whim or force. A minor's right to privacy is not derived from the state, although the state may act to protect this right. Like many rights, privacy is derived intrinsically from being a free human being. Humans are responsible for their own lives and decisions. Responsibility entails freedom to act. Respect and confidence encourages responsible decisions.

Parents do not have a "right" to be notified of a teenager's abortion decision. Parents, however, are afforded an opportunity to participate in that decision-making process by cultivating an on-going loving and supportive relationship with their teenager. When a challenging event occurs in a teenager's life, the nature of the relationship that parents have cultivated over time will determine whether a teenager decides to include them in that aspect of the teenager's private life. Loving, intelligent, supportive parents will be invited into this process. Hateful, ignorant, harmful parents will be excluded.

The law is not the appropriate vehicle to initiate parental involvement. If teenagers have reasons to believe it is not in their physical or emotional best interest to share their abortion decision with their parents, a law requiring forceful involvement through parental notification or alternatively humiliation before a judge who may subject their lover to statutory rape penalties or their parents to child social service investigation for abuse, may force teenagers to runaway, get abortions underground or out of state, or commit suicide.

Unintended consequences of shortsighted legislation are all too common. It's time we learn from past mistakes. Let special interest groups battle among themselves in the marketplace of ideas to persuade others voluntarily. They should start with dialogues with their teenagers, not propositions or legislators. Consider Sophocles' wisdom in King Creon's painful outcry of regret over the tragic double suicide stemming from his state imposed decree regarding the competing moral interests of the state and his son's intended bride Antigone. King Creon - "Woe is me, for the wretched blindness of my counsels." The messenger - "Of all curses which cleave to man, ill counsel is the sovereign curse." You can take a moral stand in safeguarding teenagers from this proposition's ill counsel and unintended consequences by voting No on Prop 85.