Getting to the bottom of the Watchdog's sex offender story
Citybeat said it's game. VoiceofSanDiego.org has agreed to coordinate. Now, will the Watchdog Institute cooperate?
First, I think it's sad that it's come to this. Citybeat already investigated the story's claims, and did it well. In fact, Kelly Davis got multiple authoritative sources to debunk the story's entire premise. And we know now, after waiting a week for a response, that the Watchdog had nothing to back up its astonishingly sensational lead other than it's own opinion. It's hard to argue with a we're right even though we couldn't find anyone else to agree with us mentality. They've demonstrated woeful ignorance of basic legal concepts like statutory construction, res judicata and stare decisis -- all things you need to really understand for an undertaking like that story.
Second, I don't think they really stand behind that story as much as they want everyone to believe, nor are they brave enough to allow outside reporters and lawyers to investigate its claims.
Third, the Union-Tribune, as the ones who published this story, have should've undertaken these steps as soon as they knew the central points had been challenged. That's the responsible and ethical thing to do, but who expects that? Not me.
All the being said, can I propose a few questions the panel should try to get to the bottom of?
- Are 70 percent of San Diego county registered sex offenders violating the residency restrictions in prop. 83, and if so, according to whom?
- Does a "literal" reading of a statute allow one to presume intent that's not explicit, that is, can a statute in California that makes no mention of retroactivity be presumed retroactive on its face?
- Does the pending Supreme Court challenge over prop. 83 automatically suspend decisions already handed down by the federal court, that is, are state agencies currently bound to follow rulings issued by federal judges on prop. 83 until the state high court gives its decision?
- Did Watchdog Institute reporters have any information or sources that would've led them to believe the unambiguous claim in the story's lead that 70 percent of registered sex offenders are violating the law might not be correct? That is, did anyone challenge the story before it was published?
Bitter much?
Just so you know, I know who you are. Start using your real name to comment here or I'll stop publishing them and tell everyone why you're afraid to stand behind your own comments.
And, I'll add, start telling everyone who you work for.