NORTH COUNTY -- Despite widespread support, a California Department of Corrections official says a statewide proposition to toughen punishment and monitoring standards for sex offenders is a misguided effort.

"In my opinion, this is bad legislation, but it's going to pass," Doris Mahlum said of Proposition 83 that voters are expected to pass on Tuesday.

One of the most stringent and controversial features of the proposed law calls for most felony sex offenders who have been sent to state prison to be monitored by an ankle bracelet for life.

The measure also proposes increased penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters, prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park, and requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.

It also expands the definition of sexually violent predator and changes current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to review.

A spokeswoman for Yes on 83 said Thursday that, contrary to what opponents of the measure say, only serious offenders would be required to wear the monitoring devices. For example, if a 20-year-old man were convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 17-year-old girl, he would not be required to wear one of the devices, said spokeswoman Becky Warren.

Some sex crimes are felonies and others are misdemeanors. For example, distribution of obscene material is a misdemeanor, while rape is a felony.

Another provision would bar anyone required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. Current law establishes a limit of 1,320 feet for most registered sex offenders and 2,640 feet for those who officials believe have a high risk of offending again.

Statewide poll results released Wednesday by El Cajon-based Datamar Inc. showed that among 1,237 registered voters who are likely to cast ballots Tuesday, 69 percent favor Prop. 83. The automated telephone survey was conducted between Oct. 28 and Oct. 31. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent, at the 95 percent confidence level.

The initiative

The Jessica's Law initiative was named in memory of 9-year-old Florida girl Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped from her home, sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender who had failed to report where he lived after being paroled.

Proponents say it would protect children by keeping molesters in prison longer, requiring mandatory minimum prison sentences and not allowing early release for any reason. They also say it would keep them away from schools and parks, while monitoring their movements.

But, Mahlum says the main problem with the proposal is that it's based on the premise that most sexual molesters are strangers to their victims. Mahlum supervises about 250 sex offender parolees who live in an area that stretches along Interstate 215 in Riverside County south to San Diego County and east to the Arizona border.

"Such laws will create a false sense of security, since most children are molested by someone they know," she said.

But the measure will pass, she said, because most parents are fixated on the idea that strangers represent the biggest threat to their children.

"Most people don't want to accept that more than 90 percent of child molestations are committed by people the family knows," she said.

Despite its drawbacks, don't expect most politicians to come out against the proposal, Mahlum said.

"It would be political suicide," she said. "Perception is everything, people would say they are soft on child molesters."

Local officials weigh in

Local elected officials are in solid support of the measure, despite the costs involved.

Prison, parole, and mental health program costs are expected to cost $200 million a year within a decade, according to a state legislative analysis. It could cost several hundred million dollars in one-time costs to build more space at state mental hospitals and prisons to accommodate the increased number of incarcerated sex offenders, according to the analysis.

Encinitas Mayor Christy Guerin said that while the costs may be great, she thinks voters want the tougher requirements.

"You are supposed to represent your constituents who are saying this is a high priority," Guerin said. "People want everything possible done to feel safer."

Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler had a similar take.

"If society believes we need to spend that amount of money, then we need to do that," she said. "We need to deal with the cost and accept that responsibility."

County Supervisor Bill Horn said the law is a necessity because the judicial system has failed to keep sex offenders in jail.

One of the main opponents to the measure is the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a statewide organization made up of criminal defense attorneys. The organization agrees with Mahlum's opinion that the measure is misguided in its focus on stranger danger.

"Law enforcement experience shows that when sex registrants reoffend, their targets are usually members of their own household," organization President Carleen Arlidge wrote in arguments against the measure.

More residency restrictions and monitoring devices would drive underground the very sex offenders who pose the greatest risks to children, she argued.

Proponents of the measure reply that monitoring sex offenders "could have saved Jessica Lunsford," and could still "prevent countless other children from being attacked and murdered by sexual predators."

What research shows

Studies indicate that residency restrictions may have unintended consequences, according to a paper published by the California Research Board in August.

Study authors cited a Minnesota Department of Corrections report which concluded that residency restrictions create a shortage of housing options for sex offenders, forcing them to move to rural areas where they are isolated from employment opportunities, social support, social services and mental health treatment.

"Such restrictions can lead to homelessness and transience, which interfere with effective tracking, monitoring and close probationary supervision," the report states.

It also cited a Colorado study that concluded that placing restrictions on where sex offenders live "did not deter the sex offender from reoffending."

Yes on 83's Warren said that despite the Colorado study's conclusions, "it's amazing how many of these guys move near schools after they have completed their parole or probation -- parents don't want these guys next to schools."

When it comes to the effectiveness of the GPS used in the ankle monitors, the track record was better, according to the paper.

Florida, the first state to require lifetime electronic tracking of convicted sex offenders, did research in 2001-02 that showed "sex offender parolees fitted with the devices were less likely to commit new crimes than those who were monitored by traditional means."

The study showed that 6 percent of sex offenders who wore electronic monitors committed new felonies or misdemeanors compared with 11 percent of those who were not monitored electronically.

The Florida research also showed that electronic monitoring is expensive, costing that state $3,600 a year per offender.

Warren said it's astounding that California has an "honor system that says, 'We trust you to come and check in with us once a year to let us know where you live.'

"That is why we are missing so many sex offenders now," she said.

Contact staff writer William Finn Bennett at (760) 740-5426, or wbennett@nctimes.com.