Sex Offender Registry Reform Effort Aims to Parse for Future Risk

California is one of only four states that require sex offenders to register for life. The state board overseeing the registry is once again pushing to overhaul the system. The board wants to make it easier to spot sex offenders at high risk of re-offending. Reporter: Tara Siler. Radio Program

Read the full story (State of Health)

RelatedSex Offender Board Calls For Registry Overhaul (May 30, 2014)

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; this tiered registry is not going to pass. This can be considered inevitable for several reasons, the first being that it’s an election year and the fear of not being popular and looking bad over-rides common sense-honesty and wisdom for the lawmakers in the state capitol; they are ruled by fear, (how has it come to this? that our fates are in the hands of such morally weak men of the lesser variety).

Second; you have Marc Klass and his two 501-c3 victims rights groups opposing this change to the registry. Both of these groups seem to have morphed into lobby groups during election years. These two groups (KlaasKids Foundation and BeyondMissing, Inc) are nothing more than puppets during election years of a much more powerful and insidious organization.

Third; That much more powerful and insidious organization, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, with all it’s millions of dollars and intimidation tactics is backing KlaasKids Foundation and BeyondMissing, Inc through their own victims rights group, Crime Victims United; which I believe has allot more money than CA-RSOL and all the other reform groups combined.

Another thing I’ve said before is that I hope I’m wrong, and I still obviously feel that way. I feel the odds are not in our favor. I also believe the failure of a tiered registry bill to pass in previous election years can be traced directly back to the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, whose main aim is to insure that the prisons stay full and so their kind can feed off the population and insure security for themselves and their families at the expense of the public.

It’s the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and their power to make or break anyone the lawmakers fear.

Q, I unfortunately disagree. FIrst, who cares about Marc Klass. Lets be real. Most of the offenses occurring today are being committed by first time offenders. In addition, we have the State of California’s Sex Offender Management Board requesting this! This is surreal. So, if we continue to be negative and view the world in this manner, we might as well jump off a cliff. Now, it might not happen this year, but it will happen. Be positive.

OH, we just beat the DA from OC? I would never never thought that could occur. Seriously. So, things are changing.

I don’t know anyone who has ever believed we would get a tiered registration system during an even numbered year. None of this publicity is design for action this year, but next year. CCPOA will always support things that fill prisons. Consider that they didn’t object to Brown’s realignment system, except for sex offenders. Why? They understand that the kinds of people who they released are probably going to come back to prison pretty soon. Sex offenders only come back on parole violations. So they want to release those who are coming back and keep those who won’t.

Next year we have a shot at a tiered registration system. I would say it is a small window of opportunity, but there are a couple of politicians in Sacramento who seek good public policy and a few more who can be persuaded. Can we round up enough votes? Too hard to call right now.

@Janice. Please consider filing civil charges against the judges who violated their judicial obligation to weigh cases in an unbiased manner, and instead let their personal emotions influence their impartiality. It is absolutely unconscionable to think that an unbiased judiciary would accept that America now licenses people to live under threat of imprisonment.

No hope for me. Ever. Been on registry since 2000. 288.8a no ‘re offence except in 2004 had a drug charge. Been straight ever since. Learned to accept my life the way it is and will be forever. I live a good life. Have a decent job high pay nice house and cars and a good wife…I guess I do understand where everyone else is coming from who are not as bad as I am. Good luck to u all

I too believe that a tier system for registration will happen in California. Not only does the California Sex Offender Management board support it so does a lot of law enforcement. And the more of us that keep educating others, public opinion will change.

“Aims to parse for future risk?” That has to be the dumbest goal I have ever heard of for reform efforts on any law. Who cares what someone might do again? I mean if someone breaks the law (federal or state) a second time then they probably shouldn’t have been released when they were the first time. The whole low risk to high risk assessment scale is ridiculous. It all begins with legal language used to describe each offense, no lay person or for that matter legal professional knows what someone is talking about when they mention a penal code number/subsection or federal statute/subsection. Secondly when an offense is listed on the registry not enough detail is provided explaining exactly what a person did. Sexual assault encompasses many different acts, as does molestation, sexual harassment, indecent exposure, and many other sex offenses. If someone is at a high risk for taking a nude swim at a public pool that’s different than intentionally flashing people or getting caught urinating in public. There are also differences in receiving, possessing, or distributing illegal images and/or videos. Someone who has mostly nude or partly nude content is up to something different than someone who has mostly hardcore violent rape content. All these factors need to be taken into consideration when informing the public about what someone did, if at all. Merely identifying someone as a violent predator doesn’t help either because likely a rapist or serial murderer would simply be classified as such, but without knowing who someone likes targeting those labels do little to no good.

Secondly if we as a global society wanted to parse for future risk doing so before the risk arises is our best option. Anyone who has dealt with enough problems realizes that this is a primary component of problem solving 101. Meaning risk assessment needs to be included as part of a child’s education and monitored for potential warning signs and not just for sexual misconduct, but all possible misconduct. If a kid likes playing with fire it might be really advantageous to figure out why and how much risk exists that later his or her playing could morph into arson. Then positive corrections can be made to reduce that risk and continue monitoring it or other possible causes for concern. It’s a lot more individualized and requires more work, but the sacrifices would be worth it by significantly reducing the number of future offenders and victims.

Brubaker to ‘ab’…Brubaker to ‘ab’…the so called risk or tier is so farrrrrr after any alleged anything that it goes against the Constitution just for starters ..more …but approach must be at start…notice of level or degree or tier of alleged crime when decision to go to utilize right of fair trial or accept a lesser alleged crime plead guilty…….that risk / tier / degree / level must be at square one ; not the after everything last square.

A few minutes ago I took the Static-99R Coding Form “Risk Factor” test and I scored a 4. I would have scored a 3 except I was convicted of attempting to murder a snitch informant who threatened my life. No such thing as self defense when you defend your life and that of your family against a KlanKracker Informant Snitch. Angry, not really, I did not kill the snitch and I am on the “no not detain list” when I am stopped my law enforcement. I have lived in the AV since 1992 and I have many LA County Sheriff friends who know and love me. I watch and pray!