ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online Next Call: May 5 (Int. Megan's Law) - Mar 8 Recording added Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q2: 4/8 in Sac, 5/15 in SD, 6/16-17 in LA (Conference) [details]
ACSOLCalifornia

Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill

Los Angeles District Attorney (DA) Jackie Lacey has agreed to co-sponsor a tiered registry bill along with the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB). A copy of the draft bill was distributed during today’s CASOMB meeting.

As expected, the draft bill proposes dividing registrants into three tiers based upon the offense for which the registrant was convicted as well as his/her risk level. For registrants in the first two tiers, their duty to register would end in either 10 or 20 years after release from incarceration provided that they have not committed a subsequent sex offense. Registrants on the third tier would continue to be required to register for life.

In addition to tiering, the bill proposes that registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry. It is estimated that about 10,500 registrants are eligible for automatic removal.

Registrants convicted in 1987 or later would be required to petition for removal from the registry near the date of their annual registration requirement. The petition would be reviewed by law enforcement to ensure eligibility and then sent to the DA’s office in the county in which the registrant resides. The DA’s office could either agree to removal or object based upon a belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”.

If the DA’s office objects to a registrant’s removal, the final decision would be made by a Superior Court judge. The bill provides judges with guidelines for his/her decision such as the nature of the offense(s), the age and number of victims, whether any victim was a stranger, criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction, current risk of sexual or violent re-offense and completion of a CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program.

According to CASOMB, the District Attorneys, Police Chiefs, and Sheriffs (in large jurisdictions only) have agreed to the draft bill, however, minor changes could be made to the bill prior to its introduction in January 2017. An author for the bill has been selected, however, the identity of that author was not revealed during the meeting. The tiered registry bill is expected to be modified during the legislative process.

Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan, a new CASOMB member, expressed concern during today’s meeting regarding the role of judges in the proposed bill which he described as an unfunded mandate similar to that found in Proposition 47. Judge Morgan added that despite his concern, he believes the state’s judges will be able to adequately address the requirements of the tiered registry bill.

During the public comment section of the meeting, ACSOL president Janice Bellucci acknowledged that a large amount of effort was required to draft the tiered registry bill. She added that ACSOL members, including registrants and family members, will lobby in the State Capitol regarding that bill, however, it has not yet been determined whether ACSOL will support or oppose the bill.

Draft Bill

 

Join the discussion

  1. Dr

    Sounds like a great thing to me

    • Mark

      I don’t think it is great at all. But I hope it is amended to be more fair.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      It “sounds” like a great thing. But actually taking the time to read this bill may yield a very different opinion. In my opinion, and borrowing a micro/macroeconomic term, there are a lot of potentially ‘unintended consequences’ that may arise from this bill. While it may/will help some, an equal or greater number of people will be adversely affected. For one, the benefits of a Certificate of Rehabilitation relieving one of the duty to register are removed. So Certificates of Rehabilitation will no longer relieve one of the duty to register (i.e. if you’ve earned one, you might have to re-register under this bill… which would be very disturbing for someone who has gone through all the effort, costs, and relief).

      Further:

      – Unpublished offenders will now be published.

      – Many people will simply not “fall off” the registry after their tier periods, but will have to “petition” already conservative courts. (Remember, these are ***elected*** judges who will have to put their career on the line for every “petition” that they grant.)

      – The reliance on Static-99R scam scores.

      – At least for those who offended after 1987, offense-free period in the community is not at all a factor in ‘falling off’ the registry.

      – The costs that would come in ‘petitioning’ a judge (i.e. attorney’s costs, court/filing fees, psychological exams, various “assessments” that may be required, etc.).

      – The fact that the DA has the right to object to every ‘petition’ for relief. (One can bet that the DA might make it very hard to get relief from the judge.)

      – And realistically: how many *elected* judges would put their career on the line to grant a petition?

      – The general convolution and endless qualifications and loopholes that make this bill complicated and difficult to challenge in the future.

      I can go on, but those are the issues that I can spew from the top of my head.

      In my opinion, and to reiterate what I posted below, this is a political scam. It will help some. Good for those people. But it will also hurt many others.

      • Tobin Tools 2.0 has it right....

        Well captured and said Tobin, the devil is in the details to which you’ve help bring to the front for all to read and think of. This flawed bill must be discarded for good.

  2. G4Change

    I just want to voice my thanks to Janice and all here at ACSOL along with the L.A. D.A. and others who are taking this huge step forward. I know that there have been mixed feelings on here about a tiered registry. I haven’t read the draft bill. I don’t know the in’s and out’s of any of this. However, I just want to say that ANYTHING that opens the door to folks who are currently law-abiding and who have finished their sentence to be able to stop registering has my full support! I say this even if I personally could not be qualified to get out of registering. I think we all have to look at the big picture and stand behind Janice and all on this.
    This is my opinion. If you disagree, then do so respectfully. Otherwise, we all need to stand together and make this move forward. No matter what, this is a First Step forward. Other steps can follow, but we have to make this first step and hopefully united together.
    Thank you, Janice! God Bless You and all of your assistants for what you are doing.

  3. ca

    my crime is 243.4a misdemeanor, based on the draft bill which tier ?, having trouble understanding
    the context of the draft bill!

    • American Detained in America

      Since it was a misdemeanor, you’d be Tier 1 as I read it.

    • Not Really

      It looks like 243.4 (a) is excluded from Tier 1 and is put into Tier 2:

      (I) Tier One offenders must register for 10 years. Persons shall register for 10 years if the
      person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or
      for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent offense as
      described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c).of Section 1192.7, except
      subdivisions (a) or (d) of Section 243.4,

      (2) Tier Two offenders must register for 20 years. Persons shall register for 20 years if the
      person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) which is also described in
      subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, Persons required to
      register for conviction of a offense described in subdivisions (a) or (d) of Section 243.4,

  4. ReadyToFight

    So…if you’re about 90 yrs old, you get a pass… hmmm. I want to say as someone who has lost his youth to registering as a subhuman son/brother/father/husband, Twenty Years of this IS A LIFETIME!!!
    The incremental aspect says to me they put little thought into who a person is/was/will be. If laws are supposed to be based on fact not fiction, then why did the 17 yr mark go right out the window? Why should anyone have to petition s@!# when their “time” is up??? Unless someone is deemed a SVP.
    Common sense takes a backseat at Every Turn because lawmakers are so shell shocked by their own imagination.
    They created a disaster by shoving us all in the same boat “one size fits all” and now…DECADES later, this is California’s problem solver???
    DA’s are master manipulator’s as in up means down unless they say otherwise but are not limited to which is which.
    Janice needs to be a large part of composing this bill and or one that runs along side it for consideration.
    I’m mostly venting here because our justice system makes me sick, but I do believe that we need people that look at this thing from All angles to create something that is Progressive not just a a continuance of Opression.

    • Timmr

      It is offence based mostly and mirrors and extends the sentencing sceme; the more publically despised the crimes the more prison time and then correspondingly more time on the registry. No time off for good behavior here. I wouldn’t have expected more at this time from them. It is all what we were convicted of not who we are now. It is good they want to reduce the ex post facto punishments for many, though. That’s a start.

    • Not Offense Based

      Timmr,

      No, it’s not offense based. Read this bill more carefully. Because you can still have a lesser egregious (or even non-contact/first-time) crime. BUT if your Static score happens to be high: you are subject to lifetime registration. It’s more of a risk/offense hybrid. By incorporating a risk to the offense aspect, SARATSO can always come up with a new “assessment” to screw us over.

      So yes, what did happen to the 17 year mark that everyone was talking about?

      Also, since a Certificate of Rehabilitation will no longer relieve someone of the duty to register under this “tiered” registration bill (LOL), will people who earned the Certificate of Rehabilitation now be retroactively required to register again? If so… seems kind of messed up! The Certificate of Rehabilitation part should have stayed!!

      I don’t agree with this tier at all. It just adds a lot of convolution to an already convolution system. The fact that so many District Attorneys endorse this bill should say something about the nature of this bill.

      They’re playing a chess game. And the DAs are winning.

      • Timmr

        Well, it is not risk based, either. If it was, your low risk score could put you in a lower tier. The Static 99 here is kind of like a foxtail barley seed in your dog’ ear. It only goes one way, deeper into the ear canal. I’d rather it would be science based, even junk science, then it can be challenged on the validity of the science. What this is, I don’t know, some kind of clusterf*?k, it is what we get because only a handful stand up before the decision makers. The rest are spending endless time trying to correct the thoughts of their peers.

    • Not Offense Based

      Timmr,

      No, it’s not offense based. Read this bill more carefully. Because you can still have a lesser egregious (or even non-contact/first-time) crime. BUT if your Static score happens to be high: you are subject to lifetime registration. It’s more of a risk/offense hybrid. By incorporating a risk to the offense aspect, SARATSO can always come up with a new “assessment” to screw us over.

      So yes, what did happen to the 17 year mark that everyone was talking about?

      Also, since a Certificate of Rehabilitation will no longer relieve someone of the duty to register under this “tiered” registration bill (LOL), will people who earned the Certificate of Rehabilitation now be retroactively required to register again? If so… seems kind of messed up! The Certificate of Rehabilitation part should have stayed!!

      I don’t agree with this tier at all. It just adds a lot of convolution to an already convoluted system. The fact that so many District Attorneys endorse this bill should say something about the nature of this bill.

      They’re playing a chess game. And the DAs are winning. This bill is all about screwing registrants in the long term.

      • Tiers are not a panacea....

        A tiered system is not a panacea! Been saying that of late. It is not the system that is needed. Of course the legal system likes it as one team, it is more money for them. Not about safety, but money.

        The analytics don’t work either.

        Sorry, but this needs to be fought tooth and nail in the process.

        • Mark

          You are right. Tiers are not a “panacea.” But many people buy into the hyped kool aid. If you are lucky to get off this ridiculous tier, great! But if you end up a tier 3 (like me)… welcome to the club. Us tier 3’s now seem more “dangerous” for LIFE. Does not seem like an improvement. And I don’t think I can support ACSOL in the future should it continue to peddle for laws that make some of our lives WORSE that it was before this bill.

    • Mark

      I agree with “ReadyToFight.” This bill has a tier 3 that makes no sense. If a tier 3 doesn’t reoffend in 17 yrs… they should be let go from the registry. These 3 level labels could be reconsidered, as they don’t seem right.

  5. mike r

    well looks like a rap for me in two years if it passes as drafted…so if I file my motion by the time it goes thru it will be moot…..guess we’ll see what happens…..if it passes as drafted it seems like a really good thing and I cant see any downside for anyone….god this would be great…………………

    • steve

      mike…now we have something in common. I too will be off in two years. The one very good thing out of this bill is that if you had multiple charges it does not matter. If you had two separate conviction dates then you would be tier 3.

      • steve

        Actually I take that back I would be life 288a. That is horrible

        • Mark

          LOL! Steve, I was also at first optimistic as well. But then after I read the bill, I realized I am tier 3… even MORE screwed than I am now. And my offense isn’t even listed (290.006). This proposed bill treats 290.006 registrants with more hate than existing legislation. I thought tiered registration was supposed to help?

          • NPS

            Mark, it clearly states that 290.006 is only subject to tier I unless the judge rules differently and must give reasons for higher tiers.

            • Tobin's Tools 2.0

              NPS,

              Not correct. Currently, 290.006 registrants are either not publicly listed on the registry -OR- they are listed but their address is not published. This bill would publish all registrants (with very few exceptions requiring some type of “petition” [provided you did not serve any type of prison]). Further, if a 290.006 registrant scores high on the Static-99R scam, they will be placed on the Tier 3 level.

              Finally, this bill removes Certificate of Rehabilitation eligibility for removal from registry. Currently, all 290.006 registrants are eligible for removal from the registry if they are able to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation. This bill would completely destroy the ability for ANY registrant who would otherwise be eligible (not just 290.006 registrants) to get off the registry through a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

              • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                Also, if you earned a Certificate of Rehabilitation prior to this bill and subsequently was relieved from the duty to register, you MIGHT have to re-register under this draft bill. In sum, this bill has a lot of unintended consequences. While this bill might/will help some, it has the equal force of putting other registrants in a much worse position. It’s a tricky dilemma that the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws would have to consider in its decision to support or oppose this political scam.

        • NPS

          Incorrect. If you committed 288a, it is only tier III if it was in the commission of a 187 (murder). However if you meant 288(a) and that’s a big difference from 288a, then it’d be a tier III.
          288a is subject to tier I.

          • Timmr

            Really? I thought it says you have to have two or more separate 288 (a)’s to qualify for tier III. Surprised it takes two. Lewd acts with a child is considered akin to murder nowadays. Of course, murderers don’t have to register unless it involved s*x. All makes perfect sense.

          • David Kennerly

            “However if you meant 288(a) and that’s a big difference from 288a, then it’d be a tier III. 288a is subject to tier I.”

            Where are you seeing this? I’m not finding any reference to 288(a) in this proposed bill at all. After failing to find it on a visual read, I OCR converted it and did a search on 288 and found each instance of 288 but, apart from some of the struck-out language, did not find 288(a).

            • Joe

              Precisely. 288(c) is listed in both Tier I and Tier II.

              It should say 288(c) in Tier I, 288(a) in Tier II and two separate cases (not charges) of 288(a) in Tier III.

              • Friend of ACSOL

                Hats off to you, Joe. That is impressive. Honestly, it’s too bad our talents are wasted :/

              • Timmr

                Joe, 288 (c) is not listed as a violent felony under 667.5 (c), but despite that they still don’t put it in tier I with the other nonviolent felonies, that is why they list it as an exception, a non violent felony they put in tier II with the violent felonies. The reason, most likely is that it is still an offense against a child (over 14 years) and they want that punished more severely, even though it is by law not ‘violent’. The second reference in the paragraph for tier II mentions it again for clarity, that 288 (c) is a tier II offense, even though it is not violent. It reads correctly, although very awkwardly. What California law doesn’t?
                This bring up the question. Why isn’t a repeat 288 (c) not in tier III? Go figure.

            • David Kennerly

              I see now that it DOES appear as the following under the Tier 3 qualifications:

              “(vi) The person was convicted of subdivisions (a) of Sections 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately…”

              So, two separate convictions (separated in time?) of 288 (a) would qualify as Tier 3.

            • NPS

              Timmr, thank you for correcting me. It’s only if you have two or more separate 288(a) charges.

              David Kennerly, it’s on the second page of the draft bill, third line from the bottom. It clearly states “The person was convicted of subdivisions (a) of section 288 in two proceeding brought and tried separately.”

  6. mike r

    wowww The fact that the DA’s, Police chiefs’, and police dept’s. in the large jurisdictions agreed to the current draft is really promising…They all know its a colossal waste of resources and just makes their jobs harder having all these low risk offenders on there…That bill even says that tier two offenders will no longer have their residential address but only their zip or county that they reside in…. This is an incredible compromise and though not perfect its the best were going to get on a across the board change…People will still have to file as applied challenges if they want to get off the registry earlier and this will make it almost impossible for that to happen if this passes because they will definitely be able to say that it is now narrowly tailored and here in cali we dont have all the restrictions like they do in other states….I wonder how this will effect IML and if you travel in other states….

    • No location identifiers!

      Zip code and county is better than full address, but the best bet as you noted continually is no address identifier at all!

      • Mark

        Tier 3 will be required to have their addresses posted. This law makes it worse for me because right now, my profile doesn’t require my address to be listed.

  7. Bill Arthur

    Could one of the legal experts provide a list of the different felonies in the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories. It’s really difficult to find and decipher all the different sections and subdivisions, and I’d like to get an advance warning of which tier my crime falls in.

    • Harry

      I agree will Bill A. Because most of us are lay people and only know how to read plain English, it best this was summarized and explained in plain English

  8. mike r

    I bet they are getting really nervous because they know its just a matter of time before someone takes down the entire scheme….It was coming and they no it…must of read my motion…lmfao….

  9. What is magic about 1987?

    Baloney! What is magic about 1987? Quit making large blocks of time like this become hurdles for restoration. CA needs to work to find something much much closer than 30 years ago, say starting in 1997 if you must do 20 years. Stupid blocks of time with no relevance!

    • well that's kind of obvious

      Frank did a lot of the lobbying. He fits into the 1987 exception. Just sayin’…

      Just doesn’t seem fair that a lot of us will be thrown under the bus (and SEEM more “dangerous”) just for a few to get off.

  10. Tuna

    The text of 290 as shown in this bill is actually worded stupidly. 311.11 didnt become a crime until 1990, and then only for material with minors 14 or under as I recall. Didnt become illegal for under 18 until 1993, and it wasnt registerable until 1994, yet the wording in this bill says “anyone who since 1944”. Shaking my head.

    • Punished For Life

      Indeed, I was wondering the exact thing about the arbitrary “1987”.
      It’s being repeated over and over again that with no re-offense, that 17 years should be the number.
      Doesn’t matter the offense. Each year, the next batch of offense free prisoners should be released from
      the registry.
      So the key number should be about the year 2000 by the time the penal code can be written.
      The first and only reason for lifetime of punishment for this new scheme is for a re-offense. Period.

      • Is it about economics??

        This has to come down to economics…..if you start by going with 2000, how much money do the departments lose if they step up to 2000 vs 1997 or even 1987? I would imagine it is quite a bit. Getting those out of the shadows who have not had to register before will bring in much needed money when budgets are tight and federal funding still wavers in its amount.

  11. abolishtheregistry.com

    I knew it wouldn’t be long before this was headed through the backdoor.

    You know this will be supported…

    Even the lead up was full of flags. Can’t wait to read the bill!

  12. Quint

    One thing that people are missing here: it eliminates a LOT of people previously exempt from Megan’s Law will then appear on the website.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      Exactly. Again, this “tiered” registry has proved to only divide and conquer.

  13. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Well folks, here is what I was dreading:

    “Tier Three offenders must register for life. Persons shall register for life if: (iv) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

    This fictitious tiered registry puts an awful lot of weight on the Static-99R Scam!

  14. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    A lot of the benefits of a Certificate of Rehabilitation are removed in this fictitious “tiered” registry. In many ways, it’s actually worse than the current registration scheme that we have! Also troubling:

    “Tier Three offenders must register for life. Persons shall register for life if: (iv) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

    So this fictitious tiered registry also puts an awful lot of weight on the Static-99R scam!!

  15. Roger

    The fact that a DA would co-sponsor a three-tiers bill is a MAJOR CHANGE, guys!

    No, it won’t help me and many other RCs in the short term, but it shows there IS HOPE for all of us if we work together!

    Whatever Janice recommends, we should support her.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Your comment makes me think human survival instinct/self-preservation has all but been bred out.

    • ReadyToFight

      I agree, we should support Janice and her team however humanly possible.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      The fact District Attorneys support this bill is probably reason as NOT to support it. Remember, they are the ones that have fought to keep us oppressed. Why would we suddenly (and magically) expect them to look after our best interests? Or even the public’s interest for that matter?

      The district attorneys are politicians. They are not interested in empirical evidence, credible statistics, or OUR civil rights!

      • Mark

        I don’t agree with this bill. Hope it’s amended to be more fair. Maybe tier 3 can have a way out too. Or at least keep tier 3 to be able to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation and NOT have our address published.

  16. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Also troubling, more people — based on their Static Scam score — will be subjected to the Megan’s Law website. So many people who were not previously published will now be published under this fictitious “tiered” registry.

    • correction!!

      STATIC DOES NOT MATTER!! Actually, there will be no more unpublished exceptions! So many registrants (about 8,000 last I checked) who were not on Megan’s Law website before will now appear. This is the tiered registry you all cheer for?

      “Penal Code section 290.46 is amended as follows: (a)(1) On or before the dates specified in this section, the Department of Justice shall make available information concerning persons who are required to register pursuant to Sections 290-290.006 to the public via an Internet Web site as specified in this section.”

  17. Gerald Cervente

    Like most bills, there in bullishness and are not clear of intent.
    Which persons get on which tiers,it seems that 288a gets you on tier 3
    regardless of the time since the offense occurred ,absolute crap.
    Tier 3 would require reporting every 90 days,plus massive
    harassment.As it stands in the present tier system lower offenses
    and medium offenses are in the same tier,you only have to report once a year.
    Only those that are designated violent predators are to report every 90 days,as I interpret
    this part of the bill ,it will make my life a living nightmare for no reason at all.
    I would like some feedback from fellow members and Janice on this.
    The bill would be ok if in 10 years your off for lower level offenses ,20 years your off including 288a if there are no other
    sexual charges in that time,lifetime for violent predators .
    A member here posted that hes state went to the Adam Walsh Act,before he only had to report once a year after that he was required to report every 90 days,this bill could cause the same problem.
    It would be completely crazy to force someone having registered once year for many years and designate him a violent predator and force him to report every 90 days.

    • anon

      The way I read the bill, if you were convicted under Section 187 (such as murder, mayhem, etc.) or Section 207 or 209 (kidnapping) with an intent to commit various sex offenses, you go to tier three. That is my reading of the current bill, which can change. We don’t really know much until it goes through the process.

    • Mark

      Gerald, I think this tier is setting us up to be an Adam Walsh Act state. I would also fall into Tier 3. Under the Adam Walsh Act, Tier 3 would have to register every 90 days … and Tier 2 would have to register every 6 months. This proposed bill is full of exceptions. Gives more credibility to the STATIC scores (which are absolute scams). An I agree … might make it easier to become an Adam Walsh Act state. So this prosecutor-crafted bill is really a double-edged sword. I do not support it!!

  18. JG

    This is definitely a step in the right direction, thank you Janice for all of your hard work. I am hopeful that soon all will realize that the registry is a complete waste of resources and money will be better allocated to educating our children and rehabilitation for offenders and victims. Does anyone have an idea of what effect, if any, this bill will have on those who have had their records expunged but are still required to register? (288.2b)

    • Mark

      For me, and probably a few others, this would “definitely” be a step in the wrong direction. I am glad that it will help many of you. But this bill would put me in tier 3 and lets my address now known. Right now, my profile does not show my address. But under this tier, it will. And I will have no way to get out of tier 3.

  19. ALL REGISTRANTS WILL NOW BE PUBLISHED ON MEGAN'S LAW

    Too bad. This tiered bill will require publication of all registrants now. That means if you are some of the “lucky” few not currently publicized to the public on the Megan’s Law website, you NOW WILL BE (provided you don’t somehow “petition” off of this phony scheme).

    As for the 1987 part… I don’t get it. Why not just make it 30 years max (without the “lifetime” part)? Why is it arbitrarily 1987? It makes no logical sense as the generally more serious crimes were the only crimes that required registration pre-1987. Now, in 2016, you have 60+ 290 offenses, not all of them as serious as pre-1987 290 offenses, and yet the 30 year period would not apply to the lesser serious offenses?

    Honestly, this bill makes no sense.

    • Let last century be done already...

      “Come out of the shadows my pretty!” Bwahahahahaha

      Even better, start with 2000 and move forward and let the last century be one for the books…..

    • curiouser

      Kindly cease with the shock and awe techniques. We can all read.

      • Mark

        I don’t believe what he or she says to be “shock and awe techniques.” He or she has a valid point. For my, my profile under this unfair bill will go from not listing my address to listing my address and placing me in tier 3. Kind of stupid for a 290.006 non contact offense when I had no other criminal history before or since conviction. Again, I am better off working, saving, minding my own life than keeping my hopes up that ACSOL will actually support a bill that will help EVERYONE… not just the old timers. So I think this bill is unfair.

    • NPS

      Wrong. It clearly states public notification for Tier II and Tier III only. However, if Tier II is offense free for 10 years, they can petition for website exclusion.

      Tier I is not subject to public notification.

      Enough with the fear mongering.

      • Friend of ACSOL

        I don’t think it is clear – there is simply no mention of public notification for Tier I, and exclusions are now limited to people who have served no jail or prison time (in other words, probation only). The question is whether no mention of it in the bill means by default there IS public notification for Tier I, or no mention means NO public notification for Tier I, or no mention is just an oversight.

        Please cite the relevant part of the bill that states affirmatively that Tier I will not be on the website. I would like to be proven wrong.

        • David Kennerly

          Since this is the relevant code that governs and authorizes Registration, public disclosure, including the web, would need to be explicitly stated in this document to be a possible consequence of registration. If it is not, then web disclosure would not be a possible consequence.

        • NPS

          Exactly. There is no mention of Tier I for public notification. It only states Tiers II and III. After 10 years of offense-free registration, Tier II can apply for website exclusion. Their final 10 years registration would be off the public website.

          Why, then, would a Tier I who only registers for 10 years be subject to public notification? They’re omitted from the 290.46 because they aren’t subject to it.

          • Friend of ACSOL

            OK, I’ll buy this in theory – but why is there wording that people who have been given probation can opt out? It’s dubious that people on Tiers 2 and 3 would be given probation. Can anyone clarify?

            Also, doesn’t the AWA require everybody to be publicly disclosed?

            Correct me if I’m confused, which I hope I am.

  20. TRUTH

    I have to disagree with the tier registry. In places like indiana, depending on the crime or age of the victim, youre automatically put in tier 3. The tiers should be based on the crime AND your conduct since you were released from prison. I fail to see how to justify a guy as tier 3 if hes been out and crime free for many years regardless of the alleged crime he comitted.

    • Mark

      I agree with you because under this bill, I would be put in tier 3 with no way out. Does not factor offense free for long period of time. Unfortunately, I had multiple stranger victims. Non contact, first time offense. But even though I have been offense free over 8 yrs now, working full-time and volunteering, it won’t matter under this bill. I had hopes to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation to get off the registry at 10 yrs. But obviously, at least under this bill, the Certificate of Rehabilition will no longer help. Worse yet: my address will be known.

  21. Chris F

    You should be most worried about the involvement of judges in letting people off the registry.

    Judges are elected, and most will be unlikely to risk their careers by letting someone off the registry. Why should they?

    As proof of this, look at Texas. If Texas requires more time on the registry than the SORNA required time, then you can petition the court to remove you after completing the SORNA amount of time. Now, even though that is usually a very long time on the registry offence free and everyone that petitioned had approval from the Sex Offender board as completing treatment and being deemed low risk, only 1/3 of the requests were granted removal. ONLY ONE THIRD WERE GRANTED REMOVAL!

    Yet again, someone is creating something that looks good on the surface, but underneath, it’s really just continuing the scam that will keep people on the registry but serve the purpose of looking like there is a legitimate way to get off so that courts won’t be likely to find the registry UNCONSTITUTIONAL, though it is.

    I hope Janice and her team fight this, and not give in like they are being offered an olive branch. It’s really poison ivy.

    Think about it. It’s not legal for any other crime to receive special conditions for all guilty of that particular crime. It’s a complete violation of Due Process and Equal Protection:

    U.S. v. DAVIS•452 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2006)

    Federal law requires the district courts to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” when crafting a special condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(d)(1); cf. United States v. Heidebur, 417 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2005). That inquiry must take place on an individualized basis; a court may not impose a special condition on all those found guilty of a particular offense.

    • Judges and the polished turd

      True point about the risk of judges being the final arbiter if they are elected and do not want to risk their judgeships. Even if you are an appointed judge, for example, the Stanford case judge, you could be subject to recall, harassment outside the courthouse or other problems should you rule against what the masses deem to be appropriate. A low release number is better than a zero release number and thus justifiable to show the courts the system is doing what it needs to do in releasing individuals, even if they could do more to release more with appropriate justification.

      I would not go as far as saying the panels are any better or the analytics either because there will always be some sway or skew to it to fit the needs of the legal system in their favor, not the favor of the individual, regardless of the time past release for the offense.

      This is a polished turd on top but on the underside still stinks like a turd in the warm CA sun!

  22. Jesse C

    It states that those who have scored well above average risk will be placed in a high-risk category for life. I cannot seem to figure out who would be considered or how the consideration is made as too well above-average risk. This classification average risk does not seem to be present on the static-99. Maybe Janice can offer some insight thanks

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      The “developers” of the Static-99R scam recently released a new paper to add new labels to the classifications you refer to:

      http://saratso.org/docs/Hanson_et_al_2016_October_Static_risk_categories_Advance_Online_10_16.pdf

      (See page 5.)

      -3: Very low risk
      -2: Very low risk
      -1: Below average risk
      0: Below average risk
      1: Average risk
      2: Average risk
      3: Average risk
      4: Above average risk
      5: Above average risk
      6: Well above average risk
      7: Well above average risk
      8: Well above average risk
      9: Well above average risk
      10+: Well above average risk

      Please note that in the figures they examine, the Static predictions only go to 5-year predictions. Same with the recent CA DOJ study: it only went up to 5-year evaluation. I cannot stress enough how the Static must never be used to assess periods over 10-years… and NOT especially LIFETIME! Yet this is what the District Attorney’s and CASOMB wants. It’s ridiculous!

      This is not just a “risk” or offense-based bill; but it is a ‘hybrid’ offense/risk based bill that makes it even more draconian than our current system. As said above, if they DOJ can’t hit you with a more serious tier based on ‘offense,’ then they might just up your tier level based on alleged ‘risk.’

      (Plus, has any independent statistician and/or researcher been given the opportunity to reanalyze whether there is any statistical manipulation in the Static-99R figures? I just don’t trust the Static “developers.” There should be a Public Record Act request. And the APA Code of Conduct, section 8.14, requires that the ‘developers’ share their information. Yet have these developers, including Karl Hanson, complied with such requests?)

      If someone is offense-free in the community for 17 years, then they should be able to petition the court (or better yet, “fall off”). And at least give the Certificate of Rehabilitation the power to relieve registration duty.

  23. Jesse C

    In reading the bill one thing doesn’t make sense. For someone who was convicted of a non contact internet-based offense which may have multiple victims they are automatically exempt from Tier 1. Meaning that when it describes how to obtain relief after you meet your 10 year period you could only petition if you have no more than one victim between the ages of 13 and 17. How does this relate to persons who communicated with multiple persons or had multiple images for their conviction. It seems that this clause should not be applied to non-contact offenses. Again I cannot speak for everyone or everyone’s case however this is based on my experiences and my knowledge of other cases. I do want to thank Janice and all who have been working so hard on this and getting this to move forward. Just to have officials backing a tiered registry I think is a huge step.

  24. mike r

    Looks like Im burnt…Attempts are in there…20 years for me…..and probabaly most people on the list….The only real positive about this is that level two’s wont have their residence address on the website..for what thats worth..And they can petition the court after ten years to be removed from the public website but will still have to register for the 20 year period…..

    667.5. Enhancement of prison terms for new offenses because of
    prior prison terms shall be imposed as follows:
    (a) Where one of the new offenses is one of the violent felonies
    specified in subdivision (c), in addition to and consecutive to any
    other prison terms therefor, the court shall impose a three-year term
    for each prior separate prison term served by the defendant where
    the prior offense was one of the violent felonies specified in
    subdivision (c). However, no additional term shall be imposed under
    this subdivision for any prison term served prior to a period of 10
    years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and
    the commission of an offense which results in a felony conviction.
    (b) Except where subdivision (a) applies, where the new offense is
    any felony for which a prison sentence or a sentence of imprisonment
    in a county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 is imposed or
    is not suspended, in addition and consecutive to any other sentence
    therefor, the court shall impose a one-year term for each prior
    separate prison term or county jail term imposed under subdivision
    (h) of Section 1170 or when sentence is not suspended for any felony;
    provided that no additional term shall be imposed under this
    subdivision for any prison term or county jail term imposed under
    subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or when sentence is not suspended
    prior to a period of five years in which the defendant remained free
    of both the commission of an offense which results in a felony
    conviction, and prison custody or the imposition of a term of jail
    custody imposed under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or any felony
    sentence that is not suspended. A term imposed under the provisions
    of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, wherein a
    portion of the term is suspended by the court to allow mandatory
    supervision, shall qualify as a prior county jail term for the
    purposes of the one-year enhancement.
    (c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean
    any of the following:
    (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
    (2) Mayhem.
    (3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of
    Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
    262.
    (4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
    (5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of
    Section 288a.
    (6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
    Section 288.
    (7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
    prison for life.
    (8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
    on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and
    proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or
    after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in
    Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses
    a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in
    subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.
    (9) Any robbery.
    (10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.
    (11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of
    Section 289.
    (12) Attempted murder.
    (13) A violation of Section 18745, 18750, or 18755.
    (14) Kidnapping.
    (15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in
    violation of Section 220.
    (16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section
    288.5.
    (17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.
    (18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in
    violation of Section 264.1.
    (19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute
    a felony violation of Section 186.22.
    (20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1,
    which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22.
    (21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision
    (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another
    person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during
    the commission of the burglary.
    (22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.
    (23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418. The
    Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit
    special consideration when imposing a sentence to display society’s
    condemnation for these extraordinary crimes of violence against the
    person.
    (d) For the purposes of this section, the defendant shall be
    deemed to remain in prison custody for an offense until the official
    discharge from custody, including any period of mandatory
    supervision, or until release on parole or postrelease community
    supervision, whichever first occurs, including any time during which
    the defendant remains subject to reimprisonment or custody in county
    jail for escape from custody or is reimprisoned on revocation of
    parole or postrelease community supervision. The additional penalties
    provided for prior prison terms shall not be imposed unless they are
    charged and admitted or found true in the action for the new
    offense.
    (e) The additional penalties provided for prior prison terms shall
    not be imposed for any felony for which the defendant did not serve
    a prior separate term in state prison or in county jail under
    subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
    (f) A prior conviction of a felony shall include a conviction in
    another jurisdiction for an offense which, if committed in
    California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in
    county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 if the defendant
    served one year or more in prison for the offense in the other
    jurisdiction. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include
    a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense which includes
    all of the elements of the particular felony as defined under
    California law if the defendant served one year or more in prison for
    the offense in the other jurisdiction.
    (g) A prior separate prison term for the purposes of this section
    shall mean a continuous completed period of prison incarceration
    imposed for the particular offense alone or in combination with
    concurrent or consecutive sentences for other crimes, including any
    reimprisonment on revocation of parole which is not accompanied by a
    new commitment to prison, and including any reimprisonment after an
    escape from incarceration.
    (h) Serving a prison term includes any confinement time in any
    state prison or federal penal institution as punishment for
    commission of an offense, including confinement in a hospital or
    other institution or facility credited as service of prison time in
    the jurisdiction of the confinement.
    (i) For the purposes of this section, a commitment to the State
    Department of Mental Health, or its successor the State Department of
    State Hospitals, as a mentally disordered sex offender following a
    conviction of a felony, which commitment exceeds one year in
    duration, shall be deemed a prior prison term.
    (j) For the purposes of this section, when a person subject to the
    custody, control, and discipline of the Secretary of the Department
    of Corrections and Rehabilitation is incarcerated at a facility
    operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice, that incarceration
    shall be deemed to be a term served in state prison.
    (k) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (d) and (g) or any other
    provision of law, where one of the new offenses is committed while
    the defendant is temporarily removed from prison pursuant to Section
    2690 or while the defendant is transferred to a community facility
    pursuant to Section 3416, 6253, or 6263, or while the defendant is on
    furlough pursuant to Section 6254, the defendant shall be subject to
    the full enhancements provided for in this section.
    (2) This subdivision shall not apply when a full, separate, and
    consecutive term is imposed pursuant to any other provision of law.

    this is pc 1192.7(c) second or third tier if convicted of any of the following….
    (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (26) grand theft involving a firearm; (27) carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220; (30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Section 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault; (40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; and (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.
    – See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1192-7.html#sthash.WGUIqKqO.dpuf

    • C

      Geez that s makes my head spin. If and when this is done I hope someone puts up a Web site where you can plug in your convictions and hit a button to see if you come up a winner.

  25. American Detained in America

    I just read through a large part of this bill, it’s actually better than some of the previous versions. Under a previous version, even with no actual victim(fictitious victim), I would have been Teir 3 because of how a bogus new case was manufactured and I was pretty much forced into a plea that resulted in prison time because the powers that be were not happy that I had served no jail time. With this one, I would be a Tier 1, which is more appropriate. While I personally believe the registry should be abolished completely, this is better than most of the proposals that have come through.

  26. steve

    What if you were never given a Static99??????

  27. Bobby

    Hey guys,

    We here in Michigan have the tiered system,and it SUCKS,and everyone gets screwed,one way or the other, risk assessment based is much better,that is part of why the 6th circuit ruled in our favor as far as the registry goes along with the ex pos facto ect,ect. I really hope Janice can put the kabosh on this before it gets out of hand, it’s obvious California is not paying attention to what is starting to take place in other states.

    • Mark

      “risk assessment” = Static 99 = not good = this registry combines the worse of both worlds = if this bill can’t get you with offense, it may get you with an unfavorable “risk” assessment

    • Steve

      Exactly Mark. It seems they have selectively chosen who gets assessment and who doesn’t. Like myself 288a automatic tier 3 lumped together with sexually violent predators/ and those with a mental disorder and most likely have to go in every 90 days. Complete crap. Thank god for the 6th circuit and some precedence. I would almost bet the majority on the list are 288 and like I said a few months ago it will help a few but screw the majority of people.

    • Timmr

      I would be comfortable with that, if they used the thorough investigation done by my court approved forensic psychologist and not some quick form, and kept it to the decision made at the trial, not in some legislature. It erks me they have to keep reevaluating me and upping my dangerousness, when I have done nothing to provoke it, but only because my crime is more vilified now than it was when I was sentenced. I am not talking specifically about tiers, but by any law which arbitrarily throws more burdens upon my shoulders. This upping the ante after the sentence is what the fifth amendment was supposed to prevent.

  28. mike r

    couple things here..
    (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault

    seems like a equal protection issue there since attempted assaults are as serious if not more serious than attempted lewd act..
    also why do they state attempted murder in this section but repeats itself with any attempt of any offece in this section…seems kind of redundant or as if the legislators didn’t intend for attempt of the other offenses to be included…so am I correct to assume attempted lewd act minor under 14 is a tier two offense

  29. steve

    So you can petition to get off tier 3?? Can someone explain. Whoever is going into tier 3 is being thrown in with sexually violent predators. People in tier 3 should be repeat offenders only. Janice I can’t believe you are going along with this. In my case I never even went to prison my score would be low on the static 99 but now will be tier 3…horrifying.

    • Mark

      Once a Tier 3, always a Tier 3. There is no way out of Tier 3!

      • Steve

        Mark read further down it talks about tier 3 and petitioning to 2. I just don’t understand the 1st sentence of it.

    • Steve

      Sorry Janice just read where you said ASCOL has not determined if they are supporting.

    • Punished For Life

      steve:
      I agree with you completely.
      This thing stinks of AWA. I would be extremely concerned with anything a DA or AG is promoting. It’s one step closer to fully receiving the Federal funds for law enforcement. Just one step closer to Adam Walsh Act, which has no provision for a tier 3 to ever be removed. AWA looks at the offense only and not the person or the quality of his/her life without re-offense for decades. Someone needs to let the promoters know that they
      (the promoter of the new bill), are equally as high of a risk to society, as the offender who is 17 years clean. They may not want to hear the statistic, but it’s becoming more of a convincing argument.

    • Timmr

      That is the twilight zone aspect of this registry. You may have been a first time offender with a favorable psyc evaluation, received a suspended sentence and probation, but you are still considered dangerous for life under the present registry, people who got probation, but can’t get a COR because of the offense. Crazy. Thing is everyone, exept the COR’s got life before this proposal. Some now will get better. That is good. Now it is making a teeny weeny bit more sense. I would have concerns, though, if you are going to have to increase your frequecy of registration. That is not right, nor is being classed a SVP if you are not. I don’t see were this bill says that, but we should look more deeply and oppose any part of this bill that arbitrarily makes life more difficult for some. I am glad ASCOL is not outright supporting this bill. It is too devisive.

  30. James

    “In addition to tiering, the bill proposes that registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry. It is estimated that about 10,500 registrants are eligible for automatic removal.”

    hummm…would this be true for Tier Three Registrants also?

    Curious.

    Best Wishes, James

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      My guess is probably not if you fit into the ever expanding tier 3 qualifications.

  31. USA

    Guys. Please be respectful. As noted, the guy inquiring about a misdemeanor battery would be a tier 1. Tier 3 is the highest tier. If you read the proposal carefully, only tier 3 offenders would show online! Thanks

    • ca

      USA=I have a 243.4a wobbler reduced to misdemeanor in 2008, but convicted of failure to register in 2009!
      so according to what i read in the draft bill i would have to wait until 2019 to file the petition.
      if i read this draft bill correctly?

    • Mark

      WRONG! USA, please read the bill more carefully before you get people’s hopes up. ALL registrants will be published on the Megan’s Law website (no more exceptions/unpublished offenders). But only the addresses of Tier 3 will be published.

      • NPS

        Enough already, Mark. The bill states that internet disclosure is for those described in 290.46(b). Those described in subdivision (b) are those who are Tier III. Those who fall under 290,46(c) are Tier II who would be on the website. There isn’t a mention of Tier I described in subdivision (b) or (c). Tier II can petition for removal from the site after 10 years. Use common sense. Tier I only does 10 years registration. They are not included on the website.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        NPS,

        You are again mistaken. Mark is actually correct. In no uncertain terms, this bill states the following:

        “Penal Code section 290.46 is amended as follows: (a)(1) On or before the dates specified in this section, the Department of Justice shall make available information concerning persons who are required to register pursuant to Sections 290-290.006 to the public via an Internet Web site as specified in this section.”

        In a way, this law actually makes things worse for many because the several thousand unpublished offenders will now be subject to public notification under this “fugasi” of a law.

        The excerpt that you read from 290.46(b) and (c) are the more extensive requirements that will be required for publication for Tier II and III. But the bill clearly states that ALL registrants will be required for publication. Even Tier I.

        As for the “petition for removal” that you mention, it would require you to “file an application with the Department of Justice, on a form approved by the department, for exclusion from the Internet web site.” Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(1). Further:

        “IF the department determines that the person meets the requirements of this subdivision, the department shall grant the exclusion and no information concerning the person shall be made available via the Internet Web site described in this section. HE OR SHE BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FACTS THAT MAKE HIM OR HER ELIGIBLE FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE INTERNET WEBSITE. However, A PERSON WHO HAS FILED FOR OR HAS BEEN GRANTED AN EXCLUSION FROM THE INTERNET WEB SITE IS NOT RELIEVED OF HIS OR HER DUTY TO REGISTER OF A SEX OFFENDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 290[.]” Id.

        So it is kind of a fox guarding the hen house type of deal. It leaves the decision NOT to the already conservative courts, but leave it to the prosecutors themselves. And even if they grant the exclusion, you’d still have to register.

        There are so many potentially troubling scenarios that can arise from this bill. It might/will help some, but it has the unintended consequence of harming an equal or greater number of people. I want to say sorry for saying so, but I think I must say it:

        In my opinion, this is a political scam!

  32. Mark

    This bill would put me in a worse position. I would be classified as a tier 3 AND my address would be made known. Right now, my address is not made known. Also, I was looking forward to earning a Certificate of Rehabilitation in a few years. No longer an option. This bill would remove the Certificate of Rehabilitation as a way to get off the registry. It’s kinda hard to support ACSOL, Frank, Janice in passing laws that will hurt me and probably many others. I know you have done good. But when this bill will hurt me, and ya’ll have been making the tiered registry seem like a step forward, it’s not logical to keep attending meetings and donating in the basket. I work a minimum wage job, 9 to 5. Might as well continue to work and live my life without getting my hopes up.

  33. Patsy Hug

    I have read everything here. I’m sorry I don’t see the answer to my question, or our situation and I have a very difficult time ever getting answers to what my son was charged with. He is one of the many who were arrested in a Federal sting of child porn download. He was arrested and convicted of one count due to plea to avoid a trial in 2008. He served six years in federal prison. He is currently on supervised release…two years into a 10 year program. He is not listed on the public registry but does register with the Sheriff every year. He is attending mandatory group programs and is currently employed. Where does he and others like him fit in all of this?

  34. BAM

    Will registrants that now live in other states with California crimes feel the effect of the registry. I live in Florida with no recourse. Florida is stating that I have to register as long as California says so. I have a crime that is exempt from public exposure in California but not in the state Florida. The State of Florida doesnt exempt no one at all. The state of Florida continues to state that as long as i have to register in California, I will have to continue registering in Florida. Will the tiering system help me and other registrants that live out of state that have had to register since 1997 or how ever long. I think that the system must not forget the ones that moved. Some one please respond to me please. Some one with some significant info!!

    • G4Change

      I want to echo this question. I’m living out of state but with a single CA misdemeanor conviction (plea) from 1999. How would I, as a non-CA resident, be able to petition to remove myself from CA registration? Being able to remove myself from CA registration would open the door for me to live in many states where my 1999 conviction alone would no longer require registration but the fact that I still have to register in CA alone triggers the requirement to register.
      Maybe some language needs to be built into this bill to allow for this process.
      Thank you, again, Janice and everyone for your continued hard work!

  35. mike r

    usa you’re incorrect…tier one offenders will be exempt from disclosure on the public registry…tier two will be on the public registry but they will not publish their current residential address for ten years at which time you can file an exclusion form to be removed from the public registry but will continue to register for another decade…this is just about the only real positive change that could effect a large number of people…it seems according to the drafted bill that it will be much easier to get off the public registry than petitioning the courts…it states that the registration Department will make available a exclusion form ,such as the exclusion form they have for people whose victims were family members, and it states that the doj SHALL,important word there, shall grant exclusion but the burden is on you to prove you have been on the registry for at least ten years and that you haven’t had any subsequent sexual offenses…those are the only two requirements for removal from the public registry….from how im reading they must or shall exclude you if you meet those two requirements…who knows what the actual bill look like though….they need to at least exclude non contact offenses from tier two status…somehow a non contact attempted lewd Act is a serious felony under pc 1197.2 but attempted assualt with a maching gun or other weapons in the attempt to commit rape sodomy or other sexual offenses is not serious…

  36. ONE DAY AT A TIME

    I will support this bill. But hopefully it will be tweaked to be better by the time it gets passed.

  37. mike r

    well it doesn’t look like this will effect my motion much since the only issue it will make moot is the current address on public display issue….which will in turn moot the harrasment issue somewhat,not completely though since you will still be able to look you up using your zip codes…also the fact that i will be off the public registry in two years ….isn’t going to change anything for how I go forward from here….still violates a panoply of other rights that only being relieved of the duty to register will resolve….

  38. New Person

    Certain registrants get off automatically, but future ones do not? There is a petition? Why? This is not equal at all.


    The DA’s office could either agree to removal or object based upon a belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”.

    If the DA’s office objects to a registrant’s removal, the final decision would be made by a Superior Court judge.

    Why does the DA have any say in this? This is highly suspect! They get to judge us TWICE?! That’s bafoonery! There shouldn’t be any petition! Do you realize how difficult it already is to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation?! So now it’s a petition that the DA and Judges can extend for how every amount of time they wish.

    If you reached your expected time to be off the registry, then why have a petition at all b/c you’ve met the conditions.

    Another query is why 10 and 20 years? Why not five or anything coinciding with probation? Doesn’t less than 1% re-offense rates matter? This fact is missing in this tiered system!

    Registration is still compelled service a la involuntary servitude. You get no pay, the term doesn’t fit anything legit, and you’re still domineered by the state.

    Maybe we should take up Michigan’s mantle. Do research and discover for a fact that 1203.4 did give relief and that registration was once called punishment under California law.

  39. someone who cares

    I have the same question as Steve. What if you were never given the Static99? Also, it says that his or her risk will be evaluated. From what I have read, the Static99R is strictly for male offenders. So, will women automatically be taken off the registry? I am against the tiered registry since it accepts that the registry is legal, and it is not. I would much rather invest our resources into abolishing the registry once and for all. I feel like this is Nazi Germany all over again, where people where excited when Hitler took over because they were promised jobs and money. Nobody knew or anticipated what would happen. Soldiers died, food was non existent and the promised wealth never materialized. We are going blindly into the unknown again. It might sound good, but is it really? Are we getting excited now just to realize later, when it is too late, what a disaster this will be? The registry needs to go. If there is no registry for other categories, we are being discriminated against.

  40. USA

    Mike,

    I think you are right. Keep in mind, things can change. I plead to a misdemeanor sexual battery expunged/summary probation almost 20 years ago. I’m thinking I’m a tier 1 (doesn’t that sound terrible.

  41. Joe

    I spy… with my little eye. I think I see a typo. Bear with me.

    Also know the difference between 288(a) and 288a(…)(…) – pay attention to the parenthesis, there is a BIG difference. Look at your paperwork.

    On page 2….

    (1) Tier I Offender includes assorted offenses NOT listed in PC 667.5. Including “subdivision (c) of Section 288” – which is L&L with a 14/15 year old.

    (2) Tier II Offender includes assorted offenses that ARE listed out in PC 667.5.

    PC 288(a) L&L with a child under 14 – IS listed in PC 667.5. HOWEVER – Tier II Offender includes “subdivision (c) of Section 288” again in (2) Tier II Offender – same as in (1) Tier I Offender. This is redundant. You cannot have the same offense (down to the subsection) in two categories.

    I believe this should read “Tier II Offender includes “subdivision (a) of Section 288” – which is L&L with a child under 14 – PC 288(a). Which is what many many are convicted of. PC 288(a).

    Because a single conviction of subsection (a) of Section 288 is NOT listed in Tier III.

    (3) Tier III Offender includes

    (i) AFTER original conviction requiring registration – another conviction listed in PC 667.5 (violent)
    (ii) person ever committed as SVP
    (iii) person convicted of Section 187 (Murder!) with intent to commit registerable sex offense
    (iv) person’s risk level is well above average risk.
    (v) person is a habitual sex offender
    (vi) person has 2 (two) SEPARATE convictions for PC 288(a) (I read this as NOT 2 charges but two different cases apart in time)
    (vii) person was sentenced to 15/25 – life for an offense listed in PC 667.5

    So, a single conviction (multiple charges possible) of the most common offense – 288(a) – should be listed in Tier II. Meaning such convict would get off, possibly, after 20 years. UNLESS such person re-offended – important – WITH an offense listed in PC 667.5 (Failure to register or DUI or any other other conviction NOT in PC 667.5 does not count), had committed murder in combination with a sex offense initially, or committed an offense listed in PC 667.5 that is so bad that he got life in prison.

    I am good with that. Let’s face it. The registry will not be eliminated by the legislature in our life time. Too much riding on it. Maybe by the courts, but not in Sacramento.

    Tier III consists of recidivists (of major offenses involving young children), murderers and clinically diagnosed individuals. I do not agree that the registry is the proper way to deal with such people (as it does nothing to re-integrate them into society), but to lump this group in with people who had a willing partner that was slightly underage, or had some photos on a smart phone, or had an inappropriate conversation with a teenager, is ludicrous.

    The only issue is the much maligned risk determination for Tier III – (3)(iv) that could bump one up to Tier III. However, if memory serves, the Static99 is NOT suitable for juveniles, females AND offenders living offense free in the community for ~10 years. Since one has to wait a minimum of 10 years anyway to attempt to get off, such risk assessment should be a moot issue at that point (after 10/20 years of offense free living in the community).

    Back to the issue at hand. Is there a typo in Tier II? Should it say 288(a) instead of 288(c) for a second time?

    Anyone? Janice?

    • Steve

      I hope you are correct Joe but I don’t see 288(a) in tier 2 offenses.

    • Dr. Oz

      BINGO! You point out a big flaw, Joe, that the DAs and CASOMB keeps failing to see: that the Static 99R was never intended to be used after 10 years offense free in the community. Yet under this scheme, this bill wants to use the Static 99R as THE controlling factor to Tier 3 classification. Is someone from ACSOL ever going to challenge the Static 99R?

      • Dr. Oz

        I propose they add the following to this bill: “The Static 99 or Static 99R score shall not be used on an offender to determine tier or risk level after 10 years offense free in the community. Further, Static scores for offenders who have been offense free in the community for at least 10 years shall not be posted on the Megan’s Law website.” I hope this addition can be considered, for at least it can help counter the “dubious” nature of the Static 99/R.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          “Dr. Oz:”

          I agree with you 100%! The Static-99R estimates only go out to 10 year predictions. So by logic, the Static-99R’s application to determine Tier III registration periods for life should be deemed moot. This should be very clear in reviewing the Static-99 “Coding Rules” and looking at the norm estimates themselves. It’s clear that 10-years, if a person has been offense-free in the community during that period, should deem the Static-99R useless.

          But apparently, the District Attorney’s Offices and (surprisingly) CASOMB seem completely oblivious to the very limited application of the Static “instruments.” Instead, they want to use an already questionable instrument, based on 10 questions, in determining lifetime registration periods. The Static was/is never designed to do this. Even the DOJ’s recent study only evaluated the Static-99R for a 5-year period.

        • Punished For Life

          A very good idea, Dr. Oz.
          “I propose they add the following to this bill: “The Static 99 or Static 99R score shall not be used on an offender to determine tier or risk level after 10 years offense free in the community. Further, Static scores for offenders who have been offense free in the community for at least 10 years shall not be posted on the Megan’s Law website.” I hope this addition can be considered, for at least it can help counter the “dubious” nature of the Static 99/R.”

          I second the motion!

  42. CIVIL RIGHTS FIRST

    DON’T DO IT!!!!

    I’m in a State (WA) that has the Tiered system and it is BS. According to their scoring system the BS Static 99… I am a level 2 however the Sheriff has the discretion to raise the level or lower the level.. When I was released from Prison in 2003 the county sheriff arbitrarily raised my level to 3 because I released to a county of non conviction and lack of local support.. here it is 13 years (nearly 14) later and do you think they will lower my level to a 2???? Hell no!!! who is going to put their signature on a piece of paper recommending to lower a level or even release someone from the requirement of registering…. Get real people. don’t support it!!! we all need to fight to abolish the whole system. This whole thing SORA, AWA, IML…. they all fall under the Bill of Attainder…

    The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

    Janice…. Why aren’t you attacking any of these laws as being what they are??? BILLS OF ATTAINDER

    Please Cali….. don’t fall for the TIER System

  43. mike r

    lets be clear..it is actually straight forward and easy to determine what tier you will fall into… if your convicted of any of the following offenses you are not eligible for tier one designation…any other offenses are tier one…im not an attorney but that is exactly what this bill states…

    (c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean
    any of the following:
    (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
    (2) Mayhem.
    (3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of
    Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
    262.
    (4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
    (5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of
    Section 288a.
    (6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
    Section 288.
    (7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
    prison for life.
    (8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
    on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and
    proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or
    after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in
    Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses
    a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in
    subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.
    (9) Any robbery.
    (10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.
    (11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of
    Section 289.
    (12) Attempted murder.
    (13) A violation of Section 18745, 18750, or 18755.
    (14) Kidnapping.
    (15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in
    violation of Section 220.
    (16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section
    288.5.
    (17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.
    (18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in
    violation of Section 264.1.
    (19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute
    a felony violation of Section 186.22.
    (20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1,
    which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22.
    (21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision
    (a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another
    person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during
    the commission of the burglary.
    (22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.
    (23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418.

    or

    this is pc 1192.7(c) second or third tier if convicted of any of the following….
    (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (26) grand theft involving a firearm; (27) carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220; (30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Section 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault; (40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; and (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.

    its that simple….pretty straight forward

  44. mike r

    your 288 misunderstanding is 288(a)is a lewd acts under 14 while (c) is 14-15 years old…

  45. mike r

    there is no ambiguity that tier two is for any of the offenses included in those two subsections I gave above…all other misdemeanors or felonies that are not included in those sections are tier one offenses…once again I am not an attorney but that is exactly what the bill states…

  46. ONE DAY AT A TIME

    I have a cp conviction from 16 years ago. I never took the Static99. Instead the judge sent me to his trusted Psychiatrist who did a 2 hour evaluation of me and wrote a report to the judge that I was low risk to reoffend. I wonder then what level I would be placed in. I am currently listed on the website as the person was 15 yrs old. A few months older and I wouldn’t be publicly listed. That is my only conviction ever.

  47. Timmr

    Oh, I read your tier starts after release from custody. That makes a big difference. Bummer.

  48. Lance

    There is lots of “ambiguity” in this bill. The fact that you don’t automatically fall off, but have to “petition” a judge, is absolutely baloney. Will ELECTED judges, especially in Orange County, REALLY grant a petition to not have to register? And why did they get rid of the ability to get off the registry through a Certificate of Rehabilitation for some? Does that mean that those who rightfully earned a Certificate of Rehabilitation will now have to reregister under this tiered bill? Sure Frank and some of the other old timers will get off. But what about the rest of us? This tiered bill has so many loopholes that is sure to screw us in more than one way. Some of you saw this scam coming from months ago. You were right. This bill is a sham. Good luck ACSOL. Best of luck to you all. Hope this tiered bill makes your special interests happy. I am out!

  49. Lee

    So a non-contact first-time offender can be Tier 3 if he scores high on the Static 99 Revised? Hmmm… that’s a lot of confidence to give to 10 questions (designed by quacks from “Carleton University”).

  50. Crush this bill!

    This bill in its entirety needs to be crushed like a cigarette butt under a boot to extinguish it completely.

    A tiered system is not the way to go CA! Heed the warnings of those who live it.

    • Flush it down too!

      Hahahaha!! I like the image of comparing this to crushing a cigarette with a boot. So true. Let me tell you… I will make sure to do everything I can to OPPOSE this bill. It is a disaster. I will call and write every politician in the state legislature when the time comes to oppose this thing. I have always supported CARSOL/ACSOL. BUT this is a bill I cannot stand behind. This bill needs to be flushed down like a big turd.

  51. ReadyToFight

    As Drafted now, this thing is worse than what we have currently and only serves to slow our momentum.
    Leaves plenty of room all over the place for them do whatever they want to us and our families.
    ANY new actions should be about rehabilitation and education.
    When I signed, they said here…sign this and you can still have a normal life, after 7 years you can get a good job and move on with your life (2001). If I’ve learned anything, it’s that the system can NEVER be trusted.
    And this bill only seeks to enslave.
    The Registry lives and breathes off the 288.
    I’m going to bite my lip for know, but I Will say that if something EVER happens to one of my children because of this Registry, Hell will be a comforting thought to those in my path.
    Our Lives Matter, Our Children’s Lives Matter…..Rise Up!

  52. USA

    Disappointing: I’ve just read many of your comments and I’m very disappointed. I’ve never seen anything like this. Every one of you is seeking a bit of compassion and understanding, but your attacking one another, arguementative and most of you (in my opinion) seem to enjoy posting your wrong of making people’s lives a living hell. As noted, this is a proposal. Please also note that if I where a lawmaker, I would read this rhetoric. Very sad.

    I’m 20 years out on a battery charge (wobbler) with summary probation. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, expunged and no legal issues prior or after. I’ve never met anyone for a static 99 ? Guys, I bet thousands of you have never had a static 99? I can’t even imagine. Stay positive, stay focused and you won’t get anywhere fighting with one another. Support one another! You could still be banned from parks and beaches!

    • Timmr

      I remember you saying in previous posts you were denied a CoR. What reason is there to believe the DA and judge will grant you termination of registration under this proposed law? If he/she thinks you are still dangerous, how is this law going to change that? It still looks like the decision in tge end is still up to them. I am not trying to dash your hopes but please look at the bill more closely and let me know where it says if it indeed would make a difference for you. It doensn’t look that way to me, but…

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      IF I were a lawmaker, I’d actually be very proud of the disagreement going on. This is the intent of the First Amendment. As it is, this law has a lot of bad things in it, so I personally can’t blame those upset with it. Namely:

      (1) unpublished offenders will be published if they fall into the Tier 2 or 3 categories

      (2) relief through the Certificate of Rehabilitation is removed

      (3) use of the Static-99R scam

      In my opinion, the Static should be limited to periods while on parole or probation. BUT the Static-99R should NOT be used to determine tier level! Using the Static for any other reason than parole/probation begins to resemble ‘The Minority Report.’

      *** Also troubling is that this bill puts equal penalty to offenses under 667.5 and 1192.7. Tier 2 should be limited only to the violent offenses under 667.5. At least in my opinion. ***

  53. Mr G

    this bill would will help destroy the growing influence of SO. currently, the list of SO are growing that they are starting to gain momentum including from other allies such as families and friends. Everyone has voter power. This growing power is starting to conflict with social and political policies . If the politicians can implement this band aid tier system, then it will separate the masses. People will fall off and no longer support. After all most people are just like sheep and are looking for greener pastures. If we the sheep are out of the lions claws, why should we put ourselves in harms way? The government on the other hand, will continue to erode the citizens rights through fear, because after all, who would support the modern bogyman?

    • Exactaly Mr. G

      Yes, that is exactly what would happen, but no one here has stated that for the fear they will be labeled an outcast from the outset should they be released. Security for oneself is above security for all….

      Additionally, divide and conquer is the way to defeat peoples as seen throughout history in man’s world of conflict regardless what the conflict is and where it takes places.

    • Davidh

      Mr G:

      There are no other reasons than you state why this is occurring. Does anyone really believe they are secretly admitting their failures, does anyone believe they are trying to help our lives??? if they were remorseful or trying to lift us up–they wouldn’t be giving us more of the same!

  54. DPH

    Hmmm, at least the Capitol will get more than just the bill from the CASOMB, food for thought. 33 yrs for me, since HighSchool

    • Timmr

      I hope so, DPH. I hope they get the message we are not taking this lightly.
      By the way. It looks like the 1987 rule only takes out the DA review process. Tier III offenders, as defined by 290(d), who’s offense was prior to 1987 will still be lifetime registrants. Someone said they are all getting off automatically, but I disagree, the wording says otherwise.

  55. USA

    Guys, I respect your comments. Yes, I attempted to obtain a COR in OC. (Expunged offense/summary probation). The DA was out of control. I’m hoping if this tiered system passes, there will be parameters instituted that make this/or our petitions black and white. Stay positive

  56. Judiciary bought and people still suffer

    Political sex offense movements like this will continue regardless with those who are elected into office, e.g. DA’s, Sheriffs, Judges, et al. They will want to seek higher office pimping themselves to the power through those offering the money. Don’t believe me? Read this article about the state level judiciary being bought through elections, which is a Ron Book lobbyists dream. This bill is a political ploy of the largest degree.

    A popular vote for the Supreme Court? We’re already there.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/11/21/a-popular-vote-for-the-supreme-court-were-already-there/?utm_term=.7f3570e7c11d

  57. ExpatRFSO

    You guys have gone back and forth as to whether this bill would make the roughly 33,000 people, or whatever it is, not currently visible on the public website visible. What I read seemed to indicate all tiers will be on the public website. Did we come to a consensus on that yet? Mike r? USA?

  58. She is doing it in Sacramento

    Bill would prohibit sex offenders from entering school grounds

    http://myvalleynews.com/regional-news/bill-prohibit-sex-offenders-entering-school-grounds/

  59. Anonymous Nobody

    With the further detail in this post, this tiered registry bill is even more of a horror that I already thought and already opposed completely. This thing is a prosecutor’s dream! This thing is just fraudulent. The way this is set up, it is fantasy to think there is real relief — and especially to think it will be easy to get or any easier than a COR.

    Look at it, they are setting it up like applying for a COR, sending it to the local prosecutor’s office to consider challenging. The prosecutor’s office should have no say, the state is the one to do this automatically once you have done your time and no further convictions — no further conviction once your time is done from your LAST conviction only on a registerable offense, not any old sex offense, not from any conviction being used to nix all relief counting from the first conviction. Anything more that the local prosecutor’s office doesn’t like is just too bad. Registration is a state law, not a local law. And then the court does not need to be involved other than for a challenge over a denial — for this to be a matter for the court, considering the judge’s reelection, to consider the crap from the prosecutor, just like it does not for a COR, is an abomination? And you think you will be getting off the registry!?

    This thing is being set up just like a COR, which has long been proven to be just about impossible to get. Any time the prosecutor complains, the court sides with them and rejects the COR. The same is going to happen with this, where does anyone see something different going on? This bill is a prosecutor’s dream.

    This is what I said previously, even without knowing this additional crap. This is a TERRIBLE bill, a horror of a bill — and all because we have failed miserably in approaching this, we have NOT produced our own draft bill for consideration, so there is no other idea out there but that of the prosecutors.

    Jackie Lacey is a horror for us, I am already very familiar with her and her attitudes. That she supports this bill should be a BIG sign it is a very bad bill of for us. I know her as a hate monger and very highly political. She likes this bill because it allows her the ability to stop anyone from getting relief if she doesn’t want it.

    I cannot support this bill. And seeing promotion of this kind of crap from this group too many times, I am about to drop out of here too — even as we have been being cheerleaders for this crap, and refusing, absolutely refusing to look at the details and realize the devil in them. We are here cheering on this horror of a bill, this fake relief. Even the damn new name of this group indicates a very limited effort, it does not indicate flat out opposition to registration and all the collateral punishments as wrong after one has completed their sentence, any probation or parole. I don’t care whether this punishment is constitutional, it is wrong nonetheless and we must fight it, constitutional or not. We should not be not only supporting but downright cheerleading for a prosecutor’s dream bill rather than producing our own alternative, which should basically be as it once was — automatic means automatic, it just happens at the end of the time, with no application and review, unlike the “automatic” in this bill — and prosecutors to nix it. and the same for those after they have done their time on registration. And the time is the end of parole or probation. That’s what parole and probation is for. And it doesn’t help to have BS “assessments” for your time to register, that will only be used against you; it should be automatic time set by the offense, but the registrant can apply for a reduction and be assessed for that.

    We cannot be supporting 10 more years of parole for someone convicted of stupid misdemeanor indecent exposure, for god’s sake, even though those people can apply for a COR in seven years, not 10! We cannot be accepting 10 years MINIMUM for any offense even as all research shows hardly any recidivism for any offense, including sex offenses, after five years — and of course much of that time was on parole or probation anyway.

    And if you want to compromise, say registration for five years, including time on parole or probation, not 10 years or more after that.

    And if we miss our chance here to have registration reduced to ONLY those offenses for which the federal government requires registration, then this group should disband as impotent. THIS, NOW is the time to scram all over about that, this is the time for that – anyone with any level of understanding has to know that. But we are NOT! This is what this discussion about tiers is about, it is the entirety of the issue of how to bring registration into the land of sanity; but this tier bill drafted by the prosecutors is not that.

    How can this group be supporting a bill calling for tens of thousands of people in California to be subject to registration even as federal law does not require those offenses to register?! This bill is the time to get those offenses out of registration in California — conform to federal. Instead, we want to make those offenses register for at least 10 years, and then create a lot of money spent on applications, prosecutors, courts to decide whether they should continue to register even though they have done their time.

    This bill, and how this group has approached it — and I now realize for years — I atrocious.

    Only very naive people will think this bill is a stepping stone to improving it later — it is not, only people who know nothing of politics, nor what direction this country is going, will think that. There will be only ONE crack at this, and when we get it wrong, all we will be able to do about that is to be sorry.

    We must conform to federal NOW and so eliminate registration for all except those required by federal, and compromise to make this registration for the rest the minimum federal requires. And then take our fight to federal.

    But since this group clearly is too impotent to do that, I’m afraid this group is just a waste of time, just piddling around the edges and cheerleading — and fantasizing that the courts will save us, even in the face of The Donald to make SCOTUS firebreathing, off the deep end lunatics for the rest of the lives of many, maybe even most of us here.

    • Curiouser

      Actually, I believe this is WORSE than attempting to get a COR. First off, when you attempt to get the COR, the prosecutor will most likely oppose it. The prosecutor will send out an investigator, interrogate your neighbors, employers (if you’re so lucky as to HAVE a job), and do anything possible to drum up something new against you, because they cannot go back and examine the details of the underlying conviction. The prosecutor can only seek to show you have NOT been rehabilitated. The burden of proof lies on the registrant to show he or she HAS been.

      Under this bill, once the prosecutor (who works for an elected official) opposes….and they WILL oppose in about 99.99% of the cases, that triggers a hearing in front of a judge (another elected official), where the prosecutor can essentially re-litigate your entire underlying conviction! Also, the hearing requires the judge will then apply a series of prongs that are pretty much taken directly from the questions in the Static-99r. This essentially makes a “Tier 1” person attempting to get relief from registration nearly impossible, and in my opinion, considerably harder than getting a COR under the existing format. And we all know how many of those are currently granted. Orange County has never granted a COR that relieves a person from the requirement to register. Ever.

      Oh, and by the way, this bill would eliminate the ability to be relieved from registration requirements by obtaining a COR at all (See proposed bill language at 290.5).

      I was hopeful when this bill was announced, and even more so when I saw my violation would qualify me as Tier 1, and relief would actually be in sight. I now believe bill will make relief even more unlikely. I cannot envision a scenario where a prosecutor will fail to oppose a petition. On top of that, this bill actually arms the government with yet another weapon against relief. Once a judge agrees with the prosecutor that the public will be safer with us remaining on the registry, the judge would be able to set a time establishing how long you must wait until you can even TRY to reapply. All the way up to FIVE YEARS!. Are you seeing this, New York?

      Hey, if you really want proof of what this bill is really designed to do, just take a waltz over to the California Sex Offender Management Board website. Look who is on the board. Three posts are vacant, including one representing criminal defense attorneys. What we DO have is representation for prosecutors, parole, probation, law enforcement, and sex abuse victims advocacy. And Tom Tobin. Not exactly folks in our cheering section. There is simply no way these individuals would propose ANYTHING to make our situation more equitable to those of offenders of any kind. It is just not in their nature. They are of the same mind-set as the idiots who post comments to SO stories and say things like “If ya’ll don’t like the way things are, ya shuddn’t a done what ya’ll did.”

      I don’t seek mercy from these people or their ilk. Just make things equal. Serve time, pay debt, move on. There is no empirical evidence that offenders of this nature are any more likely to reoffend than any other offenders. We know from actual, empirical evidence that we are, in fact, LESS LIKELY to reoffend than nearly any other class of offender. That tired old smoke-and-mirrors garbage has kept this infernal contraption breathing for far too long. Do you realize a murderer can apply for a COR a full year sooner than even the most low-level sex offender?

      The board trumpets this bill because it will allow some 10,000 persons to immediately fall off the registry because their convictions occurred more than 30 years ago. While I would be happy for any who fall into THAT category, what’s to say there aren’t some fairly heinous offenders amongst them, some far more egregious than a Tier 1? More power to the 10,000 who would receive “immediate” relief. I fear for the 60,000 who are hoping for the “ultimate” relief this bill “promises,” along with those for whom it allows for NO relief.

      There may be an answer to this, but in my opinion, this bill is not it. At this point, I would be more willing to take my chances with the status quo than to hitch my wagon to this proposal. As a potential “Tier 1” person, I am not stating my opposition to this bill to be altruistic. I am selfishly saying that I do not believe it will, as proposed, help me in the slightest. I don’t think it was intended to do that for any of us.

      Blessings to us all.

    • steve

      “We must conform to federal NOW and so eliminate registration for all except those required by federal, and compromise to make this registration for the rest the minimum federal requires. And then take our fight to federal.”

      Why so another group gets screwed? PC 288 (A) is a life membership for the feds which is what most are convicted of here. The ca system it’s a tier 2. Either way someone gets screwed, right now EVERYONE is getting screwed.

  60. Bill Arthur

    One big advantage of the new bill versus COR is that you can move to CA from another state where you have done your 10+ years on the registry for a crime that is Tier 1 in CA, register in CA, and then immediately go through the process for removal. I believe Janice referred to this on the conference call, noting that for the COR you have to live in CA for 5 years, regardless of your prior experience in another state. I live in Illinois, another of the all lifetime states and, this might be a dream come true. I know in Oregon that have inserted language making their proposed new laws inapplicable to anyone moving to Oregon, presumably to discourage sex offenders coming there from all over. Hopefully, no one in the CA legislature thinks of this. Is what I have said correct? Comments welcome from the experts.

    • Curiouser

      And while that may be true, Bill, I fear that while the mechanism for removal for Tiers 1 and 2 will be in place, it will be a frozen engine. This bill simply puts too much power in the hands of people who will use it against us. As I mentioned above, it isn’t about mercy or compassion. The Board has spent a lot of hot air talking about how bloated the California registry is, with huge numbers keeping law enforcement from focusing on the ones they believe need the most attention. Yet what they offer is a registry that can be bottled up at the whim of a prosecutor seeking to make a name for him/herself, and judge too concerned about re-election or promotion to do what this tiered proposal is supposedly being fashioned for.

      In short, you may be able to move here and submit an application for removal immediately, but I am deeply concerned with the ability of those in control of the instruments to let the machine do what it is allegedly intended to do.

      I’ve come to believe what many have said thus far on this topic. The writing is being clearly written on the Circuit walls: This concept of registration for a very few is clearly punishment above and beyond what any other class of offenders must endure. As such, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

      • Timmr

        Not only that, but it will be too easy for the legislature, spurred by some mediocre representative desiring their name in prominent and everlastic script attached to a bill promising to save children, to start moving offenses up the ladder from tier one to two, from two to three, just as offenses that were once eligible for a CoR were excluded by the legislature almost without notice of what happened. We can be for or against this bill, but we can’t sidestep the issue that the registry is a cancer without some judicial or other powerful surgery to keep it from mushrooming. Without some chemotherapy provided by the supreme law of the land administering judgements of ex post facto punishment, involuntary servitude or bill of attainder, this form of socially sadistic policy will keep growing back after cutting again and again. Do we have all the time to keep hacking away at this monster, or do we find a way to focus a lazer beam at its root. Just wondering.

  61. Rick

    This bill is wrong wrong WRONG. While bill above does point out one positive thing that might help someone who moves from a different state into CA, we are still ignoring the fact that it’s at the expense of 30,000 people who WILL be elevated to Tier III. Bill also minimizes the fact this “tiered” proposal also eliminates Certificates of Rehabilitation. Some people who are now or may be eligible for C of R under current law might be elevated to Tier III if they score high on the Static 99. So yes 10K are helped. But at the same time, 3x the amount of people are elevated to Tier III (30,000) and then you got 6x the amount elevated to Tier II (60,000). Not exactly a great tier bill guys. Plus all the problems of this bill evolving to Adam Walsh status because IT IS unfunded. This dumb bill is like opening a new can of worms. It is after all written by police and prosecutors. This ought to be a warning to you all. I am just very disappointed at this bill. This bill is NOT in our best interests.

  62. KM

    I want to point out that the draft bill WILL require Tier I offenders to be published on the website with no recourse!

    The draft bills

    290.46 (d)(2)

    and then theres the part that states that anyone previously not required to be on the website must be given 30 days notice and then…BAM on the website.

    • M

      This terrible bill will take me from currently unpublished to Tier III because of my Static 99R score. So for me, this bill will make life horrible. How can ACSOL even CONSIDER supporting this bill? It helps some, but it also will make lives horrible for those who are classified as Tier III.

  63. Lll

    Since the public has no problem ostracizing from society even the most low level offenders, I see no reason not to have a humane way of disposing of one’s self .The humane society could terminate an unlucky dog at the same time. I would be lying if I said I had not considered this option for the last 17 years I have had to register for a misdemeanor with a 1203.4 dismissal.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *