ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 9/16 in San Diego [details], Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group Meeting: Aug 26 in LA [details]

.Action ItemsACSOLCalifornia

ACSOL Board of Directors Determines Initial Positions on Tiered Registry Bill

The Board of Directors for the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) has determined its initial positions on the Tiered Registry Bill. The determinations were made during the board’s meeting on December 8.

“After careful consideration of input from registrants, family members and supporters, the ACSOL board of directors has decided that the organization supports the concept of a tiered registry based upon empirical evidence,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci.

“The board of directors also decided to oppose the Tiered Registry Bill in its current form because it is not based upon empirical evidence such as the results of research conducted by Dr. Karl Hanson.”

“The ACSOL Board of Directors would support a modified Tiered Registry Bill that included revisions such as the termination of registration requirements for individuals placed on Tier 3 and limitations on a district attorney’s discretion to oppose individuals’ termination of registration requirements,” stated Bellucci.

ACSOL will express its views on the Tiered Registry Bill and other pending legislation such as Senate Bill 26, which would prohibit all registrants from all school campuses, when it leads a lobbying effort in the State Capitol on January 30 and 31. Training will be provided to individuals who have not lobbied before on January 30 at 9:30 a.m. at 1215 K Street, 17th Floor. Additional details regarding training and lobbying will be provided at a later date.

Related

Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice”

CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases Video

Join the discussion

  1. concerned registrant

    This decision on the part of the ACSOL board seems very reasoned. And I believe they have heard the major concerns of our members. It hits the main points of contention and takes a stand on behalf of those who would be most adversely affected by a tiered registry that does not take into consideration empirical evidence that should remove people from the registry. In the meantime we can continue to fight the registry as a whole for what it is.

    • Government Propaganda?

      Personally, I still disagree with this bill. Supporting this bill doesn’t change the fact that there is no evidence supporting the efficacy of a registry to begin with. Nor does it change the fact that while about 10,000 people will be relieved of the duty to register, about 6 times the amount will be elevated to Tier II (~60,000) — and 3 times the amount will be elevated to Tier III (~30,000). There will be many people who are not “dangerous” that will be classified at Tier III. Supporting a law that is at the expense of one group’s rights is no good position for any organization (not especially a “civil rights” group).

      • Eddie

        What needs to be done is to go back when P.C. Section 290 was writing and see the tiered status already in place, but not used, I was convicted in 1981, the law back then allow me to register for 10 yrs, 11 years after my release from prison not committing any other sex offence giving custody of my 1yr daughter, n raising her as a productive member of society, I was never informed of any new law change from ten years to life until I was arrested for failing to register, a misdominer offence that gave me one yr probation.only then did I found out I violated the law. There was a tiered status already in place. to register, which my county refuses to honor.. the point is there has been a tired status in the old law which should be use today

  2. Fed Up

    Fully supporting ACSOL’s decision on this and looking forward to the day I no longer have to register. Starting my birthday weekend off today with a trip down to the local PD for my yearly “non-punitive” registration. Oh wait, had to take the day off from work with no pay to accomplish this, so can somebody remind me how this is “non-punitive”??

    • Curiouser

      Because some old men in dresses said so…

      • Old stage curtains

        I thought it was curtains they wore from old stage plays! Why did they do away with horsehair wigs? They looked so macho in them!

    • New Person

      So you were forced to choose between your work and service for the state? And you’re not under custody? And you lost pay from your other service ( your actual job ).

      Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. So if it’s not punitive, then the state cannot compel you to do a “service” by fear of domination by legal punishment that rises above loss of pay (which you aren’t compensated at all) or loss of job (you’re not allowed to quit the service or duty of registering).

      A regulation is telling you that you can’t do this or enter that, i suppose. Telling you that you have a “duty” rises above regulation to compelled service when you’re no longer under custody. There is a “requirement” to show up in person at a certain time on their time, to which those people who process the information you just processed, get paid and you don’t.

    • Jonathon Merritt

      Whats this?
      You gotta register every year?
      I gotta do it every 90 days in SC.
      I should move over to Ga nearby or move to CA in a few years.

  3. USA

    Thank you Janice! Please let me know if you need any help in Sacramento. Great job. The Tiered System is a great idea! I plead to a Battery 20 (Sexual) 20 years back with (243.4a) Summary Probation. Reduced to a misdemeanor and later expunged. No issues prior or after. According to the website, 10 years timeframe makes md ineligible for Static 99 etc. so, what do they do with me? I concur that something needs to be addressed with how people fall of the registration requirement. Some DA’s might treat this like a COR. The process should be black and white. Thanks

    • steve

      It most definitely is a glorified cor. I assume that casomb and the LA DA thought that a tiered registry had no chance if it meant people just fall off the list. This proposal makes it easier to swallow for legislators because it has the appearance that there is backup, a judicial review.

      • David Kennerly, "Still Radioactive After All These Years"

        I think it may very well be that ACSOL’s support is not exactly a selling point for the bill. In this respect, it makes sense for us to offer only a provisional endorsement contingent upon changes to it. More cynically, it may very well be that our discontent would be an advantage to the bill’s passage. I have no idea if ACSOL’s endorsement is being sought or its input welcome.

        Regardless, we have lost nothing, from what I can see, from demanding these changes in a reasonably respectful tone.

        Thanks Janice!

        • steve

          ” it may very well be that our discontent would be an advantage to the bill’s passage.”

          ABSOLUTELY

    • Steven

      A cor is useless if someone like me lives in a different state, and I have to reg. in the state I live in because the offense was in calif. and it follows me. The only other way for me, would be a pardon from the Gov. and we know that wont happen.

  4. Neil

    This is a sensible and prudent position for the ACSOL board to take at this stage of the process. The bill has not yet been introduced and may be amended at a later time, and ACSOL’s proposed revisions are plausible and would serve the interests of all registrants. Thanks to Janice and the board for the good work they are doing on this important matter.

  5. HOPEFUL

    I understand but am disappointed at the same time (offense 311.11a and static score of 1 so tier 1). I pray Janice is able to influence this law for the better prior to its being implemented. Thank you

    • Bruce Ferrell

      Hopeful,

      Tier I is LEAST serious and easiest out at “only” 10 years. Why disappointed?

      • 10 years for Tier 1 is too long

        10 years is too long for one reason. Any length of time is unreasonable, but 10 years is not required. I won’t even mention what a suitable shorter time would be…

      • katt

        Bruce, it’s 10 yrs *IF* a judge agrees to grant your “petition” to the courts. 20 yrs for Tier II, then still lifetime for Tier III. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but what makes you so confident that judges — who are ELECTED officials in California — will put their careers on the line to grant these ‘petitions’? Not to mention, registrants are not exactly a wealthy bunch. To file a petition, we’d probably have to shell out upwards of $2,000 to $5,000 in attorney fees alone. Then all the psychologists fees on top of that.

    • Thoughtasweak

      Actually, according to Karl Hanson’s risk model, if you have a score between 0-3, you are a tier 2. Only those with a negative risk score will be level 1.

      • JJ

        PLEASE do not disseminate false or misleading information: the current coding of Static-99 has -1 and 0 at Below Average Risk which is Tier ONE.

        • Please Clarify

          Janice, could you please confirm this information about how the Static-99 is applied to this bill in terms of Tiering?

    • Jonathon Merritt

      Are referring to the static nine test that every one is talking about?
      That seems like a very simple and straight forward test to take.
      I took and I am a -1.

  6. Mike

    What about the issue of the Static 99 being flawed? Or what about the fact that a “high risk” sex offender is not likely to repeat than anyone else after 17 yrs offense free in the community?

    • New Person

      Mike,

      Dr. Karl Hanson was the guy who did the research and founded that 17 year max information, iirc. So it was implied in the statement, making ACSOL stand against any tiers above 20 years.

  7. USA

    Mike,

    Go onto the new Megan’s Law Website. There is a section on risk etc. It mentions Static 99 etc and risk. As noted, an offender who has been offense free for 10 years or more in the community may not be eligible for Static 99 scoring, unless they commit another offense. So, the big question is, how will they determine your risk level? Furthermore, what if your offense has been expunged, but your still required to register? What tier are you? Good luck!

  8. jo

    Bravo! But expected nothing less.

  9. DavidH

    This is good, Janice; and many thx to you and the Board!

  10. Punished For Life

    If a revised version of this bill does go into effect…
    I assume, even if you fall off of California’s registry automatically, you still can’t travel freely worldwide? Correct? The Feds will still treat you like you are a piece of sh*t. “Angel Watch, IML”
    If currently out of state, will you still need to move back to Calif and live there for five years consecutively, on the list, before having the chance to be removed?

    • Janice Bellucci

      As currently written, the Tiered Registry Bill does not require residence in the state of CA for 5 years or for any period of time in order to be eligible for removal from the registry. With regard to international travel, the federal government stated in court that notices about an individual’s travel will be sent to the foreign country to which they are traveling only IF they the individual was convicted of an offense involving a minor and they are required to register.

      • Punished For Life

        Thank You Janice,
        You are doing a stellar job!

      • New Person

        wait…

        involved with a minor AND still have to register?

        Then why was John Doe #3 part of the plaintiffs? Doe has the CoR to no longer register, but was involved with a minor. That’s why he was part of the plaintiffs against the IML.

        If this is the case (where AND means both), then I’m lost as to why John Doe #3 participated.

        • Punished For Life

          I was wondering the same as you “New Person”?

          For world travel.

          But “Angel Watch” is not being challenged as I understand. The court challenge is for IML and that’s all about
          the “Scarlet Letter” on our Passports. Maybe I’m wrong.

          “AND”…means that both must apply. If offense involved a “minor AND you still are required to register” then the notice gets sent.
          If minor involved and you no longer are required to register, then the Angel Watch notice should not go out? That’s my understanding.

          I still see many more lawsuits in the pipeline.

          • David

            Re: Angel Watch, one of the posters on this site posted that he had been in contact with the Federal Marshal’s office regarding precisely what was involved in Angel Watch, how they identified those who they would send out notices on, etc. Apparently, there is no Federal master list of all sex offenders. Instead, they have a computer program that goes through all the existing State registries seeking the traveler’s name. So if you are off your State’s list, you would not have notices sent. However, if – like me – you were convicted in or traveled to a State like Florida which keeps you on their registry for ever (even if you don’t live there anymore) and your name will continue to forever come up for Angel watch notices.

      • Tuna

        Hi Janice, the “and” is important, because the wording of the IML law, notwithstanding what they may have stated in court, is that the notifications may be sent regarding anyone with an offense involving a minor OR who is required to register. Thanks.

      • Notgivingup

        I would assume that in order to be eligible for removal from the registry in California your offense would have to had been there and not in another state even though you were living in California as of now? Could some answer this?

  11. Timmr

    Law enforcement is seeing the need to whittle down the registry, that’s quite obvious, with this bill and the accompanying video. If law enforcement is for that, so will the lawmakers. That is why the 1987 rule. Instant whittling. No DA is really going to object to letting tier 1 or 2’s off who have convictions that long ago. Now, if they don’t do something about the unchecked discretion of the DA’s (many of whom campaign to be harsh on sex offenders) in blocking eligible post 1987 registants from exiting the registry, then they are going to see the registry just ballon again. Same thing with defining tiers by politics (offense or myth/feeling of disgust driven) instead of empirically/correction driven. You are just going to get more people registered for longer periods, and the list will balloon again. These are I think good angles to lobby the legislators from.

  12. Roger

    Thanks to Janice and the board for their well-thought-out decision on this difficult issue.

    You can count on my support!

  13. Kiru Mondi

    I’m annoyed that you would all throw some of us members under the bus because you can’t get your way . This position is selfish and doesn’t help those that have a more unfair situation. Keeping us non-child related misdemeanants on the registry next to you felons is unfair. Why cant we take a one-step-at-a-time approach?

    • BA

      The fact that a misdemeanor has to register at all is wrong, websters dictionary “Misdemeanor”… A minor wrong doing ” well how is that like a felony, regardless of sexual or not? So I register for life because of a minor wrong doing? LOL

  14. Kiru Mondi

    This position is self defeating…the main argument most of us make is that we aren’t all the same…this tiered registry is a perfect step in the right direction that will allow further argument down the road once the public starts realizing that we ARE no the same…..

    • Timmr

      The ASCOL board is arguing so that once your ten years are up, the DA can’t just lump you arbitrarily with dangerous criminals and keep you on the registry indefinately. Who knows what reasons they would have to deny a misdemeanor, Static 99 score, previous non sexual offenses, mental disorders, drug or alcohol problems, domestic problems, don’t like your looks, who knows? ASOL appears to be trying to cover the backs of misdemeanors and others in its position.
      As far as I, a felonious one and one who those with more innocuous convictions may disdain , is concerned, misdemeanors should just be automatically removed now. That would be a logical and workable first step, and I believe registration should not be an addition to incarceration, parole or probation, period. It just doesn’t work, constitutionally, socially. Nonetheless, there is this slow go philosophy I don’t understand, where we are told not to advocate for too much at one time as if we are the ones making the laws and we could break the process with our opinions. As David “The Toxic One” Kennerly has pointed out, and I concur, they (the CASOMB) are not looking for our support of this bill. Don’t worry, if this bill passes, it won’t be because ASCOL gave it a rubber stamp. It is because the registry is getting too large for them to manage and the courts are increasingly turning the tide against it . I hope ASCOL feels it has a duty to represent all RSO’s and their position reflects that. The vast majority are after all, felons. You will need our support or you can join together with the like minded and lobby on your own.

  15. Bill Arthur

    Janice, that is great news about not having to be a resident of CA for any length of time, and that the IML only applies to those who are registered. What a wonderful improvement that would be in so many lives! Further to this point, does time spent on the registry in another state count toward the number of years required? “Tier 1 offenders must register for 10 years,” for example. What if you have been registered in another state for more than 10 years and then move to CA? I don’t believe that is exactly specified in the draft bill. Maybe it’s best not to question this issue since the legislature may realize that it’s an invitation to offenders from states where the laws are much less reasonable (lifetime for all registrants, for example).

    • Janice Bellucci

      The current Tiered Registry Bill does not distinguish between years spent in the state of California and years spent outside of the state of California.

  16. j

    with regard to (IML) if the person(s) last offense was in 97 and is considered a tier 2 and eligible to get off registration (California) would the person still need to notify visiting country? first time and only offence “20 year”

  17. jo

    Not familiar with Static 99 so I google it. Is the static 99 test the 10 question questionnaire?

  18. katt

    How about take away the Static 99R away as well? It looks like the writers of this bill seem intent in villainizing a whole new group altogether: “high risk sex offenders.” A new monster to create because the government’s old monster has run dry. But then, the “high risk” label is based off of what — the Static 99R?

  19. Bill Arthur

    There are 58 district attorneys in CA (one in each country). I’m envisioning that different DAs will start to develop reputations about being hard or easy on registrant’s petitions. The language of the bill states that even for a Tier 1, 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.” That seems to be a conclusion based on very personal opinions (“belief”). Also, this will be true of the Superior Court judges, although there is some factual “guidance” for judges. A database of where to move based on how many petitions have been agreed to could be formulated. This law will also require the guidance of a large number of lawyers with registration experience (Janice, Chance, many more in different districts) to help with the technicalities of filing petitions and following through on them.

    • David Kennerly, "Still Radioactive After All These Years"

      Yes, in a society which now takes it as a badge of honor to disconsider rational and objective liberty positions in favor of adhering to punitive ones with no reasonable basis, these, now standardized, culturally-encoded references to “community safety” and district attorney discretion portend nothing good for us. Instead, we will once again find ourselves the subjects of yet more opportunities for those same district attorneys and professional “community” fear mongers to demonstrate their dedication and unreason to endless punishment with the result that we will obtain little relief and more poisonous publicity in their “communities.” It’s not hard to see where this will inevitably lead. At minimum, we can well imagine the enormous disparities between, say, Kern, Riverside and Orange Counties, on the one hand and San Francisco on the other that will spell the doom of Registrants so unlucky as to be from Bakersfield, doomed, as they will be, by “community standards,” the endentured subjects of cultural balkanization.

  20. USA

    So, what tier would I be in? I plead to a 243.4 (a) Sexual Battery with Summary Probation. Reduced to a misdemeanor 17 (b) and expunged. I’ve had no legal issues prior/after. According to Megan’s Law, those released into the community aren’t really Static 99 testable? So, if you legally don’t have a conviction and 20 years have passed since your plea?

  21. samuel

    I had my hopes up for a tiered registry. But after reading the draft proposal, I actually think the law that we have now (even though it’s lifetime) is better. Better than what’s being proposed and a hell lot better than other states. With a tiered registry, a lot of new, bad and unintended consequences can happen. The state is creating the tiered monster because their current monster is being exposed as weak. It is not smart to support a tiered registry because it isn’t simply helping people, but it is also hurting and throwing a whole lotta people “under the bus” too.

  22. someone who cares

    I still think that the Tiered Registry is a mistake. The registry needs to be abolished. I was reading on another forum that in New York and maybe Texsas, too, that the length of registration for Tier I was extended after it was determined to be a certain amount of years. New laws are being introduced all the time, with no regard to apply them retroactively to registrants. Who can really promise a relief from registration with this new tiered registry? Will it be carved in stone, signed? I doubt it. It will change as they please.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      ‘Who can really promise a relief from registration with this new tiered registry? ‘

      Nobody. Many of us are living proof that they will change the rules as they like. It’s a regulatory scheme and not punishment after all so nothing is stopping them.

      Abolishment is the only path.

    • not pessimistic (but also not delusional)

      I have no idea as to why ACSOL has been pushing for a tiered registry so hard. My guesses would be that it gives the illusion of progress (i.e. doing something), while at the same time appeasing this organization’s main fundraisers. I spoke to some people (via telephone) I’ve met at the CA RSOL/ACSOL meetings — and they are now less inclined to attend meetings, donate, etc. because of what we were all hoping for in a new 290 law vs. after reading the draft bill. A lot of us feel betrayed. And it allays no fears that this ridiculous bill (which is going to open up a whole new can of worms) is going to probably pass.

      • steve

        It’s really quite easy to answer as to why they are pushing a tiered registry and that is there is ZERO chance the registry is going away anytime soon. It will be many YEARS before the complete dismantle of the registry ever gets to SCOTUS and it’s not guaranteed to go away once it gets there, just like there is no guarantee to fall off once you hit your 10 or 20 year mark. People can argue all they want about the pros and cons of this tiered registry but the registry isn’t going away.

  23. mike r iscensored

    yep a tiered registry will open the door for a a panoply of new legislation against those who are considered level two and three offenders…what needs to happen is janice or other attorneys need to notify those legislators who created sponsored or voted on all these laws that they have a set reasonable time line to repeal and replace the current registration scheme with one that only includes those that the government can prove through clear and convincing evidence are enough of a threat to merit such a registry..notify them if they don’t comply then they will be subjected to lawsuits for monetary damages of thousands of registrants because they were and are acting with reckless disregard for the truth and not on facts but on emotional malicious intent in deriliction of their official duties and deprivation of our constitutional rights without any reasonable justification under color of law….off subject here are we at war with Russia or China??? I sure hear a lot of officials swearing and stating that these leaders are our enemies…last i checked our enemies are people we are at war with..

  24. USA

    Wow,

    You guys don’t sound grateful. A few years back, we where banned from parks, beaches and libraries! A tiered system will allow people a chance. Presently, you don’t have a chance. If you meet the criteria, a judge will have no choice but to grant the motion of the guidelines are written clearly. I would imagine most individuals against the tiered system (we presently don’t have a way out) must be repeat offenders or ? The registration system isn’t going away

    • Thankful to Janice and others, but against Tiered proposal

      USA, I am not a repeat offender. In fact, I only have 1 arrest/conviction. Yet I disagree with this proposed tier for many reasons. Also, USA, where in the proposed statute does it say a judge will have “no choice” but to grant a petition if certain “criteria” are met? USA, the “guidelines” you mention are interpreted at the whim of a judge’s discretion. And -elected- judges will be very hesitant to grant these things. Abuse of discretion will be hard to prove. And it will take many years for the appellate courts to ‘ripen’ its interpretation of a new tiered statute. If the political climate of our current conservative courts are of any indication to how the ‘guidelines’ that you mention should be interpreted by lower courts, I do not have as much confidence as you. As far as the presence restrictions, residential restrictions, internet identifiers, etc. that Janice and others have worked so hard for: I think we can ALL say we are very thankful. But this dangerous tiered bill can wipe away much progress.

    • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

      Yes, that’s right; bait people, using the technique that the hysterics and obsessives make frequent use of: accusing people of, in this case, recidivism if they don’t agree with you. You and NPS would make a great pair.

      You have little basis for saying that this offers people here “a chance” nor have I seen anywhere where ACSOL refers to having taken any role in crafting this proposed law. So our criticism of it cannot be seen as “ungrateful” in any way. Regardless, Janice would hardly have asked us for our responses it if she had not wanted to hear those responses.

      According to the proposed bill, I would most likely be a Tier 2 given my rather low score on the absurd Static-99R. Considering that I have been on the Registry (as a one-time only “offender”, I might add) for nearly a quarter-century, and assuming the “good faith” of this law (which I find very dubious), I would most likely be given relief by it, as written.

      Still, I see much that is suspicious about the bill and have grave doubts as to the sincerity and good faith of those who crafted it, chief amongst those the role they propose for district attorneys and judges. There is no automaticity in this law and only opportunities for state political actors, who have done nothing previously to give us confidence, to compel us to jump through hoops and still be shot down for no rational basis.

      • NPS

        Actually, David, USA and I rarely see eye to eye. You want to have your opinion against him, be my guest, but don’t drag my name in your mudslinging and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been stated.

        • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

          I’m not slinging mud, NPS by pointing out that you have both employed the “If you don’t agree you must be a [pedophile] or [recidivist]. You’re on record as having done this with the pedophile slur. You have used that technique and you know you have.

          If the mud sticks, wear it.

          • NPS

            Oh David. *tsk tsk tsk* Really? I made that exact statement? “If you don’t agree then you must be a…” Really? Oh no, honey. I’ve never made such a statement. You’re twisting words around yet again. I just called a spade a spade when one commenter mentioned having more than one offense. That’s a recidivist. And it’s recidivists like him that the registry exists. That was my statement.

            I’ve been on record as saying that I agree with longer imprisonment for those who commit sex crimes against pre-pubescents or commit incest. That’s nothing like the statement you’re accusing me of stating.

            Clearly you’ll find away to twist these words around, too. It’s quite apparent that you are incapable of debate.

            Oh and about that mud, you keep missing.

            I’m done with you.

            • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

              Okay, going back, just now to refresh my memory, I find that you didn’t exactly say that someone was a pedophile or recidivist if they didn’t agree with you. However, you did play “The Baiting Game”, to wit:

              “Yes, if they are a recidivist, they are morally inferior to the vast majority of those RCs who made one mistake that they never repeated. And which camp do you belong to, David?”

              That’s baiting, pretty much definitionally, used as a taunt or to discredit through implication. Attempting to gain the upper-hand in an argument through an appeal to, in this case, prejudice for degraded legal status.

              That’s the sort of rhetorical device that works really well “out there,” i.e. with the vast majority of people beyond this forum who don’t acknowledge that “pedophiles” should have any rights at all. Out there, nearly anything goes, where obligations of rationality and evidence are not extended to sex offenses involving minors. In here, however, I think that you found that that device didn’t win you too many admirers who are, after all, the ones most often to suffer under these prejudices.

              In here, many of us know that circumstances vary enormously in a way not reflected in criminal jurisprudence and that this issue is vastly more complex than is commonly understood. You have fallen prey to oversimplifying it, too, probably because you need it to comport with your conceptions of what is right and your need for moral certainty. That’s understandable but, in this case, wrong.

              You can be through with me, that’s no problem. If you should engage with me in the future, I’m fine with that, too. I can be reasoned with.

              I do think that you should challenge some of your preconceptions and prejudices, though. You would be a better, and more genuinely moral, person for having engaged with these issues on a deeper and more meaningful level.

            • Rich

              The problem with picking people and saying they should have a longer sentence based off the age of the individual is just as bad what is happening now in that youre using emotions to decide whats worse. In the end, if a girl is raped or a woman is raped, it is still one person raped. I was charged and convicted for something I did NOT do and the person happened to be under 13 so im considered the worst of the worst. Never mind that was allmost 20 years ago and today im the father of FIVE children who live with me and my wife, but somehow im still some “threat” and have to register for life when It was determined I didnt need probation! The sex offender laws need a serious overhaul and the amount of time on it SHOULD NOT be due to the type of alleged crime since that in itself does not mean the person will be dangerous in the future.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      USA,

      I disagree entirely with you. Firstly, I am a first-time/non-contact offender. But I disagree with this tiered proposal. Secondly, I am pretty sure we are all thankful to Janice and ACSOL. Most certainly, everyone can agree that efforts to block the internet identifier bill, presence restrictions, and residency restrictions are extremely popular among us. In fact, I don’t think ANY registrant can disagree with such battles. We, after all, are just trying to move on after our mistake.

      However, it is this tiered registration bill that many of us have a problem with. In fact, it almost *seems* as if this bill was written to ‘divide and conquer’ our cause. CASOMB uses the promise of about 10,000 to be released from the registry. But, to borrow a parlance of economics, it isn’t a “free lunch.” This tiered registry bill is at the cost of advancing about 30,000 people to Tier 3, as well as 60,000 to Tier 2.

      Furthermore, future legislation requiring internet identifier reporting, presence restrictions, and residency restrictions would likely meet the “narrowly tailored” requirement if applied only to Tier 2 and/or 3 offenders. So one of the many unintended consequences that may come from this bill (and there are many) is that much of the battle done to fight against the internet identifier requirement, residency restrictions, and presence restrictions would be washed away by this fictitious “tiered” registry bill.

      Then on top of it: it would probably take about five to 10 years for this tiered registry to mature — or “ripen” — in the courts. Remember, the wording of this fairly extensive bill would need to be interpreted by our appellate courts. Our state appellate courts are generally not registrant friendly. How are you so sure the Courts will interpret the new bill in our favor? At least with the current sex offender law, much of it has already been interpreted. So there are no surprises. Further, much of the current bill’s weaknesses have been exposed for future challenges. However — with a new tiered bill — a new “monster” (as someone else appropriately called it) will be put into the fight. And with the new monster come unknown consequences.

      USA,

      Finally, you say that “[i]f you meet the criteria, a judge will have no choice but to grant the motion of the guidelines are written clearly [sic].” Please point this out in the actual bill. Because from what I’ve read, a judge is not bound by the “guidelines” that you refer to. They are merely guidelines, subject to a judge’s discretion in whether or not to adhere to them. Mind you, a judge’s discretion can only be found violative of law if discretion is exercised in a manner that is “arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason.” People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228, 234 (1993). It’s a highly deferential standard accorded to the Courts. And I suspect that judges, who are technically elected into their position, will often be very guarded in their use to release people from their registration obligation. Especially in light of the Brock Turner and Aaron Persky.

      No judge will want to be used as an example. Especially if someone subsequently recidivates after given relief. So they will probably be hesitant to grant any petition if it relies on their discretion. At least in my opinion.

    • Notgivingup

      USA, you wrote, A tiered system will allow people a chance. Presently, you don’t have a chance. If you meet the criteria, a judge will have no choice but to grant the motion of the guidelines are written clearly.

      A Judge will have a choice even if you meet all the criteria, same thing in Texas, people who are a low risk, score 0 on the static, have paid the $2500 for eval + 1000s if not 10s of thousands in attorney fees and been approved by the sex offender council to deregister are still denied for no reason, so much for the criteria. Yes the tiered system will help a few but the vast majority will still spend 1000s of dollars for a SLIM CHANCE, a dream and hope only to be let down by another judge and a attorney who got rich again off the backs of the many. The Judges need to be taken out along with the DAs and have a simple straight forward way off with minimal fees. And remember guidelines are just that, it needs to be a lot clearer than a guideline for some Judge to look at, most will just go by what ever they think at the time.
      I understand you want off as well as the other 10s of thousands that are low risk but we still need to be careful who we throw under the bus, some may deserve a tier3 but I have my doubts. I myself fall into the tier1 but I do know people that are tier 3 that were charged multiple times for the same offence and they were boyfriend, girlfriend, does not seem fair to me.

      • M>

        The system in TX is severely flawed just as you pointed out. It is long and very expensive. To date it has cost me $2500 for the testing, and $4500 to date in attorney’s fees. I have a very low score. The results (we were given the results by the examiner) are very low, and yet they have sat in the state office now for ten weeks. After I spent all this money, my lawyer did some informal research, and discovered that nearly all judges just deny, no matter what the charge was or the risk. There is no justice, only politics.
        However, I have to try in case I can catch lightening in a bottle.

        • Notgivingup

          M> is Your lawyer SS, and my evaluation was the exact same cost. I really think they have all agreed on a fixed price per evaluation. Wish you well.

  25. mike r iscensored

    usa im actually a first time non contact non-violent ex-offender and think it would be great to get my address removed from the public registry but I myself am worried about exactly what you said that is the progress Janice’s team has made here in cali will be all in vain if the legislators open up a new wave of bills aimed at those who are either tier two or three ex-offenders..once this bill passes there is nothing preventing the legislators from re introducing residency restrictions, presence restrictions or amending the Internet indetifier statue to be retroactively applied ect.ect. and being able to pass these bills with ease since they will be targeting a more narrowly defined group of people…this is my and I believe others real concerns over this bill as well as the discretion giving to judges and DAs for relief….the legislative body is backed into a corner right now knowing if the properly argued suit comes up in court that the entire registration scheme is going to get struck down and when this bill passes we will lose our advantage by losing our main players by them dropping off the registry and our advantage that the registry isn’t narrowly tailored enough and doesnt provide any way for relief…all of which is appearance only aspects that the courts have found unconstitutional when in reality all these issues will just appear to be addressed but really aren’t in any realistic or meaningful way…these are my opinions and I’m a low level ex-offender…there’s also the fact that this will send a clear message that the main organizations that are supposed to be representing us is condoning and endorsing the registration scheme…and you’re wrong saying that the registration scheme isn’t going away…if all the people in the past thought like that we would still have slavery, no gay or womens rights and so on so on …

  26. mike r iscensored

    you of all people should understand that leaving the discretion to the judges and DAs without any black and white stipulation isn’t going to help anyone..you yourself have stated how the judge in your cor case stated that there was no reason to deny your cor but in the end DENIED….what makes you think this will be any different??this bill is just going to stuff the pockets of lawyers that will be needed just to apply for relief as well as shore up the government’s positions…if it wasn’t for all those FACTS I would be all for this bill…but those are the real factors that we can’t ignore and neither should anyone fighting for us…no one should ever just accept the fact that the registration scheme isnt unconstitutional and accept the fact that we either can’t defeat the scheme or should just accept it. …

    • surprised

      Mike it is a risky tiered bill for sure. The only real positive is for the pre 1987 offenders to get off. As for the rest of us, we are screwed in our own way. Be it Tier II, we’d still have to come up with thousands of $$$ to pay attorneys and fees to petition off. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t have tons of $$$ to take a gamble. It’s almost like the defense attorneys have soldout so they can have another potential profit source from this super risky tiered bill. Then if you are Tier III you won’t even have the opportunity to pay $$$ to MAYBE get off (which could be a sort of blessing in disguise). In Texas they have a similar bill to this draft bill. Very few people actually get off. In NY, they simply extended the I and II Tiers. One of the caveats with registration not being punishment and not ex post facto. When this bill passes, A LOT will be disappointed.

  27. mike r iscensored

    isn’t constitutional…you knew what I mean…

  28. Lake County

    I don’t believe that the registry will ever be abolished. I’m grateful for
    this chance to be removed from the registry. Yes, they could change laws to make things worse down the road, however one thing California has that other states don’t have is Janice fighting for us. I fully support this tiered registry.

    • Other attys are hard at work too nationally

      Not true, there are other states who have people fighting for RSOs like just like Janice is doing. You don’t hear about it here though since this is mainly a CA oriented website with national implications and applicability.

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        If you know of attorneys that are winning cases for us in other states, that aren’t already posted here, then please post that information here! Any case successes in other states should be shared in the General Comments section.

  29. mike r iscensored

    man i hate hearing that..I don’t understand you people that just give in and accept this crappp whenever there hasn’t ever been a real challenge of the registry…im dumbfounded by that type of mentality..I am a realist and would consider that the registry was here to stay if someone brought the real issues in an intelligent articulate manner but even then I would never say never…

  30. USA

    Guys, Registration isn’t going away. I highly recommend going into the Megan’s Law website and reading about risk factors. How can you apply Static 99 to a person 20 years later? As noted, the site noted most individuals released after 10 years into the community who haven’t re offended wouldn’t be candidates for testing. I think this is a big issue. Furthermore, what tier do you put people convicted 20 years ago with expunged offenses and who haven’t re offended?

    • New Person

      Also on Megan’s Law website it specifically says “it’s a duty to register”.

      You can’t force someone to work for you unless it’s part of punishment for a crime.

      If it’s punishment for a crime, then it’s punitive.

      If it’s not punishment for a crime, then this is called involuntary servitude – which is prohibited under the US and Cali constitutions.

      The law cannot have it both ways to where it’s regulatory AND forced service outside of custody. This should be a checkmate move.

  31. mike r iscensored

    yep just like trump would never win, just like gay marriage would never happen, or a black man becoming president, or equal rights for women and many others..
    …weak…and in case you or others are uninformed it’s a misdemeanor for a registrant to go to the Megan’s law website..

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      “and in case you or others are uninformed it’s a misdemeanor for a registrant to go to the Megan’s law website.” No it’s not a misdemeanor to use most areas of the Megan’s Law website. They specifically post information and forms for us to use there. We are only not allowed to access the database of registrants.

    • NPS

      Actually it isn’t a misdemeanor to go on the Megan’s Law Website. You can go to the front page. You can even read the rules it has. It is a misdemeanor to run a SEARCH on a registrant on the website.

      • 4sensiblepolicies

        Has a registrant ever been charged or convicted for using Megan’s Law website? I cannot begin to believe that would survive a Constitutional challenge.

        They claim the registry is a public safety tool, so what if a registrant is the parent of a child and wants to see if there are any registrants in the vicinity. In fact, I would think registrant parents would have even greater ‘need’ of the registry to protect their children. Since registrants tend to be clustered in ghetto-like conditions due to governmental oppression, we would think that registrant parents would have greater need to check the registry than an average person.

        Or… is it that children of registrants are worthless to the government. Or… is that they know the registry is a worthless tool.

        Look folks, either the registry is a public safety tool that needs to be available to everyone – or it isn’t and shouldn’t be online at all. It doesn’t work both ways.

        • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

          ” I cannot begin to believe that would survive a Constitutional challenge.”

          Nor can I. I certainly understand that people here, especially, are very nervous to fall afoul of the law but, for myself, I feel an obligation to “violate” this law which, owing to its innate injustice, is no law at all.

          “Lex iniqua lex non est” – St. Augustine

          And from Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letters From Birmingham Jail:”

          “One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’

        • jo

          God forbid you poke holes in their precious registry!

          Yes, I have three kids and have to expose them to all the rapists circling my house
          looking to repeat offend because I can’t protect my children with this powerful, important
          tool. But then I just continue to hope and pray that someone like Leyva or Runner will note
          this egregious oversight and come to my rescue by championing much needed amendments.

  32. mike r iscensored

    ok i thought we weren’t supposed to even access the site…

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      Mike r, no the site contains information and forms for internet exclusion for us to use. The site is for more than one purpose.

  33. donhoh

    The California sex offender registry consist of such a diverse group of people; with that being said, we have to be careful to not be too critical of any chance to amend such an unfair law. People, WE ARE STUCK! Lets appreciate the fact that there are organizations and professionals who are going to bat for us.

    Don’t forget, we, in someway are responsible for the position that we are in – now, are there some grey area in some of our cases? I think so! So what do we do? I think that we do everything possible within the law to work on being released from the registry.

    How amazed I am to read so much pessimism regarding the rough draft of a new law. I have registered for almost twenty years. I had a “failure to register” case dismissed and a “288” felony dropped to a misdemeanor. People, I petitioned the court with no money, no lawyer and represented myself. My advice to you all is to study the California penal code book; learn to speak the courts language. If you do so, you may be able to chip away at your current case. Lastly, what is the STATIC 99? I don’t recall ever having to deal with it. I never went to prison, never worn an ankle bracelet, and my fine was under $500.00

    • M

      I don’t think it’s “pessimism.” I just think those being critical are rightfully realistic. This tiered registry draft bill is 99% dupe!

      • Timmr

        I have felt the rug being pulled out from me so many times, I am not anxious to step up when the red carpet is laid out promising to lead to the promised land. If there is truly a change that will end new punishment, we will soon find out its effects. We will also work towards that goal. Hoping for it will not change a thing, but we can protect ourselves from having our hopes dashed once again by not chasing phantoms.

  34. mike r iscensored

    you had a 288a( lewd and lascivious act) reduced to a misdemeanor?

    • GRR

      Mike R
      I had a 288(a) lewd and lascivious act with a minor under 14 expundged. It was back in 1995. Laws changed in 95-96 I think for a 288(a). ie no more expundgements or COR’s for a 288(a)

    • jo

      It’s important to note that, even if the crime is a “wobbler,” crime, if you were sentenced to state prison, the court does not have the authority to reduce your felony “wobbler” crime to a misdemeanor crime. It will remain a felony for all purposes.

    • donhoh

      Yes…..It was considered a wobbler in the California book of penal codes; however, the person was over 14. The crazy part is that all of these years later, the person who lied about their age now wants to write a letter to the courts stating that they lied about their age.

  35. USA

    Guys, you all should be commended for conducting yourself in a professional manner. If a tiered system isn’t passed, what do you suggest (the registry isn’t going away)? I concur with your comments regarding judges. I hope the direction is going will remain positive (new Megan’s website, video put out etc). These are big changes. Thus far, things are heading in the right direction. My hope is that this will pass, you can download an application online and the guidelines will be very black and white. We all must come together and realize we are stronger by working together and change must come. Best of luck.

    PS: does anyone have any thoughts (Janice included). What if your offense has been dismissed years ago, you have had no issues prior/after and you no longer meet the criteria for Static 99 testing because 10 or more years has passed as stated on the Megan’s Law Website?

  36. GRR

    My sentence was probation. Nonetheless, please explain (It will remain a felony for all purposes)

  37. Jack

    Hey guys this is for Janice. Why don’t you focus on getting that stupid law from 2013 saying people with child porn convictions can’t get their records expunged repealed? We have a supermajority anyway and frankly it might be less controversial.

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      Could you quote which specific law that is? I’m not familiar with it.

      • Jack

        It was a bill passed by the California state legislature in august of 2013, ab 20 2013 Waldron, the bill specifically amended the California penal code to exclude any person convicted of possession of child pornography from getting their record expunged under CA penal code 1203.4. It took effect January first 2014. It was introduced by a republican, and did not receive one dissensting vote. Child molestation charges in general were already excluded from expungement prior to the bill’s introduction. Does that Clear everything up? Also Janice, correct me if I’m wrong but I assume this law I just mentioned is retroactive?

        • ONE DAY AT A TIME

          Doesn’t this law only apply to those in which the violation is committed on, or via, a government-owned computer or via a government-owned computer network? Nor do I see where it cannot be expunged under CA penal code 1203.4.

          https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB20

          Am I reading something wrong?

          • MS

            Not the way I understand it. Prevents all those convicted after Jan 1, 2014 of CP from getting it expunged. The part about government networks, computers, etc is about making the penalties worse for those in that boat. Convicted of CP after Jan 1st, 2014 and you will be able to get it expunged. Since it’s a wobber offense (at least at this time) you can at least still be able to have it reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor which can get you off ML site. Fortunately for me I was convicted in 2013. Have since had it reduced and expunged.

    • Timmr

      What argument would you use to get this repealed and why would this super majority be for it? Democrats in this state don’t seem any less unreasonable on sex crime law than Republicans. They do still listen religiously to law enforcement, that is why this tiered bill has a chance, for betteror worse. The tough on sex crimes call to arms is like our Patriot Act or Iraq war. Both parties approve of it without much question. There appears to be one party in this state and the Union, that of defense, surveillance and retribution.
      The more likely solution would be to have all laws restricting our rights applied after sentencing to be deemed ex post facto punishment in court like was done in Michigan, then those of us promised expungement when sold on our plee deals can get what we thought we agreed to.
      On the other hand, I am open to any argument that the legislature might be persuaded to repeal some of these laws. Never say never or limit your options.

  38. mike r iscensored

    it’s simple..if you went to state prison you are not eligible for a felony reduction no matter what…I am really surprised that they let your reduction and expungment stand I’ve looked into it and I can’t even get a attempted lewd act reduced let alone expunged…wow this is definitely a equal protection issue that I’ll have to research more….so they still make you register correct????

    • GRR

      yes I have been registering since 1988 the year of my conviction.

    • donhoh

      The California sex offender registry consist of such a diverse group of people; with that being said, we have to be careful to not be too critical of any chance to amend such an unfair law. People, WE ARE STUCK! Lets appreciate the fact that there are organizations and professionals who are going to bat for us.

      Don’t forget, we, in someway are responsible for the position that we are in – now, are there some grey area in some of our cases? I think so! So what do we do? I think that we do everything possible within the law to work on being released from the registry.

      How amazed I am to read so much pessimism regarding the rough draft of a new law. I have registered for almost twenty years. I had a “failure to register” case dismissed and a “288” felony dropped to a misdemeanor. People, I petitioned the court with no money, no lawyer and represented myself. My advice to you all is to study the California penal code book; learn to speak the courts language. If you do so, you may be able to chip away at your current case.

      • Merriam

        I don’t think people are being pessimistic. They are being realistic. We have many concerns about this bill. What troubles me about this bill is its real intent to divide and highlight many as more “dangerous” when they’re not. Also troubling is how when I attend the meetings, Frank, Janice, Chance played cheerleader about how great this bill was going to be a step forward without knowing about the details beforehand. Then when we get the chance to read the bill, many of us feel alienated and betrayed because many of us will actually be HARMED MORE if this bill passes. Like some have said this is a CIVIL RIGHTS group. It shouldn’t endorse laws that help some, but yet is at the expense of others (which, if you actually take the time to read and understand this complex bill, is exactly what this bill does). Before Frank, Janice, Chance plays cheerleader they should at least be aware of the details beforehand. You had us anticipated for something great, but many of us are now alienated and disappointed.

      • DavidH

        donhoh:

        it sounds more like they dropped the 288 and convicted you of a new offense–a 288 is in no way a misdemeanor

        • donhoh

          I don’t have my court papers in front of me to give specifics on the case; I do know for certain that I plead guilty to a code in the category of 288. As previously stated, I served no more than 60 days in a county facility. Probation was 5 years and in between 2010 and 2012, I petitioned the courts to have the case dismissed……I could not get the dismissal, but according to the California Penal code, my case was considered a “wobbler.” The Los Angeles County District Attorney agreed with me resulting in the courts dropping the felony and replacing it with a misdemeanor. I later was picked up on a bogus “failure to register” charge, and spent a month in the County Jail. I plead guilty and was sentenced to 90 days. This was a felony on my record. When I researched the charge, I discovered that a failure to register charge could not be a felony if the initial sex case is a misdemeanor. I went back to courts, fought it, and had that case dropped to a misdemeanor also. The great news is that I recently had the failure to register case dismissed. The only obstacle in front of me is the sex registry….outside of that, I only have a misdemeanor on my record.

    • donhoh

      Initially my case was a felony, however I was able to avoid prison. I never wore an ankle monitor, nor have I been on parole. Since then, I was able to have my felony “Lewd Act” reduced to a misdemeanor. People, please explore all possible options regarding your respective cases…..you will be amazed at how much you can accomplish when you speak the language of the law. Also, I am in favor of anything that works towards the release of people off the registry.

      • Timmr

        I don’t believe 288(a) is eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor anymore.

        • DavidH

          I dont think it ever was

          • Timmr

            Well, then my lawyer lied to me in 2000.

            • RFS

              288(a) here. received COR, exonerated, record expunged and felony reduced to misdemeanor over the span of 2012-2013.

              • NPS

                You mean 288a. BIG difference from 288(a), which does not qualify for expungement nor a CoR.

                • RFS

                  288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS OF AGE

                  • NPS

                    Then there must’ve been a change in the law some time since 2013. It clearly states on the CoR packet that anyone with a 288 (which includes all its subsets) are ineligible. The date of the last update shows April 2014.

                    When I filed for my 17b and 1203.4 in 2014, the DA stated that 288(a) did not qualify for a reduction nor an expungment. I corrected her and told her that I did not have that charge. It was a 288a. She stood corrected and the judge granted my motions.

                    • RFS

                      i must have beaten the 2014 update, i don’t know. none of it matters ’cause i wasn’t able to get off the megan’s law site, which was my main objective. without that, the rest is crumbs. even for those who think they’ll benefit from having a tiered registry, i’ve come to realize that won’t matter much either because if you pop you’re name in a google search you’ll still show up in some 3rd party sites (see http://www.homefacts.com/). it’s even quicker than megan’s law. i don’t see anywhere that these sites would be obligated to remove your record.

        • donhoh

          Guys, it was indeed a 288, I don’t know what the sub categories were, but according to the blue California Penal code book, my case was considered optional……felony or misdemeanor. That is what made it a “wobbler” and that is the exact word that is in the book. This all took place within the last six years and the initial case was in 1998.

      • Merriam

        So you are “in favor of anything that works towards the release of people off the registry?” Even if it is at the cost of a greater amount of people being escalated to Tier III (and no promises to impose an ex post facto ban from preventing an extension of minimum registration terms for Tier I and II)? I am not as foolish to support this outlandish ‘unfunded mandate’ that may very well turn to AWA status to get its funding. This bill is about as foolish, if not more, as the flaky ‘petitioning’ process to get off registry under this draft bill — and the deranged STATIC 99 fiction it so heavily imposes. Make no mistake: this bill, when it passes, may very well have many of its former adherents in deep regret. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. This bill is an enemy in disguise.

  39. Haight

    To be blunt, I hope this bill fails. I’ve stuck behind this organization before; but I can’t stand behind this. This bill is something that many will not benefit from.

    • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

      By “this organization” do you mean CASOMB or ACSOL?

      ACSOL is not responsible for this tiered registry bill. I don’t even know if it was consulted or not by those who are. And it has issued its views after having solicited us for ours’ and then communicated its dissatisfaction to those who proposed the bill.

      I would say that ACSOL is being very responsive to its constituency.

      • New Person

        ACSOL put the onus on the bill makers that any tier development needs to be based upon empirical evidence.

        Forcing thousands to register when less than 1% re-offend should be a huge slap on the face of the whole system, especially when compared to other convicts. You don’t need a STATIC-99 test when there’s actual evidence recorded of less than 1% recidivism. Why is there a need for registration at less than 1% recidivism rates?

        • abolishtheregistry.com

          There is zero empirical evidence that you can rely upon. You cannot foresee the future and any attempt is saying “we’re content if we get this many wrong”. That’s the fact of that argument.

          Another point… The only true empirical evidence to begin with is that of the individuals criminal history so crime based is the only way to go.

          If a person does something criminal a second time and I mean a real second crime, not slamming them with multiple offences because they had multiple pictures, then give them more time.

          Just saying.

          • New Person

            Maybe you misread what I wrote.

            The recidivism rate of less that 1% isn’t a “future based” evidence. It is empirical evidence of what has transpired.

            Why is this “historical fact” important? Because it negates the “frightening and high” remark on registrant recidivism rates.

            Why is this important? Because it is said empirical evidence that was cited in the Michigan case that won. Shouldn’t we use the same template as to what has already won in court? That would be the ideal thing to do.

            • abolishtheregistry.com

              I know exactly what you meant but you started off with ‘ACSOL put the onus on the bill makers that any tier development needs to be based upon empirical evidence.’

              If that were true, they’d be pushing for no registry based on your 1%.

              The rest was me “explaining” what empirical means in our particular situation. They need to be able to assess each individual for actual empirical determination but they can’t really. You can’t go on statistics to guess a persons future nor can you go on the persons actual past crime to foretell their future. You will have some luck but since neither avenues are 100% accurate, you are in fact guessing and in doing so, you’re saying “I’m okay if I screw up this many times”.

              It actually bolsters the 1% argument. Abolishment is the only honest approach.

      • DavidH

        I agree, not all may see light at the end of the tunnel, but ASCOL’s view is certainly reasonable for the masses, and I dont believe I heard them say they wouldn’t continue to advocate; but the theme from the masses among us has been that we are all treated as the same, when we’re not, and that the tiered registry under ASCOL’s views accomplish, fairly!

        • Timmr

          I think that theme is misguided. All people should be treated equally under the law and be giving due process as individuals, not divided into groups under an attainder. Some groups of people with convictions, mainly us, are subject to a registry, others are not. The tiered registry concept is another version of the same wrong. It really bothers me that registrants aquiesce to being single out as a special class, to which the Constitutional rules can be stretched or even go so far as to apply the same concepts amongst themselves.

          • Anon

            California has had the registry for almost 70 years and it isn’t going away in the foreseeable future. We have to work and live in the legal framework that exists, not one that we wish existed. The courts have consistently ruled that mere information of sex crime conviction can be published. Even if all the later hardships are eventually cancelled out, that will remain. In no legislature in the country is abolishing of the entire registry even under discussion. We have to start with that reality like it or not, and I don’t like it either, but there it is. My argument is that we have to take what we can when we can and continue to fight to return the registry to its original purpose: a law enforcement database used to aid in crime solving. That takes it off the Internet.

            • abolishtheregistry.com

              We’ve had slavery in this “country” for 245 years, it’s not going away.

              Shhhh.

              • Anon

                Slavery? Really? Have you read the court opinions allowing the registry? Have you looked at the opinions finding the registry has become punitive? Slavery has nothing to do with it, legally speaking, and we are trapped in the context of legal speak. If your argument is not designed to convince a judge (or a lawmaker) it will fail. No matter how much it feels like slavery, it is not, because slaves need not ever be convicted of a crime.

                • abolishtheregistry.com

                  Fail on both points. Yes I have read Michigan’s, Kansas, etc… And yes it is like slavery in the way I used it. You claimed an absolute as if somehow you can foresee the future. I simply showed you that nothing is set in stone. You don’t think there were many slaves that had the same mentality as you? There’s always people like you saying something “can’t” happen. Theyre proven wrong in vast numbers.

            • Grant M.

              Except, Anon, this stupid tiered registry bill (excuse me, “draft” bill) does nothing to further what you’ve said. This bill will just create argument and dissent amongst Tier I vs. Tier II vs. Tier III. Meanwhile, the state can justify worse laws against Tier II and III’s — while at the same time prolonging the life of their registration scheme (i.e. buying time). I don’t like being critical (especially of ACSOL). But personally, this draft bill has only done one thing in my mind: it has made me question the TRUE motive of this organization. Like some have said, many of us feel betrayed that ACSOL would even consider a piece of legislation that would throw so many people under the bus. As others have mentioned: 30,000 Tier III’s, as well as 60,000 Tier II’s, is no small number. This stupid bill (excuse my language) WILL open up a plethora of new laws aimed at Tier II and III labeled people. Thus, Anon, this bill would do nothing but open up a new can of worms. Fundamentally, it’s a very dishonest bill.

              • Political Prisoner

                I have to agree I can see this bill going the same way it has in other states, by adding years onto the tier level. if we could be sure that this would not happen then maybe support it. But the main reason I do not go for this bill is 1. If ROs i have served their time, been through the court ordered Sex Offender treatment then why do they still have to prove they are reformed enough to be released by filing a petition? 2. It should allow higher tier individuals the opportunity to petition to be moved to a lower tier.

              • Anon

                Is it the draft bill that is creating dissent? Seems to me some who think they may have to be on the registry for life are the ones creating dissent. I don’t blame them, except, it is already LIFE for everyone. Maybe we are talking “30,000 Tier III’s, as well as 60,000 Tier II’s” or maybe not. I still don’t understand the bill well enough to know which Tier I’ll land in.

            • Janice Bellucci

              Thank you for putting the California registry in historic perspective. The registry will be 70 years old in 2017 and it would be impossible to end it as the result on one blow. ACSOL has embraced an incremental approach to the registry based upon empirical evidence including the results of many decades of researxh by Dr. Karl Hanson. Although he is given credit or blame for the Static-99 his research paints a different picture. To speak intelligently on this subject it is a good idea to read his research reports. There is a brief summary of his research on the CASOMB website under the reports tab. The CASOMB report was published in April 2014 and advocates creation of a tiered registry.

              • M

                The problem is that after reading this draft bill, I think more of us are convinced that CASOMB is not on our side. Even CASOMB’s video seems intent to pit everyone against those who will be labeled “high risk” sex offender. It’s a label based on the Static-99 tests (which are complete scams). In case you missed it, someone in a different article posted how the New York courts blasted Hanson and the Static-99 as “not scientifically accepted.” Here is a copy of the published NY decision:

                http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm

                According to the decision:

                “Moreover, during the course of the hearing held in this case, it became clear that the ‘norms’ for interpreting the scores of the STATIC-99 were significantly altered by Dr. Karl Hanson, one of the developers of the STATIC-99, and his associates at the end of 2008, and the beginning of 2009. (Hanson, Helmus and Thornton, Reporting Static-99 in Light of New Research on Recidivism Norms, available at http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/forum_article_feb2009.pdf.) Due to the adoption of new norms and test protocols for the STATIC-99 in February 2009, the ‘general acceptance’ of the STATIC-99 in the scientific community for its intended purpose (predicting recidivism rates of sex offenders) has been called into question.”

                As for Karl Hanson, I don’t think he deserves any ‘credit’ whatsoever; but rather, Hanson deserves *blame* for developing very misleading actuarial tests (the Static-99 and 99R). The Static-99 and 99R has done more damage to people than most people realize. And under this proposed draft bill, the Static-99R is going to do more damage to people.

                • jo

                  On our side? Dude, no one is “on our side” save Janice.

                  • Anon

                    Exactly. And those working with her. They all stuck their necks out and probably get hate mail, probably even threats. The resentment against them is disappointing.

              • abolishtheregistry.com

                You keep relying on Hanson so that tells me you’re probably not going to try to abolish anything. He’s getting a lot of praise for static 99 from the people who think it’s a good idea to ignore our constitutional rights… In other words, I consider the source.

                • Anon

                  1. all4consolws did not accept the bill as wrtten with blanket approval.

                  2. It will still be possible to fight the Static-99, which is a bogus piece of art, not science. In fact, it will be possible to fight it no matter who this bill turns out, or if it dies and nothing changes.

                  It is just my opinion, and I try to follow it, time is better spent finding ammunition and suggesting ways to fight back. How? With court cases and studies and such things that can be used in court. Calling it slavery or whatever is not going to convince SCOTUS.

              • Son Liberty Child of Freedom

                I concur, Janice Speaks Truth!

                “The registry will be 70 years old in 2017 and it would be impossible to end it as the result on one blow.”

                It is a most Horrid and Ugly Truth that Slave Masters through out the course of history since the time of Nimrod never Repent and Free those they have made Slaves and Bondmen. Take the case of Joseph made a merchandise by his fellow brother and sold him to the Egyptians who had made from Joseph there daily bread. Not only was Joseph made a slave but all the children of Jacob (Isreal) held bond to the Egpytians for generations.

                The Ugly Truth was that it took the Strong Arm of The Eternal Father in Heaven The Elohim (God) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to free the Children of Israel with no less then 10 blows of His Fist.

                Furthermore to add a addition Ugly Truth: All Nation, Tribes, and Peoples throughout history Once Conquered and Enslaved Never!! are set Free they are Never!! Ever!! set Free. The only exemption has been The Children of Israel and all due credit must be given to The Most High Father in Heaven Yehovah.

                I recommend that prayer, bowing, and scraping be directed to The Only Worthy One who can be proven to set one Free, ask Him humbly to Shine His Face to the paths of Janice and give her a strong heart with wisdom and the words to speak for you.

                As Yehovah Lives, I Speak Truth.

                • Eric C.

                  Oh the Bible, huh? I got a verse for ya: Matthew 7:15 – “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” This sham tiered proposal is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And the static 99 scams are the “false prophets.” #DumpThisBill

              • USA

                Janice,
                Thank you for all you do. I do have a question. I’ve read the tiered proposal. I have 2 questions. I plead to a Sexual Battery 243.4 (a) restraint almost 29 years ago. It’s been expunged/wobbler/summary probation. I’ve been released into the community for 18 plus years. I’m required to register, but technically no longer convicted of anything. What tier would I fall under? Furthermore, according to the Megan’s Law Website, I would be ineligible for the Static 99 testing since 10 or more years has passed and no new crimes/legal issues has arisen since etc. Thank you

                • Timmr

                  Thank them by paying them for an individual evaluation of your situation. Janice or Chance, that is. They are already donating their time for the general welfare of registrants. They have to earn a living, too.

            • Timmr

              The Constitution has been around three times as long as the registry, and in my view anyway it is unconstitutional to force people to update their personal information as if still on some sort of indefinate parole or probation.
              Sorry I don’t have a more complex view on it than that or am I going into advocating for some grand strategy to make that happen that seems contrary to what I stated above.

              • Anon

                I don’t mean to belittle, but there is no better way to phrase it.

                Even if you were a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, your opinion on the unconstitutionality of the registry, merely reporting somehow, like through mail, would be outvoted.

                We know that because the SCOTUS already decided that. There are other ways to attack the registry and that is ongoing and will not stop. Think of the progress. Ten or 15 years ago no one was fighting against the registry. EVERYONE in all the comments to news articles wanted more punishment for the monsters, and that was everyone on the registry. The tide turned. There are wins now after years and years of getting beaten down. The surest way to stop progress is to want too much too fast and find new monsters in those who move too slow.

                • Timmr

                  There is progress because people are finally saying this registry is unconstitutional and ineffective. Little by little, more people say that. I will say it here or on those sites where all the comments are about castrating and torturing registrants.
                  I am exactly against creating monsters of some to make the others look safe. That is a tactic which I think is going to backfire not create progress.

                  • Anon

                    “I am exactly against creating monsters of some to make the others look safe.”

                    Who is doing that? How? Seriously, I don’t understand and need an example.

                    • New Person

                      An example like the facial recognition program to “get registrants off the streets”?

  40. USA

    Well, I just read a comment that someone thinks all registered citizens should be treated the same? Nobody is better than anyone else, but the multiple offender or individual convicted of multiple offenses with prison time shouldn’t be treated like the guy with an misdemeanor battery expunged:summary probation/county time. That’s narcistic, self centered and nonsense! You guys don’t even make sense. I noted one individual who reduced his wobbler to a misdemeanor (earlier) pursuant to 17 B and later expunged his offense on his own! I would imagine he would be considered a level 1 with no conviction (he did it on his own!!!!). Likewise, I argued my case, had my charge later reduced and simply mailed my expungement in (I didn’t even come to court granted). I even had a false detainment ordered destroyed because I was factually innocent. Quite complaining and take action!

  41. Cool CA rc

    so in other words “Yes and No”

  42. mike r iscensored

    my god I’m so tired of hearing that same old weak asss position that its impossible to overturn the registry and that it’s here to stay so get used to it and take whatever bs laws or bills the traitors in office through out there…this is a pathetic stance and not based on facts and data but instead is being projected by the same individuals who realistically have no interest in true reforms or the restoration of our civil rights…im trying to be civil here so I’m not going into what I think about this organization in more detail but I really do wish that this organization would stop advocating that the registry isn’t going away and that we should just accept the fact that these public officials have some kind of legal authority to illegally take away our constitutional rights under color of law…especially without even challenging the government on the real issues…it’s uncomprehensable and un American…

  43. mike r iscensored

    before throwing in the towel how about getting in the rink and at least attempt to fight…until the registry is brought before SCOTUS on the real issues,,equal protection, due process and Substantial process, right to reputation, right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions, right to travel, right to family and raising our kids, right to be free from governmental sanctioned vigilantism, right to property, right to privacy on the real issue ie. just as we have privacy in our dmv info our medical info our tax info just to name a few, the lies and falsehoods, and on and on then you should not be stating that its impossible..at least try first…

    • Chris F

      I agree with Mike R that more fights against the core of registration need to happen now that tons of good data are available.

      The initial 2003 SCOTUS decisions were short-cited and based on hearsay that recidivism is high (it isn’t) and that the registrations were nothing but lists of public information that aren’t used for any purpose to deny anything, otherwise they would obviously violate Due Process. That falsehood can be squashed in 2 seconds by pointing not only to state’s putting residency and other restrictions on people on the list, but on the federal government itself with the following:

      “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), specifically 24 CFR 5.856, it mandates that sex offenders are prohibited from living in “federally assisted housing” (as defined in 24 CFR 5.100). ”

      SCOTUS can not only say the lists are just lists anymore, but should rule that any future lists for any offences (drunk driving, child endangerment, fraud) are unconstitutional because they will all devolve in this way to create unprotected classes that can be universally discriminated against by legislature without taking into account an individuals situation. Lists completely bypass our system of justice.

      Even our own criminal policies protect those guilty of any offence from being judged as a group, but yet for sex offenders this way of thinking doesn’t apply anywhere else:

      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.

      • Chris F

        Oh…I forgot to mention another way the federal government pushes for discrimination of those on the registry that SCOTUS said isn’t used for that purpose…EEOC:

        https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm

        You aren’t supposed to use info older than 7 years for arrests unless there was a conviction, but it’s ok to discriminate if they are on the registry. So those that are on some type of deferred adjudication are hire-able after 7 years, unless they are on the registry. The law benefits all others convicted but not adjudicated guilty. Perfect example of violation of Due Process and the equal protection it was supposed to guarantee.

        • Timmr

          Indeed, registrant former convicts are the ones who have to update their criminal record yearly or more often. Others can leave them in the past. Our record is always ‘fresh’, and we are always considered dangerous. Marshall McCluhan said “the media is the message”. The message is you are posted, like on a wanted poster. Doesn’t matter what conviction date you put up there or crime details, it screams you are always a criminal to be watched.

  44. Harry

    With this legislation that is in the pending development stage. There needs to be language included, that when RC is removed from the registry, that action is final, barring any and all future legislations from putting any former RC back on.

    • Eric C.

      Hey Harry. Sorry to break it to you: but so long as registration is not “punishment,” this bill will not add the language you hope. This sham tiered registration bill does NOTHING to change the state of the registry. All this sham tiered registry does is complicate matters and divide everyone in 3 ridiculous classes. Look at the big picture: when you weigh everything about this sham bill (the pros & cons), you have a lot more cons.

  45. mike r iscensored

    well stated chris

  46. mike r iscensored

    Your DMV information
    California Vehicle Code 1808 and the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6253 et seq.) provide that information collected by the Department is generally considered public information and is subject to inspection by the public. Exceptions to this public disclosure obligation include: Personal Information and Confidential Information.
    Personal Information
    Personal information is defined as information that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. An “individual” is defined as a “natural person.”
    Release of personal information must be in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.) and the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) (Title 18 United States Code Section 2721-2725).
    Confidential Information
    Confidential information includes, but may not be limited to, an individual’s home address (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.21), home telephone number (Government Code Section 6254.3), physical/mental information (California Vehicle Code Section 1808.5), social security number (California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5), and photograph (California Vehicle Code Sections 12800.5 and 13005.5). Confidential home addresses will only be released when the department determines the release is necessary to complete a DMV transaction. Other requests for any confidential information must include a state or federal statute that authorizes or requires the department to release such information.
    Information regarding any motor vehicle liability insurance policy or surety bond provided to the department is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except to the following:
    (a) A court of competent jurisdiction.

    b) A law enforcement or other governmental agency.

    (c) An insurance company or its assigns to verify a record the company or its assigns previously submitted to the department.

    (d) A person whose vehicle or property has been involved in an accident reported to the department, or who suffered bodily injury or death in an accident reported to the department under Chapter 1 (commending with Section 16000) of Division 7 (Financial Responsibility Laws), or the person’s authorized representative, employer, parent, or legal guardian.
    The Department may further restrict the release of any information from its files if it determines that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

  47. Eric C.

    Tiered registry is a sham!! What does it do but cause rifts in unity? Karl Hanson & Tom Tobin… both phony “doctors,” cut from the same cheap polyester cloth. I feel Acsol is doing a BIG disservice in continuing to use Karl Hanson to support a tiered sham.

    • steve

      Yet every single one of us quotes his infamous stat “those who have not re offended after 17 years are no more likely to commit another offense than the average citizen” (not verbatim).

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        I don’t believe I have. I have however stated 95% of all new offenses are committed by non-registrants. If that’s true, kooky Karl is kooky.

      • Who knows?

        Who know? Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year figure is exaggerated. Just as the Static 99 tests may very well exaggerate recidivism, that 17 year figure, too, may also be inflated to help justify a registry. Make no mistake, Karl Hanson’s work is financed by the very same people who justify the registry (federal and state governments, CASOMB, SARATSO, etc.). So of course, it would make sense that Hanson is pressured to come up with expected “scientific” findings that are in accord with the government’s politically-motivated needs. As what abolishtheregistry.com said, if there is truth to the notion that 95 percent of people who are arrested for sex crimes are NOT on the registry to begin with, then it would seem to indicate conflict with Hanson’s findings — as well as the very definition of “high risk” sex offender (HRSO), as well as the greater ‘recidivism’ they allegedly have. Something about Hanson’s Static 99 figures just don’t seem right.

  48. mike r iscensored

    Disclosure Laws
    You are probably aware that the law protects your tax return information from disclosure to other parties by the Internal Revenue Service. IRC Section 6103 generally prohibits the release of tax information by an IRS employee. However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of.
    IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.
    IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.
    IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.
    IRC 6103(l)(1) provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.
    The IRS may therefore share information with SSA about social security and Medicare tax liability if necessary to establish the taxpayer’s liability. This provision does not allow the IRS to disclose your tax information to SSA for any other reason. SSA employees who receive this information are bound by the same confidentiality rules as IRS employees. Therefore, they generally cannot disclose the information to state social security administrators, state officials or other Federal agencies.
    IRC 6103(e)(6) and (c) provide for disclosures to powers of attorney and other designees. If you are notified of an audit by the IRS, you may want to have someone other than the authorized officer of your entity represent you or participate in the meeting. You may bring any individual you wish into the discussion, in person or by telephone. You may give oral consent to speak with a third party if necessary to resolve a Federal tax matter. However, oral consent does not substitute for a power of attorney or a legal designation, and the discussion is limited to the issue for which the consent is given. To officially establish a legal representative, you must provide consent using one of the following forms:

  49. mike r iscensored

    The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896, enacted December 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a), a United States federal law, establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.
    indeed i can find no statutory exceptions for disclosure for sex offender registration information..and if there is then it is beyond the scope and authority of the legislators to approve the release of such information…

  50. mike r iscensored

    these privacy laws that are in affect in the myriad of governmental policies are settled law and can not be circumvented by the pretext that it is in the interest of public safety especially when there is no evidence that the disclosure increases public safety…this information is not subject to foia nor is it in the court records…

  51. Maxwell

    I kind of wonder if casomb purposely wrote this draft bill to break apart pro registrant advocate groups. It’s a terribly worded bill that helps the ones get off (pre 1987s and presumably most Tier I), but makes life a worse hell for the ones that stay on (all Tier III and presumably most Tier II). When you weigh everything, this bill is worse than our current lifetime law because it will lead to more narrowly tailored restrictions. Static 99R use is another big red flag. I don’t think Static is science at all. This draft bill also seems like a diversionary tactic in two ways: 1. this tiered bill, if passed, buys more time because while it is being fought in courts, the government can still impose and create more restrictions that are more narrowly tailored; 2. while many are distracted with trying to get a tiered bill passed, Leyva is going to ban registrants from their own children’s schools. Or will the ban only apply to Tier II and/or Tier III offenders? Tiered registry is a terrible long-term strategy.

    • RFS

      leyva is wasting time and tax payer money. how many “crimes” will this prevent? so you stop RSOs from attending school events. since the re-offense rate is so low you have to filter the re-offenses down to how many resulted as a result of an RSO attending a school event. that’s probably close to, if not 0.

  52. mike r iscensored

    at least we now know straight from janice herself what the position she has and acsol has as far as the registry is concerned…which most of us already knew all along…

  53. mike r iscensored

    it’s really sad and I’m afraid it’s probably the same position most if not all of these organizations have that rely on the registry for their very existence…hate to say it but it’s the truth….

  54. mike r

    I may be wrong here but where exactly does our California constitution allow te decimation of personal information for public safety or for any reason related to the registry?

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.8.&part=4.&chapter=1.&article=6.

    I believe that it explicitly states that the government can not abridge this section for any reason other then what is stated in the CA constitution…This is just one issue that could effect the entire registry so impossible should never be stated when it comes to taking down the current registration scheme….

  55. mike r

    So from my understanding NO agency Federal or state can supersede the CA constitution unless they actually amend it….

  56. mike r

    javascript:submitCodesValues(‘1798.73.’,’8.4.25.1.10′,’1977′,’709′,”, ‘id_9f57f6a9-291e-11d9-a04f-af426c0c0060’)
    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny or limit any right of privacy arising under Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution.
    (Added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 709.)

  57. mike r iscensored

    I like how someone that states they don’t even understand the bill can somehow claim that we should take what we can get and that the registry is never going away….thats as good as acsol claiming that it’s impossible to overturn the registry when they haven’t even thrown a single blow on the real issues….thats disingenuous and a lack of competence or abilities or they have no interest in all for constitutional sex offender laws..there is nothing constitutional about the registry so they should change their name to all for take it and like it laws…or all for unconstitutional sex offender laws..their site name is disingenuous since their stance is the registry will never go away or only incremental stages can prevail..

  58. wb

    my question is as follows . I was convicted of a 288a in 1989 riv county. no sex no force no violence, my age on date of incident was 18 , victim 13, no new charges27 years plus . were do I fit on the tiered system , do I have possible relief coming ??? are am I doomed??? if it passes ?

    • GRR

      WB
      My conviction was exactly the same as yours and the same year.

      I’m reading the proposed tier system as we are tier two – 20 years.

      I’m assuming you mean 288(a) the parenthesis around the a is different then a plain a.

  59. wb

    THANX FOR UR ADVISE , YES MINE IS A 288A LEWD N LASIVIOUS. UNDER 14 ; ACTUAL AGE VICTIM 13 AN 9 MONTHS ,MY AGE 18 AN 6 MONTHS .SO IM A TIER 2 CORRECT . NO NEW CHARGES 27 YEARS,,, SO IM ASSUMING IM IN GREAT POSITION TO GET OFF REGISTRY CORRECT?? RIV COUNTY DA s are very tough im hopeful though

  60. wb

    yes mine is a 288 (a) is that the tier 2 ?

  61. Someone who cares

    I am still against a tiered registry, especially since it leaves so many questions unanswered and so many decisions in the hands of people we can’t trust. I have a question for some of you who mention that they are currently not published but would fall into a Tier III with this bill. How is that possible? Clearly the tiers can’t or should not be based solely on the static99r scam but a combination of the scam and the offense! Are you not published by law as some offenses are or did you file for exclusion? If someone could answer that I would appreciate it very much.

    • RFS

      someone correct me if this is wrong, as if you needed an invitation, but i was told once by my lawyer that if my offense was against a family member i would be excluded from the megan’s law site which exist under the pretenses of protecting the public. how the hell does that make sense. so this slightly over 18 old who’s “victim” was slightly under 14 is more dangerous than some guy that gets off on his 6 year old daughter. someone’s young kids are more likely to be in this dad’s company as a result of a sleepover or something than in the company of this 18 year old.

  62. USA

    Jo,

    Please get your story straight. A wobbler is a Felony Conviction treated like a misdemeanor (you where sentenced to either county time or probation). There is no such thing as being a wobbler and going to prison. As I’ve noted 100 times, a person convicted of a sexual based offense (per the Megan’s Law Website) wouldn’t be eligible or a viable candidate for Static 99 Testing if they where released into the community for 10 plus years. (Crime free). So, how would the new tiered system determine the person’s risk factors? Secondly, how would those individuals with expunged records be placed (tiered). Lastly, no one has any chance for relief in California at this time! The Registry isn’t going anywhere! Are you suggesting nothing changes? How about making proposals rather than complain? Why not proposing a clear cut 10-20 year fall off proposal (if the person meets the time period: i.e: 10 years, check, no further convictions, check, not facing other charges, check/they fall off automatically? Guys, we can continue to complain, ramble, think your a lawyer by stating penal code etc etc etc, but it’s not going to change a thing. Donate to this site, file an expungement if you can and remain positive. There are some fair judges out there. I filed my own 17 (B) and pc 1203.4. You can download this online or if your economically challenged, contact the public defenders office. The worst case scenario is the judge states come back?

    In conclusion, let’s address expunged offenses and how can a 15-20 year old offender be tested via Static 99 if crime free as noted via Megans Law?

  63. Garrett R.

    This bill is the worst thing ACSOL has ever considered to support. This tiered registry is a disaster waiting to cause more sufferings.

  64. mike r iscensored

    duh stop complaining duh and donate duh cause the registry ain’t never going away duh…so tired of hearing that bs…especially when you have courts stating crap like the following…

    Although SORA’s restrictions are based on the assumption that sex offenders have especially high recidivism rates, the court says, there is little evidence to support that premise. Michigan presented no data on recidivism rates among the state’s sex offenders (a telling omission), and research published by the Justice Department indicates that sex offenders “are actually less likely to recidivate than other sorts of criminals.” Furthermore, the evidence suggests “offense-based public registration has, at best, no impact on recidivism”; in fact, laws like SORA may “actually increase the risk of recidivism, probably because they exacerbate risk factors for recidivism by making it hard for registrants to get and keep a job, find housing, and reintegrate into their communities.” As for the rule excluding sex offenders from the vicinity of schools, “nothing the parties have pointed to in the record suggests that the residential restrictions have any beneficial effect on recidivism rates.”

    The appeals court emphasizes the mismatch between SORA’s burdens and its benefits:

    While the statute’s efficacy is at best unclear, its negative effects are plain on the law’s face….SORA puts significant restrictions on where registrants can live, work, and “loiter,” but the parties point to no evidence in the record that the difficulties the statute imposes on registrants are counterbalanced by any positive effects. Indeed, Michigan has never analyzed recidivism rates despite having the data to do so. The requirement that registrants make frequent, in-person appearances before law enforcement, moreover, appears to have no relationship to public safety at all. The punitive effects of these blanket restrictions thus far exceed even a generous assessment of their salutary effects”

    I can’t count how many courts have been stating they are open to a intelligent challenge based on all kinds of other issues besides that same old lame ex post facto technicality….give me a break

  65. eddie

    Whoever supports a tiered registry should get their head checked. Not only because of all the inconsistencies and flaws… like Static 99… but also what this bill may lead to.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      Eddie,

      You say, “what this bill may lead to?”

      You mean as in a [hypothetical] subsequent bill to morph a California tiered registry into an Adam Walsh Act state? It would make sense. With Adam Walsh Act comes increased federal funding. The increased federal funding would supplement the fact that a tiered registration bill is an “unfunded mandate.” (“Unfunded mandate” as per Superior Court Judge — and CASOMB board member — Brett Morgan.)

      Nonetheless, I share the view that it’s troubling that many proponents to the tiered registry fail to see this danger — as well as the many other dangers — that come with this bill. With AWA come 6 month (for Tier 2) and 3 month (for Tier 3) registration periods. Clearly a lot worse than our current system, which generally only requires annual registration (with exceptions for transient and SVPs).

      As another person said, when you weigh the pros and cons… this is a DANGEROUS BILL.

      • Steve

        Personally I am not worried about awa coming here. There are too many recent rulings that it is punitive and I don’t believe California wants to get another lawsuit on their hands. They could just do it now if they wanted too and not even mess with this tier scheme.

        • ken

          Be careful what you wish for. I used to live in an AWA tiered state. It was a lot worse than CA (where I now live). The AWA had me registering twice a year (every 6 months) with the Sheriff’s Office. Though CA’s law is lifetime, it still is way better than a lot of other states that I lived in. I think this may be one of the many hidden motives for those in government that are selling this bogus tier scheme. They want the laws to be harder on some people, so that it is in accord with more of the country. In the case of this tier draft bill, the burden is held by people in the 2nd and 3rd tiers. I definitely see any tiered registry as a step back, primarily because of how Tiers are still offense based (despite what casomb tells us in the video). And the “risk” part is determined by the static 99 mess. Then on top of it all, how this bill is setup to create different laws directed at different tiers (a condition that will complicate challenges to the registry).

  66. mike r iscensored

    I apologize for being such a smart a…but im really frustrated with some of you people..guess what I just got it from a good source that WAR will be filing their class action next month..I couldn’t get details about what will be challenged so we’ll have to wait and see…

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      I’ll hold back my excitement till I see the details too. They’re the only group that has expressed outright abolishment so hoping it’s in that direction. I am, however, thrilled that more cases are and have been filed. The momentum is building!

    • Steve

      Good news!

    • steve

      Mike,

      it seems that WAR is going for the jugular. It’s only a guess but this is a headline link on their page:

      https://www.womenagainstregistry.org/Ellman

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        There’s a problem with adding Hanson into the mix. It validates his hokey ass 10 question test If 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by non-registry people, how are his numbers correct? So 12% in the first 5 years re-offended? That would be over 108,000 re-offenders.

        Mike r posted state by state reoffense rates and I don’t remember any at or above 12%.

        Hanson works for the Canadian government I believe so he’d have an interest in fudging numbers. He also helped create static 99 so that’s a strike as well.

        Absolutely no need to bring hanson into a suit. In fact, it’d be an opening for the opposite legal team, legistlatures and the judges to favor mass static 99 evaluations.

        If I had the money, I’d file a direct and singular attack on just the Alaska lie and leave static out of it. Hell I don’t remember it coming up in the original case so why bring it up unless you’re trying to throw the state a bone which of course they’d promptly shove up our arses.

        It looks like by the time I get able to do something, people will have already fucked it up.

  67. USA

    First, I’m glad the management board has made progress. I’m very proud of you all. I only have 2 concerns/questions. I’ve attempted to research this and see what approach other states have taken, but I’ve failed to come up with a concrete answer! 1. What tier would a person be put on if their offense has been expunged? 2. How would a person be affected via Static 99 testing if they have been crime free for 10 or more years?

  68. JDub

    While I am happy to see that the ACSOL Board state their position regarding the tier registry, I am disheartened to see that no position is stated (at least I haven’t seen it yet) regarding the implementation of the new law. As it is written, all registered citizens who were CONVICTED before 1987 will be dropped from the registry (REGARDLESS OF THE OFFENSE). All other registrants are bound by their RELEASE DATE from incarceration – not their conviction dates as the other registrants. There are many like I who used their constitutional rights to a trial instead of a plea deal – were convicted – and received more time than those who accepted plea agreements and received less time. I was convicted in 1990… 27 years ago, but since my release date was 2014, I will still have another 17 years left to register. Granted, it is not life registry, but if initially registrants are given reprieve by their conviction dates – where is the equal protection for the rest of us already on the registry? Expo Facto?

    • Timmr

      Actually, I think it reads that registrants with a conviction prior to 1987 do not have to go through the DA approval process if they fall into tier I or II. If they fall into tier III, they still have to register for life.

      • wonderin

        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.”

        • Terry

          You kind of forgot a very important part: the fact you would still need to petition off this ridiculous tiered registry. Also, how do you address our concerns that this fictitious tiered registry will morph into an Adam Walsh (AWA) tier? Too many dangers with this bill.

          Also, despite what people are telling us, CASOMB is not an advocate for registrants. REMEMBER! CASOMB is made up of prosecutors, police and sex offender “treatment” experts who have screwed us time and again in the past. Why do you think they will all of a sudden want to help registrants? CASOMB is not supporting this bill because they have a change in heart and want to help. Don’t be so naive or worse — foolish. In short, follow the money.

          California becoming an AWA tier state = more federal funding

          more federal funding = more $$$ for prosecutors to fight against challenge to the registry, more $$$ for police and more $$$ for “treatment” experts and their government contracts

          If California ever makes the mistake of adopting a tiered registry, we can remember that ACSOL pushed for this thing (at least initially) before it eventually morphed into AWA. I’m pretty sure that’s the game plan of CASOMB. They’ve got tricks up their sleeves. And most are not privy to what they ultimately have concocted for their sick scheme.

          Also, remember that CASOMB are the same people that advocate for the containment model, lie detectors and STATIC 99 SCAM. Once again, CASOMB is introducing this bill.

          Do you really trust CASOMB to introduce this complicated bill?

          As the old saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I think CASOMB’s history of not advocating for fair and just practices is enough evidence as *not* to support their phony tiered registration.

          • Steve

            Casomb’s position on AWA. The conspiracy theories are getting tiring.
            http://casomb.org/docs/Adam%20Walsh%20Position%20Paper.pdf

            • Lake County

              Thanks for posting this. This position has been stated here before, but the conspiracy theorists here want to keep everyone afraid of Casomb’s intentions. This will probable be needed to be posted here again and again. It’s obvious most states aren’t concerned about loosing the 10% in JAG/Byrne funds.

              • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

                I am also averse to (unsubstantiated) conspiracy theories. However, I am also not inclined to imbue CASOMB with positive qualities they do not possess.

                They are, to my mind, a decidedly mixed-bag. I once knew one of them, Tom Tobin, and have very little good to say about him. He was a zealot and an ideologue.

                Still, and given the extraordinarily hateful regards others in California government have towards us, they are comparatively liberal. Thats how bad things have gotten.

                The hate-train that was once driven enthusiastically by the sex-abuse therapy industry has gotten away from them and some of them are now desperately trying to apply some brakes. That’s how I see Tom and his colleagues.

                I am under no illusions that we should, at any point, place our trust in their good faith for us. No one should be blamed for their reluctance to surrender reasonable impulses of distrust for those who have held us in contempt.

                • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                  David,

                  I, too, had the misfortune of experiencing Tom Tobin’s dishonesty, as well as unethical practices. It amazes me that Tobin has managed to infect ACSOL. I don’t think many people have yet realized the subtle manner in which Tobin undercuts those in opposition to his political and business agenda (which are almost at odds with fighting for a more fair registry). But I suppose, in time, the mistake in trusting Tobin will have some very serious civil rights implications for many people.

            • DavidH

              Great why no date on that position paper–do you know when it was written?

              Amazing I found their positions to be out of step with State practices ( The State does indeed use the crime of conviction for placement on the registry and some kind of informal risk assessment they have among themselves as to who to watch closely, who to perform notification of, etc.):

              “The Adam Walsh Act mandates an entirely different offense tier structure and
              demands that risk determination be based solely on an offender’s crime of
              conviction, not an actuarial risk assessment score. According to the most recent
              research3, using crime of conviction as the primary method of determining
              offender risk is far less reliable than the use of actuarial tools. ”

              Does anyone know of the case before the 9th circuit challenging the AWA act? or are they referring to our IML case?

              Speaking of which does anyone one know when we are due back in court again for IML I thought it was this month.

            • Albert

              Speaking for myself, I am tired of the Casomb propaganda. Firstly, when is that AWA position paper dated? It must be fairly old, considering that the position paper boasts about how CA’s “current” sex offender law is good, yet now — at odds to Casomb’s very own statement — Casomb is pushing for a tiered registry. Again, just ONE of the many inconsistencies in Casomb’s positions. Casomb says one thing, yet they are doing another. Then they use the opportunity to, again, shamelessly push the Static 99 scam. Not the new 99R, so again… that AWA position paper must be several years old. Also, the position paper warns of AWA being an “unfunded mandate.” Yet am I not mistaken in saying that the tiered registry Casomb wants is ALSO an unfunded mandate? Ha, the hypocrisy and inconsisteny of Casomb are endless. So if my distrust of Casomb somehow makes me a “conspiracy theorist,” so be it. IMO it is a whole lot better than mindlessly believing that Casomb is an honest bunch when history has shown that they are not!

            • Joseph Proctor

              How do you know the federal “incentives” for becoming an AWA state will not increase when Jeff Sessions becomes the new Attorney General?

              Jeff Sessions has endorsed worsening federal law against sex offenders as a U.S. Senator. And I doubt CASOMB’s position under the position paper you provide will remain static (no pun intended) over time. As some have already mentioned, the old AWA position report claims that the “current” sex offender law is good. Yet since that 2008/2009 paper, CASOMB had the sudden change in position that a tiered registry should be imposed. Again, evidence that CASOMB’s position has not remained static over time.

              And like another person mentioned, it is also troubling that CASOMB, in the AWA position paper from many years ago, mentions that an AWA law is an “unfunded mandate.” Yet the tiered registry that they want is ALSO an unfunded mandate. See the blatant hypocrisy?

              Finally, I think it would be wise — just like a good chess move — to prevent supporting any type of legislation that remotely resembles Adam Walsh tiers. The draft that CASOMB introduced fits almost perfectly with the AWA scheme. The tier levels for I and II are for 10 and 20 years. AWA is 15 and 25 years. Both require lifetime registration for Tier III.

              Other reasons why I don’t trust CASOMB:

              1. CASOMB supports the polygraph when the virtually unanimous scientific consensus says that the polygraph is unscientific.

              2. CASOMB supports the Static 99R when studies and case law have discredited the grossly limited “actuarial instrument.”

              3. CASOMB continues to support implementing a tiered registry when they admit in their reports that there is no evidence that any type of registry prevents sexual reoffense in the first place.

              4. CASOMB has been indirect in advertising that the tiered registry will be “risk” based, yet an actual review of the draft clearly shows that the draft proposal is still offense based (with the added Static 99R component to screw a person over).

              5. If CASOMB has so much confidence in the Static 99R scam, why make the low risk individuals register in the first place?

              6. In the AWA paper cited by Steve, it was written at a time when Jerry Powers was still a board member. Powers’ name is listed in the CASOMB letterhead, when he wasn’t even Los Angeles County Probation Chief yet. For your information, CASOMB board member Jerry Powers resigned a few years ago due to misconduct. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-probation-severance-20151230-story.html

              7. The vice chair of CASOMB, his name is Tom Tobin, also runs a business. Tobin is CEO of a company called Sharper Future. Sharper Future is the state’s largest sex offender “treatment” provider. Sharper Future’s business model relies primarily on CDCR contracts. There are also three CDCR board members in CASOMB. So as some have said, Tobin is in a conflict of interest in his dual relationship between being vice chair of CASOMB and CEO of his company.

              8. CASOMB is a product of Governor Schwartzenegger’s administration. It was a poorly run administration. Look at all the board members who represent their respective special interests in CASOMB. When you look at other state’s sex offender boards, they’re made up of scholars and academics. The same cannot be said with CASOMB.

          • abolishtheregistry.com

            Don’t mind Steve or lake county. Steve is looking out for his interests by ignoring anything that bashes his chances of getting off the registry, immediately. Lake county still has a cops mentality, he will always defer to “government loves me”.

            Many people have shown that Asscomb isn’t on our side but for selfish reasons, a few desperately cling to a tiered registry as their ticket to freedom.

            • steve

              “Many people have shown that Asscomb isn’t on our side”

              lol…nobody has “shown” anything…but people have said many things.

              • abolishtheregistry.com

                Any sane person watching their actions and weighing it against their words can see they’re full of shit. AWA may not be a path California takes but nobody can predict that either way with certainty. What they can do relatively safely is go by words plus action to give an educated opinion and he did that. I personally care little for what people “profess” and focus on what they do. I’ve learned that by watching droves of flip-floppers and liars from positions of power and from lower forms of life just focusing on their own self-interests.

              • Albert

                Steve, do you actually believe the AWA position paper from Casomb? That Casomb paper is about 10 years old — and a lot has changed since then, both politically and in terms of federal funding. Casomb is the master at Orwellian “double speak” and “double talk.” Casomb says one thing, yet they do the totally opposite. For example, Casomb released many reports claiming that a registry inhibits rehabilitation and reintegration. Yet at the same time, Casomb also introduces complicated law that only maintains and rationalizes the existence of a registry. Even worse: Casomb wants the tiered registry to rely on the STATIC 99 scam. A scam that’s been discredited by top scholars, courts and even legislative studies. Even from the 10 year old paper you cite, it’s clear that Casomb’s true motive was to push for the use of a ridiculous STATIC 99 scam into our registry. And that’s from 10 years ago! But someone answer: why?? What is Casomb’s true motive for getting the STATIC 99 SCAM into our system?

                • steve

                  Let’s see..Texas and 33 other states are saying NO to AWA. With the state in a Billion dollar deficit California will not spend the obscene amount of cash to pay for it. The odds are AWA ain’t happening in California. CASOMB, is the ONLY gevernmental group that has attempted to pass any kind of legislation to remove people from the list. (Tom Ammiano tried and failed) Not doubt they had to jump hoops and play the political game to get this moving and those political games, it appears, will screw over some people. I have e-mailed Tobin and surprisingly he mailed me back and answered my question. Didn’t have to do it, but he took the time to do so. I don’t think they are out to purposely screw anyone over but their hands are tied in this political mess.

                  • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                    Steve,

                    Do you not find it troubling that in the AWA position paper you cite, CASOMB never even mentioned a “tiered registry?” Yet soon after Nancy O’Malley became CASOMB chair — just after that 2008 or 09 position paper you cite — she suddenly began a campaign to have our politicians pass a tiered registry.

                    Do you not find it least concerning that the tiered registry draft shares many similarities to AWA tiers? I don’t think the similarities were designed in mere coincidence. The tiered registry draft would make a transition to California becoming an AWA state seamless.

                    What makes you think that in the future, as sex offender legislation may become more draconian, California can bargain for more federal funds in exchange for it becoming an AWA state? Does this really seem “conspiracy theorist” to you? Like someone else said, CASOMB is playing a very manipulative chess game… complete with Orwellian “doublespeak.”

                    I have spoken to many other registrants who reside in the tiered states that you mention. Surprisingly, none of them have had anything good to say about their tiered registry. What makes you think California will be an exception?

                    As for Tom Tobin, you’d be foolish to trust him. You probably will not trust me in what I have to say, but Tom Tobin is NO friend of ours. I, like some of the people who have worked under him, speak from personal experience.

                    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                      Also, just because Tom Tobin responds to your e-mail in a manner that you like… it doesn’t mean that he is to be trusted. Read the draft tiered registry bill. Can you honestly say that you trust the people that wrote such a convoluted and complicated bill? In my opinion, he’s playing you for a fool. And for whatever reason, you’re deciding to play along.

                    • abolishtheregistry.com

                      He’ll find a way to justify your points in support of asscomb.

            • NPS

              abolishtheregistry.com sounds just like CASOMB, Static 99 and other legislators who seem to think they know how a person thinks and what their motivations are.

              • abolishtheregistry.com

                Alinsky tactics don’t work on me. Furthermore, nobody has to guess what they’re doing. Just look at actions. It’s not hard to predict because people always let you know what they’re about eventually. I mean if a person tells you, they think you’re inferiror to them, it’s a safe bet that they can’t be trusted to be an impartial judge of a bill.

          • wonderin

            “You kind of forgot a very important part: the fact you would still need to petition off this ridiculous tiered registry.”

            Nope, didn’t forget!
            People like me who were convicted before 1987 would be removed automatically. Simple read.
            Of course, it’s still only a proposal which I realize.

            • Albert

              Yeah you get off at the expense of the 30,000 plus people who will be labeled as seemingly more “dangerous.” How is that just and right? And don’t forget about the other 60,000 plus people who will be given the label of Tier I or II, with no real guarantee of ever getting off without the blessing of an elected judge or ex post facto protection from the tiers expanding. The 10,000 pre 1987s who get off will be at the expense of 9x the amount of people — about 90,000 — who will be made to suffer the entanglement of this complicated tiered registry. Quite frankly, I don’t know how Acsol and Janice can continue to work with Casomb after Casomb obviously wrote a bill that was intended to divide and conquer the fight against unfair registries. The tiered registry is by far the worst thing Acsol has ever even considered to support.

              • wonderin

                Hi Albert,
                I’ve been treated very well by the courts and most law enforcement personnel during my lifetime.
                My concern is the general public who have forced things like home compliance checks, Megan’s law, internet ID and etc.

              • DavidH

                worst yet, they ( ASCOL) support “evidence based” assessment of risk levels, such as that by Dr. Hansen–creator of the static 99! Now that I believe the greatest consensus we had here among us is that the static 99 is flawed and our enemy.

                Support for that in any way would make a tiered registry basically a life sentence just as we have today, for the majority of us ( support as I read : i.e., “cant support in its current form” has the looks of nothing more than a resume builder) ! I’m sorry but in my mind ASCOL cannot boast credit for supporting efforts to relieve 30K from the registry–which is exactly the way folk’s resumes at ASCOL would look like upon passage of the tiered registry using the static 99!

                If one reads their position closely it’s in my opinion double talk–it leaves one impression while really in essence roles over on the issue; doesn’t confront CASOMB in one bit; and supports fully the proposed legislation

                • Tobin's Tools 2.0

                  Yet it **seems** ACSOL is completely unwilling to challenge the Static-99R scam.

            • abolishtheregistry.com

              Right but those who aren’t pre-1987 would still have to petition. Fat chance getting off though. It’ll be just like other “reforms” when it comes time. All talk, no action. No freedom….

        • Timmr

          I don’t know where you got that quote. I can’t find anything in the proposed text that allows someone designated tier III and whose conviction was pre-1987 to automatically get off the registry. Indeed it say those convicted prior to 1987 will be reviewed by the Department of Justice prior to having registration terminated.

          • wonderin

            @Timmr
            It appears your reply is addressed to me.
            I got that quote from here:
            http://all4consolaws.org/2016/11/los-angeles-da-to-co-sponsor-tiered-registry-bill/
            [I believe this is the sticky point]
            Registrants convicted in 1987 or later would be required to petition for removal from the registry near the date of their annual registration requirement. (not before 1987)

            • Timmr

              Ok, thank you. Yah, it is hard to go down the column of responses and find who is responding to who sometimes. Anyway, I think that quote is incorrect. The tiered proposal draft does not automatically remove any tier III registrants. It does give tier I and II the benefit of not having to petition the DA for removal, if the convictions were before 1987 and they haven’t reoffended. Still all tier III will be on the registry for life, no matter when their offense occured.

  69. James

    ACSOL IMO has served the people who are forced to register in a way all should be proud. The tier registry is not perfect but the ones that think the registry will go away are wrong, it is not going to happen within the next 20 years or longer, wish I was wrong but I doubt it. The tier registry could allow for many to have a chance to get off, why keep all on because some will be stuck, not fair but such is life. I wonder what the vast majority of RCs want in California? We may never know since less than 1/2 a % even know about ACSOL. There are post on here against the tier registry but many are the same person with MANY names. I have been against it at first only because of the judges and district attorneys involvement, maybe that can be changed in some way. But in the end it is better than what we have now and would help tens of thousands to move on with their life. For the ones left behind sorry, keep fighting and get over the self pity I see on here all the time. I know so many RCs that may still be forced to register but have made a life, have great families, jobs and are NOT allowing this shit to keep them down. In the end everyone can support ACSOL or start a new group and fight for what you want. I myself have come to a point in my life that most everything is good, I wish the exact same for everyone but the truth is some people will never be able to climb the ladder back to the top either because of life choices or just plain bad luck.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      And you think it is right for ACSOL to fight for a tiered registry that would be at the expense of other people’s rights? What kind of “civil rights” organization would do that?

  70. USA

    As noted, Static 99 was instituted in 1996. How will the board address those who have passed the 10 year mark without committing another offense etc? Secondly, how will those with expunged offenses/crime free be affected (Janice preferably)?

  71. mike r iscensored

    I noticed that only the people who believe they might benefit from this bill or dont believe registration scheme can ever be reversed are the ones praising the tiered registry..you can never reason or change a closed mind.thats just a fact.anyone who agrees with this tiered registry or believe and spouts that the registry is here to stay should be still subjected to whatever the new version of the scheme is after it gets repealed and replaced..I really hope that war argues what they’ve preached and challenges the government and the courts justification for these laws and the pretext that they are based on…I find it extreemly difficult to understand a mind that will give up and except defeat without even putting up a fight…sad…

  72. mike r iscensored

    I’m a realist and would kind of understand ( but still wouldn’t concede defeat) if there hasn’t been any positive outcomes by the court but thats not the case…we have had at least three courts ( cali Pennsylvania, Michigan) that have all ruled against the government’s justification for these laws and the lack of empirical evidence to support their claims…thats not my opinion or supposition but a fact…

  73. Hopeful

    Tobin’s Tools 2.0

    I believe ACSOL wants the egistryy to end for everyone.

    It s not fair that you speak so badly of ACSOL.

    Why should those that may get off the registry be held hostage by those that may not get off?

    Its progress and like others have said before, the registry is not going away all at once.

    We are so lucky to have ACSOL.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      Again, do you think it is right for ACSOL to fight for a tiered registry that would be at the expense of other people’s rights? Sure, about 10 percent will get off. But it’s at the expense of about 30% being labeled as more “dangerous” (Tier 3), as well as about 60% (Tier 1 and Tier 2) being given a hope that may or may not come (without any real future guarantees in a judge granting a petition, ex post facto protection, or even from the tiers worsening in penalty). What kind of “civil rights” organization would even consider advocating for this?

      But I do agree. ACSOL has done great things. However, it seems that I am not alone in saying that the tiered registry is not a great (or even a good or fair) thing — either in its present form, or potentially.

      There are a lot more simpler and cheaper alternatives to reducing the amount of people on the registry.

      • New Person

        Tobin,

        I haven’t seen anything from ACSOL that says they support the tiered proposal as it stand. You must have missed how ACSOL said they want something the reflects scientific based metrics.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          And do you consider the Static-99R a “scientific based” metric?

          • New Person

            Tobin, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

            The static-99R is “minority report” type metric. It’s a barometer. A barometer forecasts weather. Using this analogy for Static-99, it’s a barometer for a possible future recidivism. Forecasts aren’t 100% accurate, hence, why it’s called a ‘forecast’.

            Okay. Now we’ve established it’s about a possible future recidivism, let’s discuss actual recidivism recorded data.

            CASOMB has recorded around 1% recidivism rates for the past four years. CASOMB has recorded under 1% recidivism rates for the past two years. The rate is going down. That recidivism rate is one of the lowest (I think murder is the lowest recidivism rate) among convicts.

            But CASOMB isn’t the only research group. There are a plethora of studies that recorded similar conclusions: SO’s are one of the lowest groups of convicts for recidivism. These other studies have 10 to 25 years worth of data.

            So when those other research work actually run similar productions as CASOMB and CASOMB is the state of California’s own research group, then it becomes very difficult to refute empirical data unless the courts REFUSE to use said empirical data.

            In the Michigan court decision, they queried the state of Michigan as to why they didn’t do any research if the registration system was working or any research on SO’s. Surprisingly, CASOMB did just that. The only problem is the people running CASOMB are continuing to obfuscate the already low and still dropping recidivism rate to push the proper legislation.

            Static 99 isn’t a recorded metric, it’s a forecast. Forecasts are never 100%. Therefore, it isn’t a fact. What is 100%? Actual recorded data of recidivism. That’s fact.

            Why have registration when there’s under 1% recidivism rate? Why have registration when SO’s have the second lowest recidivism rate among convict groups? Why waste so much money when there’s under 1% recidivism rate?

            While you’re so focused on “what might be”, Janice and team have been propagating “what is”. Judges care about facts. You can beat demons down with facts. It may take a long while, but the facts remain. Sure, California, on the whole, is still stuck in fear mongering, but Janice and team have won with facts. Presence restrictions are gone from parks. For parolees, there isn’t a housing range restriction. Yet in Michigan, they drop empirical data in their suit.

            ACSOL has no hand in conjuring up the tiered proposal. Janice has disliked the registration system. You can watch her on RSOL meetings from like 2013 wanting to bring registration back to the SCOTUS sooner than later, like 50 years later a la Japanese internment camps. Janice was recently approved to be a lawyer at the Supreme Court level.

            I don’t think you give Janice and her team much credit on behalf of registrants. CARSOL, now ACSOL, was the only hope I had as a registrant and still provides hope. Granted, there’s more bad news than good news, but hope, like the facts founded, remain. We’re all frustrated as registrants, but at least we can try to stick to facts and not assertions. ACSOL had nothing to do with this proposal. They asked us what they thought about it. It gathered a consensus and put out the best possible answer to represent all of us. Empirical recidivism rates in California dictate what a waste registration is when compared to other groups of convicts. You can’t compare Static-99 to another group of convicts b/c they have no such thing.

            Risked based vs actual fact recordings. Fear of vs What is. Get rid of static-99 vs Get rid of registration.

            In California, if you get rid of Static-99, it doesn’t change your status of registering for life. Plus, I’m sure Cali will develop or adopt another form of categorizing. So why not just focus on getting rid of the whole thing?

      • David Kennerly's Rational Basis

        I think that that mis-characterizes what ACSOL has said. Certainly, they aren’t “fighting for” the tiered registry. I re-listened to the conference call from December on tiered registries (and recommend that everyone listen to it if they haven’t already) and it is clear that ACSOL played no role in drafting the bill and that they reserve judgment on its advisability until the details are known.

        The only real area of contention that I see is that Janice, and perhaps the Board as a whole, feel that the elimination of the registry is an unattainable goal at the present time. This can, and I think should, be debated but I would not typify ACSOL’s provisional support for the concept of some kind of modified registry as, at this point, contrary to our own interests.

        Having said that, I think the proposed tiered registry is a pretty terrible idea with lots of very nasty features and likely bad effects, not the least of which is that it will probably give the registry the appearance of reform and enough momentum for another ten or twenty or so years more with no further changes. Still, that’s just crystal ball gazing and I could well be wrong.

        We’ve amply expressed our concerns to ACSOL and they have responded admirably, stating that they cannot support the bill in its present form. I’m not sure what more we could want them to do.

        Yes, I would like very much to see a dismantling of the sex offender registry as I know Janice would, too. She is on record for saying just that.

        Perhaps a mission statement that identified that as a clear and unambiguous goal should be made.

        Nevertheless, that by itself won’t get us any closer to such a goal. Telling the legislators that we will accept nothing less will not get very far and will likely cost Janice credibility at a time when she is making inroads in the Statehouse. She is, after all, the first such lobbyist in Sacramento (and perhaps other states?) to lobby exclusively for our interests. I do think that we should be mindful of her predicament.

        Lobbying is, unavoidably, fraught with compromise.

        • New Person

          Just my thought, not ACSOL, but when ACSOL requested the use of empirical data should be the driving force for any legislation, particularly in response to the tiered system, then it was setting up a poison pill.

          CASOMB has recorded the recidivism rates to be under 1% for the past two consecutive years. The recidivism rates have hovered around 1% for the past four years, according to CASOMB.

          Well, when one is forced to compare these recidivism rates with other convicts, then they will notice that SO’s are among the lowest. With that finally acknowledged, then they can actually query as to why other convicts aren’t under registration if their recidivism rates are so much higher? If you can’t do it for all the other convicts, then why is the state wasting money as the “return on investment”, ROI, lacks any production.

          Eventually, logic will win out. But then again, California did decide to raise taxes upon itself. On that note, maybe if the state legislators see how much money California gets back by dismantling such a waste of ROI called the registration system, then registration may be dissolved. How do you get overcome fearmongering? Throw a lot of money their way. More money to certain lobbyists to curtail backroom agreements for registration.

  74. USA

    Tobin, are you a repeat offender? As I’ve noted 100 times, read the Static 99 comments in Megsn’s Law. If you have been crime free etc for 10 years or more, your not really eligible for Static 99 Testing. If you have re offended and not learned your lesson, than I would quite complaining.

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 *