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

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

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

243 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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…

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….

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….

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

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.)

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..

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 ?

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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…

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?

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?

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.

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)?

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…

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…

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, 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.