Bill introduced by Assembly member Ammiano that would instead establish 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, respectively, as specified.
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
TN: Tennessee will remove HIV-positive people convicted of sex work from violent sex offender list
Source: abcnews.go.com 7/19/24 NASHVILLE, Tenn. — HIV-positive people who were convicted in Tennessee of sex work...
The amended bill in now posted and it seems the exact same as ab 625. Anyone know what this means
“the person is not eligible for assessment under the
applicable coding rules, pursuant to Section 290.06.”
I’m pretty sure I was never assessed 20 years ago.
Lets not forget about people forced to register in california now living in other states. Let California take you off their list so you can be released from your current states list
I have been offense free since my release in 1994 which I believe precludes being assessed. I had not previously served time for any crime.
I have not been deemed a sexually violent predator or high risk.
Are their convictions that could prevent someone from not coming off the registry if this law is passed?
Oh, oh. I just noticed. ALL out-of-state violators who moved into California will be assessed as a MINIMUM of Tier 2, even if their offense was similar to that of a Tier 1 offense committed in California. I guess this ostensibly ensures that nobody moves to California in a “state-shopping” effort.
I noted that all registrants who were adjudicated out-of-state will be assessed at Tier 2, even if their offense corresponded to Tier 1. I see a potential federal commerce clause violation.
Makes me wonder.. If it does pass.. I can imagine all the footwork and all those people who didn’t know that this happened… I wonder if the state would figure it out or they just going to sit back and wait for people to call them…
Now that it has been introduced … what does that mean, exactly? Will it wallow there for years? Does it get implemented/voted on quickly? This is so very, very important to so many!!! Do we only have to a wait a short time to know?
Similar bills like this in the past year or two failed which is VERY unfortunate. I really hope this passes. I’m wondering what we can do? Janice or someone with knowledge and experience – please advise us. Do we start writing letters and emails? Do we make phone calls. This simply cannot fail again. There are so many of us and our families affected by this, and I think if we ALL sound off then it will help. Janice, et al, please advise….and thank you!!!
When it was mandatory for ALL ex offenders to register…
so should ALL have opportunity to be free from listing…
they need to re-write…when a person is NOT svp or pled
guilty again…they should be allowed equal opportunity to be
free from listing .
For those who think they were never evaluated here is a link to do it yourself.
http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99-coding-rules_e71.pdf
Here is something VERY important when grading yourself and what confused they heck out of me until I researched it. For PRIOR Offenses see note below:
DO NOT COUNT the Index Sexual Offence (index offence is what you were charged with)
The Index sexual offence charge(s) and conviction
(s) are not counted, even when there are multiple
offences and/or victims involved, and the offences occurred over a long period of time.
I am sort of lost over all this.. I a not originally a Californian, but I was sentenced here by a federal court and then released on probation and stayed here … All my money was gone and just started new here in this state.. Does this effect me in a good way? or is this just for “California State Courts”?
Janice, what if the registry shows me as having been assessed by taking the Static 99 in 2010 and that simply isn’t true. The ONLY time I took the Static 99 assessment was preparing for my case years earlier.
This “tier” proposed bill is grossly un-constitutional and unfair…
which probably places it to pass…….sure seems that way to method
of operation to become law….no checks and balance ……..no Constitutional
filter……..this “tier” reads like conditions for freedom on prisoners of
war…..made a deal with the state…you get your freedom…….choose
to exercise right of fair trial …you won’t get your freedom……….
this proposed bill is offensive to the freedom of man and history.
Every person on list must be equally allowed their freedom
from list as a fair proposal after say ten years without a new
sex crime…..NO “tiers”.
I agree with AnonymousNobody about assessments. What a way for mental health professionals to milk the “cash cow” for a while. But then, everybody has to get their cut, don’t they?
They cannot…cannot put people back ….put people back to
conditions of control/conditions of parole when they are NO
longer within probation/parole.
Proposed bill of “tier’s” are conditions of parole/conditions
of control……control is within probation/parole ……….punishment
is within probation/parole ……………..”tiers” cannot apply to people
No longer within probation/parole .
According to the Static 99 link (thank you Steve), our son would rate a “1”, but on the website, he is rated a “3”. ???????
I am extremely confused.
Doesn’t the “Static 99” apply only to men? How are female SO’s assessed since no test is really universal? A growing number of disorders from the DSM are being pooh-poohed by real professionals, not the money grubbing charlatans that do psycho assessments for the state. If you’ve ever been assessed and have your results you’ll notice that the psychologist uses general terms and says such things as may have, could be, might be just before the diagnosis. My state ordered evaluation was stellar, but in order to get paid the princely sum of $2,500, he had to come up with something. Ever heard of “hebephilia/hepephilia? Well that’s since been discounted and removed from the DSM.
Remember this: They’re like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there!
The “tiers” proposed is the wrong turn onto elm street…Don’t
make that turn ..Don’t make that turn ..its a setup to violate Constitutional
rights under color of law…placing people in “tier” / level is method of
of control/punishment/prison/parole…….assign risk score/assessment
is method of control/punishment/prison/parolwle……….restricted denied
freedom from registry is further punishment….Its against the Constitution
its against human rights.
They don’t need “tiers”…they don’t need score/assessment for
people to be free from registry………they already have proof people
have been crime free for the past ten years …the past fifteen years…
the past twenty years…….that’s the crime free proof to be off registry.
People on that run the website Megan, don’t care about corrections or being correct.. its la de da type type, child molester… who cares.. Its simple.. They are lazy and just type whatever random crap they want.. It took them 2 years to finally get my last current address… and it still shows my last address, and I moved a year ago.. No wonder why they are having problems tracking people..
while I’m doing my “Duty” in reporting my current address every year in that office in the police station..
Well, lets face it! California is probably one of the last States who havent enacted a Tiered System! In summary, with the impending budget cuts, change in laws, its really for the best that the people in Sacramento take action and pay attention to whats happening throughout the United States. In essence, California resources are limited and lets focus upon the big fish rather than focusing upon the Grandfather who has been on the registry for more than 30 years or the guy who married his high school sweetheart! Truly. If you look at the data, its really makes sense. I truly have a great deal of faith that this bill will pass!
@uas …..c’mon ma’am …..what data makes sense..????…..what..?????….your
so called “big fish” are majority in your supported tier 1 and 2 ..
……they pled guilty to lesser charges from original charges that
were more probable tier 3……just the facts ma’am …..around 96-97
percent of crimes are pled guilty to lesser crimes……there will be
some people who did not plead guilty to lesser crimes and exercised
their Constitutional right of fair trial….well…there’s no such thing
as a fair trial ……with your supported tiers…they will have 100percenr
plea guilty to tier 1 or 2…..they get freedom from registry…….the
real criteria of freedom from registry was you pled guilty to lesser
from original “big fish” charges.
California RSOL testified in support of AB 702 at the hearing of the Public Safety Committee on April 16. Chairman Tom Ammiano led the effort. President Janice Bellucci then made introductory remarks which were followed by testimony from two parents of registrants. That testimony was followed by supporting remarks from 12 people including representatives from the ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, registrants and more family members. During the hearing, Assembly members Skinner and Mitchell expressed their support for the bill as well as their confusion regarding the current system which lumps together all sex offenders. After all testimony was given, the Committee voted 4 to 2 in favor of its passage. The bill, AB 702, is expected to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in May before it is voted upon on the floor this summer.
DOES THIS BELOW MEAN IT’S OVER FOR AB702? I have a friend that will be affected by this.
Beginning around mid-session, the Bill Status Report (Purple Sheet) lists bills in the following order: (1) Active Bills; (2) Enrolled Acts; and (3) Inactive Bills. “Inactive Bills” are those that have failed, missed a cut-off deadline for consideration, or will otherwise not move forward in the legislative process absent some extraordinary action.