ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

General News

General Comments June 2013

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 2013. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. Joe

    This is a discussion about the true number of persons required to register under Penal Code 290 in California. I am moving it to a new place as the original one does not seem on topic. Please see here for the beginning of this thread.
    https://all4consolaws.org/2013/05/tiered-registry-bill-stopped-by-appropriations-committee/#comment-20178

    Question – how many people are truly on the registry in California? Is the public number low? Is it high? Is it even close to being correct?

    There was a previous discussion about this topic. It took me a while but I found where I got the 100,000 number from. It is the one often used, and it is a middle ground between these two reports (NCMEC – who cite State Sex Offender Registries as their source). None of this is terribly plausible.

    So on June 17, 2011 there are 106,216 registrants in California.
    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/111227_SexOffenderMap.pdf

    That number shrinks to 73,944 by December 11, 2012
    http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf

    How, pray tell, is this possible? Total number of registrants decreased by 32,000 in 18 months. With continued lifetime requirement and aggressive prosecutions. Did all these people die? move? get CORs / pardons? 32,000? Doubtful.

    The ML web site displays 83,612 registrants. Yet another vastly different number.

    Combine that with the argument – one that had never occurred – that it would take only 1,500 convictions statewide and lifetime registration per year since the invention of the SOR in 1944 to get to 100k. Again, even with attrition due to death, moving and CORs / pardons, this is highly doubtful.

    What is one to conclude other than the fact that the whole system is either utterly inept and unorganized or simply corrupt. The public is sold a bill of goods. It is entirely beyond me where the difficulty lies with coming up with a current number – accurate to the person and the day. Is this not all contained in one database – website listings and not? An extremely pedestrian database, to boot. A simple select statement to slice and dice the data – public display or LE only, full address or zip code only. An even simpler count of all Primary IDs (registrants) to come up with an accurate count on a daily basis. There must be some interest in keeping the number in – or – deflated.

    I don’t believe anything anymore.

    • alert

      “How, pray tell, is this possible? Total number of registrants decreased by 32,000 in 18 months. With continued lifetime requirement and aggressive prosecutions. Did all these people die? move? get CORs / pardons? 32,000? Doubtful.”

      ( Breaking news: CA-RSOL discovers 32,000 California sex offenders unaccounted for!)
      Where are they? Are you safe?
      Visit https://all4consolaws.org for continued updates.

      “I don’t believe anything anymore.”
      ha ha ha

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Since you decided to start this thread, I might as well move my comment from the other thread to this one. I guess I kind of sparked some interest:

      The number of people REQUIRED to register in California is bandied about as anywhere from about 80,000 to maybe 120,000. I cannot for one minute believe even the higher number. It just can’t be so, can’t be even close. And the fact that even the state Justice Department can’t seem to come up with a definitive number, and can’t seem to back up any number it promulgates at any time, makes me deeply suspicious.

      ANYONE convicted of any of the offenses in 290 at anytime in the past about 65 years must register, unless they at least meet the standard of a pardon and are able to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation for some offenses, but the full pardon for others. That standard, and the capricious nature of the court consideration of it, means that nearly everyone ever convicted in the past 65 years must still be registering, even if they are confined to nursing homes now!

      I cannot for one second believe that there are on average only 1,500 people convicted of any one of the offenses in 290 each year, out of a state population of … 38 million. Gee, there must be that many convicted of indecent exposure alone! Well, maybe many of those get off on lewd conduct, which is not automatically registrable now, although it used to be.

      Still, I just find this number being bandied about as very questionable, and the state’s inability to commit to a definitive figure, and how it is so sketchy about the number, as incredibly suspicious. I have to wonder if it ought to be a lot higher, maybe 300,000, maybe even 500,000. But to seriously lowball the number makes anything you do to an SOR that much more acceptable to the general public. And it makes the public that much more certain that it is being applied only to the most serious and dangerous cases. Maybe there are 100,000 who have actually registered AND ARE POSTED ON THE INTERNET, but about 100,000 whose offenses are not serious enough to get them posted on the Internet. Who knows?

      I don’t know how it could be done, but I sure would like to get hold of the REAL numbers. I sure would like to expose the state’s lie about how many people are affected by this. It could be another point to help argue against SOR.

      Of course, on the other hand, if you have only 100,000, and as the FBI says, only 3% of them reoffend within five years, that means only 3,000 people out of a state population of 38 million are the ones SOR is supposedly after! All this horrendous effort and money expended for a practically immeasurably small 0.0000789% of the people of California.

    • mike

      In reading the article Reason Versus Rage posted on this site June 5th they stated:
      “In recent years, researchers have set out to dig past the 80,000 annual cases confirmed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and gauge the real extent of child sexual abuse in this country.”
      I can’t help wondering; If there are 80,000 ‘confirmed’ cases of child sexual abuse annually why the national registry hasn’t surpassed 1 million yet? If you consider that California has ten percent of the nations population, then our registry would be growing by nearly 8,000 per year. Keep in mind that that’s only for ‘child sexual abuse’ among the myriad reasons to be added to the registry.

      • td777

        I would not be shocked if California’s number of RSOs is growing by that amount. Five years ago, LA County Jail had about one to two thousand in custody consistently throughout the year. Taking into consideration all that bailed out instead of being in jail awaiting trial, the number of pending sex crime cases at any time that year in LA county could have been over 2000. Expand that statewide, and I find it easy to believe California is seeing 8000 new RSOs each year.

  2. Bluewall

    It is nearly impossible to figure how many people register.. One, there are people who are not even on the published list because they are only require to check in with the police, but their info isn’t on line… Second, its a government runned list, to send fear to the public they can increase or decrease the number at will to spark panic. OMG we only have 1000 sex offenders on our list, there for all the rest are failing to register and we need more funds for residence checks and maintain the database and we need more laws… Or the reverse… OMG we have a million people on the list, therefore crime is running rampant and we need more funds and laws.. After a decade of dealing with this, I came to the conclusion that the registry is a political weapon to spark fear in the public…

    • JB

      I agree, they finally got rid of the asinine “terrorist threat level” charts and are replacing them with the registries. We are a nation governed by fear. I don’t understand when it became “American” to be so damn afraid of everything. Or, rather, so damn afraid of things that are pose absolutely no threat.

      • td777

        Actually, politicians using scare tactics goes back quite a few years. Remember the “red” scare? McCarthyism? The Cold War? Claiming RSO’s are dangerous and should be feared is just the most used scare tactic of late. They realized global warming wasn’t doing it for them, so they had to find something, right?

        • JB

          I’m absolutely aware and you’re completely correct, the cycle always repeats when the citizenry stops being afraid of the boogeyman of the hour. The ruling class simply moves on to the next manufactured scare to convince us to keep giving up more and more of our rights for supposed “security.”

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Close, but not quite on the mark. Actually, this came up after the Soviet Union disintegrated, so all the red scaring and Cold War rhetoric no longer was useful to divert attention. I knew they would change the focus to crime to scream about and to divert people’s attention, but I did not guess they would do so so decidedly against sex offenses singularly.

          But sex is always the most hypeable. And hype is the reason for all this crap against former sex offenders. (Yes, FORMER. None of this is being done against current sex offenders, since they are dealt with instead by being sent to prison. This applies only to people are are NOT in prison, so are no longer sex offenders, for if they were, the would be sent to prison instead — not unless and until they should reoffend, IF they do reoffend, which we now have statistics to show that is a true rarity dispute all the misinformation.)

          This move from screaming about communism to screaming about sex offenders is exactly what the problem is, and why it is. And this must be considered in communicating opposition.

  3. Eric Knight

    I have an idea for a sex offender meeting activity. How about a playacting scenario where law enforcement conducts a compliance check with someone off parole? We can have members practice with other members on how to actually do it. My preference is to have the offender walk outside the door and lock it. (To this end, one should always be in the habit of carrying house keys at all times, including bathrobe). The offender should identify him/herself, but that’s it. We should defer answering other questions until the in-person registration renewal at the station. This includes any questions with regard to vehicle, other registrants, and any other aspect of registration. In short, the registrant only needs to show his/her ID, and does NOT need to allow LE to enter the house.

    Even easier would be to have a statement internalized that goes like this: “My name is John Q. Smith, and this is my residence. I will defer all other information to my regularly scheduled registration appointment at the (place of sex offender jurisdiction).” Refuse to answer any other questions.

    Again, the legalities are stark: the police have NO RIGHT to enter your house if you are off parole, nor do they have any other legal rights other than confirming your identity. In addition, even parolees have certain rights, and in most parole agents must be present upon an unwarranted search of your house or questioning of your activities during an official compliance check (check with legal professionals on that, though).

    • Joe

      @Eric Knight – where does it say that the registrant should identify him / herself? Do you mean should or must? Common courtesy or legal requirement? I see nothing in PC 290.

      I seem to remember a case where a registrant (LA / Long Beach?) won a lawsuit because he refused to present proof of residence in form of a utility bill, and lo and behold did not have to. As far as the person is concerned, a photo no older than one year and a detailed description is available to Law Enforcement. Otherwise, what is the point of all of that?

      • Eric Knight

        RE ID: That’s a good question. Compliance procedures should be codified into state law, and should be a state function, not a localized determination, with procedures set in stone. This would (ostensibly) expose the process to a constitutional measurement that is not currently apparent to either law enforcement or registrants. (Actually, the entire registration process should be codified as well.)

        However, the bulk of my post should stand. In addition, Janice had mentioned that we can bring a lawyer to registration if we want, though it would probably be a bit pricey for most of us.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Wrong, compliance procedures should NOT be codified. They already are — there are none other then to go in and register. That means you don’t have to do anything more, not even greet them at your door. You do NOT have to do anything to prove your registration is factual, you simply need to give truthful information on it. Why would you want them to set a law saying you have to do more than that!?

          If they come to your door, either do not answer, or do answer and right in the middle of anything they are saying, simply say, “No thank you.” Or say, “No thank you, please go away and do not come back.” And then immediately and decidedly close the door no matter what they start saying, don’t slam it closed. Do not answer it again if they choose to knock again. Do not even so much as tell them your name or whether the registrant actually lives there. Tell them nothing. If they want to confirm your registration, they will just have to find another way to do so, a legal way.

          In fact, if there is a fence gate or something, if you lock it, they are not even allowed to go to your door to knock. They are only allowed to do so if it is open to do so, which the law considered to be implied that they or anyone may do so. In fact, don’t even lock the gate, simple leave it closed with a little sign saying “no visitors allowed.” Your friends will know they are exempt from that. With that sign, the police may not pass through the gate, even if it is not locked, or they will be subject to being sued for illegal trespassing.

          That is already what the “code” provides you the power to do. Don’t make some law that requires you to cooperate even in a minimal way! That’s insane.

        • Eric Knight

          Part of the problem is the fact that law enforcement can take advantage of the dubious nature of compliance in the first place. With codification there is set procedures. Without codification law enforcement makes their own rules, to the detriment of the offender.

          I was not totally clear on codification, in which limits on law enforcement would be specified. In other words, codification would necessitate strict procedures for law enforcement to prevent their actions from undermining the rights of registrants. In addition, codification specifying any liberty deprivation beyond the reason for compliance can then be challenged, whereas challenges to law enforcement who overstep their bounds on uncodified measures are more difficult to overcome.

          My point is that it is, indeed, impossible to codify compliance measures that go beyond what you suggest, and that we need a universal understanding on how to prevent law enforcement malfeasance in the first place. Only codification can precede universal understanding.

        • Joe

          @Eric Knight – I kind of fail to see your argument. If I understand correctly…

          You are saying LE is conducting regular home compliance checks, everyone knows this and expects this (both the public and the registrant) – so the procedure should be committed to the Penal Code and described in detail so that registrants know what to expect and have recourse in case of the procedure going over and above the described code.

          @Anonymous Nobody is saying that there already IS a code in place. Said code (PC 290) does not include, and nowhere addresses, home compliance checks. Its requirements are limited to annual or quarterly personal appearances at the appropriate agency office. Thus the registrant is within his / her rights to refuse all cooperation with said compliance check.

          I must say I agree with @AN on this one… and ask this question: when did home compliance checks become the norm, and whose idea was this? Someone at the State? A County Sheriff? Maybe some of the old-timers here can answer this.

          Since they are not spelled out in PC 290, someone must have thought of them at some point and everyone else latched on. To be asking for them to be codified sets a dangerous precedent. What if someone thinks of something else next year? And then that should be written into the code? Where does it end? That is not how the law is supposed to work, it is all backwards. Make a law and enforce it – not come up with a procedure and add it to the law.

          Re. this discussion, I would have to come to the conclusion that cooperation with home compliance checks is entirely voluntary (if not on parole and probation). Now, one might be afraid to ‘anger the beast’, but one should win that (potentially painful) argument. Or someone please cite the law that says otherwise.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Yes, Joe, cooperation with the checks is strictly voluntary. You do not have to cooperate.

          This is done because under the law, if there is no blocked entrance or a sign barring entrance, it is considered to be implied public access for ANYONE to go to the door and knock on it and ask to speak with someone — and “anyone” includes the police. But that doesn’t mean someone has to answer their door, or if they do, to identify themselves, or to tell the person at the door anything — even if the person at the door is a police officer. You don’t have to identify yourself at the door any more than you do if you were stopped on the street, at least without probable cause.

          That is already the state of the law. I think the issue here is not that it needs to be codified, but that Eric Knight and others need to learn what is already established under the law, including statutory, constitutional, and case law.

        • Diana

          When do home compliance checks constitute harrassment? How many in a certain period of time? My husband has been off of any kind of supervision(parole) for over 20 years with no other encounter with law enforcement. This year for some unknown reason we have already received 4 or 5 “compliance” checks to our home in 6 months. This has never happened before this year. What is up with LE this year? Seriously. Does anybody have any info that could enlighten me? Thanks.

        • steve

          Diana,
          I guess it depends on who is your local police. I have never had one in 16 years.

        • Diana

          Anonymous Nobody – I have a question. You state that if you have a sign barring entrance – that will prevent LE from entering? Our front yard is not fenced, so if we post a No Trespassing sign at the edge of our driveway will this suffice and preclude LE from entering onto our property in regards to a compliance check? Thanks for any clarification. By the way it is Lancaster Sheriff’s who come out.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Diana, first I must state, I am not a lawyer, and thus I have no ability to actual give legal advice. I can only tell you what my understanding of the law is.

          Your question is a very good one. The answer also might be very tricky and/or detailed or nuanced.

          But generally speaking, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING that the walkway from your sidewalk to your door is considered implied public access to anyone, whether Joe Shmoe or the police or anyone else. This is the condition that allows the police, or anyone else, to come to your door, knock, talk to you. It would not allow them to go around the side or back of the house, without an overriding condition.

          But that implied access is eliminated upon instruction, as in you answering the door and saying nothing other than to tell them to leave or they will be subject to trespassing, or notice. And the implied access does not carry any implication that you even must answer the door.

          That notice is what a No Trespassing sign is about, although whether a fence of some sort or something else is needed to make it clear where trespassing is barred, that is that it includes passage to the door, I don’t know. So, you might want a sign that specifies something more than those two words, like No Trespassing, No Passage Allowed to Door or Home.

          I note, there are conditions that override that notice, such as an emergency, probable cause, or an arrest or search warrant, even hot pursuit. But just because police want to see if and who is there without any probable cause would not be sufficient, so it is my understanding. They can do that without any overriding condition if they are otherwise allowed to go knock on your door; but if they are barred from any implied access, then they would need an overriding condition in order to approach your door, such as those stated above.

          (I note, if you were to post such prohibition, you need to consider other things, such as mail delivery. You might need to put a mail box out by the sidewalk.)

          Regarding how many times they must come out before it is considered harassment, that is probably an even trickier question, and I really don’t know. I doubt there is anything specific, would take the judgement of the court to decide at what point it rose to the level of harassment. But I will add, at some point it will have been so often that there is not question, it will no longer be a borderline judgement.

  4. alert

    Cutting Costs – No Jails Needed

    Prison is nothing but a breeding ground for gangs, terrorists,and a college for criminals. It has been shown that prisoners can even convert law abiding guards into their immoral lifestyles.
    That being said, we certainly cannot release these moral degenerates onto an unsuspecting society without any safeguards to their security.
    After all,it has been proven that criminals cannot be rehabilitated and must be closely watched.
    An effective solution involves a registry which allows law enforcement and the world wide web to effectively watch them and their families with addresses of residence, employment, offence, and etc.
    Lifetime registries have proven that they do more to thwart criminal recidivism than the threat of costly confinement.
    It has been shown that the registry is a powerful tool for inflicting pain and suffering on not only the criminal but his family too. This further assures compliance with social moors as the family supports moral behavior from the offender.
    Although the bad person still has the resemblance of freedom their civil rights can be restricted as legislators see fit. (As required for public safety.)
    This has a better effect than a prison sentence because of a slip-a-round double indemnity feature.
    Furthermore, in place of expensive prison benefits such as dental, medical, and a balanced meal program the registry can be used to avoid even the most basic needs of felons and their families like food stamps.
    Denying them their social security benefits may also be a possibility, in the future, thereby freeing up funds for more noble endeavors.
    It’s time to expand the registry and get tough on crime!

    • B

      You ought to put a little snark alert somewhere at the top or the bottom of your posting. It is theoretically possible that someone might take you seriously.

  5. Bluewall

    snark/ We need to lock up all kids!!! Contain them in government runned re-education facilities 24/7 until they are 18

  6. Anonymous Nobody

    Alarming news out today, not directly related to SOR, but on the other hand, it is directly related to EVERYTHING!

    Seems since 2007, the federal government has been very secretly spying on EVERYONE on the Web. It has been collecting up ALL your e-mails and ALL your Facebook info and postings, and everything else! I have to think it is collecting up everything even from CaliforniaRSOL Website!

    No probable cause needed, no warrant, no nothing, just is collecting up everything!

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040996/report-nsa-fbi-collecting-content-from-google-facebook-other-services.html

    Its some secret program called Prism. Of course, they “justify” it by saying it is to protect us all from foreign threats. (How does spying on US citizens in the US for whom you have no probable cause to have any suspicion about them whatsoever constitute protecting us from a FOREIGN threat?!)

    This is separate and in addition to the news today about them collecting up all phone records of every call you have made, which has been getting widely reported today.

  7. mike

    Why Queers Should Care About Sex Offenders
    Huffpost article
    June 8, 2013

    ” The same methods historically used by the government to imprison and pathologize homosexuality and gender variation are being used today to justify the extreme marginalization, lifetime institutionalization, and oppression of people who have violated sex laws. Sex offenders are the new queers. ”

    More here:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-extein-msw/why-queers-should-care-about-sex-offenders_b_3386970.html

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Moreso than you might realize. In the earlier decades of California SOR (California was the only state with SOR for many decades), gays were a prime target, as gay activity was illegal. Even consensual sodomy in your own home would get you SOR, or other gay contact or interaction. Lewd conduct was a hot one for police to go into gay bars or gay book stores and bust people (did you know that simply suggesting to someone that you two go home and have sex is illegal lewd conduct, even in a pickup bar?).

      When gays finally stood up for gay rights, and laws subsequently were changed, those offenses no longer were illegal and no longer were covered by SOR. But some that could cross over, like lewd conduct, remain as SOR offenses. Following a state high court ruling that SOR for lewd conduct was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, lewd conduct was dropped from SOR. Subsequently, the appeal court ruled that at least in some circumstances, indecent exposure was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, but the Legislature never followed up to take that out of SOR, so that remains an SOR offense to this day. Subsequently, the new state high court overturned the previous high court and the appellate court’s ruling on the two cases about cruel and unusual punishment and declared SOR is no punishment at all and even dared to state that it never has been considered to be so, despite those long-standing court rulings.

      What we have for SOR is just a continuation of the laws that were so decidedly used to oppress gays. And in fact, I’ll bet a LOT of SORs today are gay.

    • mike

      If certain behaviors were illegal prior to gay rights, can the people who were charged and required to register seek relief if these acts are no longer regarded illegal? It would seem like the sensible and logical thing to do.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Yes, they can. A law specifically providing for that was adopted in the 1990s. After some people in that very situation were notified they had to resume registering.

  8. none

    thought this might be helpful
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_5_bill_20130430_amended_asm_v97.htm

    This bill would enact the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which would provide that no person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she isbegin delete homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disabilityend deletebegin insert homelessend insert.begin delete The bill would provide that every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, low income, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship, or immigration status, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be entitled to certain basic human rights, including the right to be free from discrimination by law enforcement, in the workplace, and while seeking services.end delete The bill would provide that everybegin insert homelessend insert person has the rightbegin insert, among others,end insert tobegin delete access public property, possess personal property, access public restrooms, clean water, educational suppliesend deletebegin insert move freely, rest, eat, share, accept, or give food or water, and solicit donations in public spaces, as defined, and the right to lawful self-employmentend insert, as specified,begin delete

  9. Diana

    I just noticed the update on Ordinances for Lancaster. I am confused. They did not completely repeal the first ordinance from Sept., but amneded it in regards to the definition of “sex offender”? Can anyone clarify for me? Thanks.

    • Joe

      Clicking on the Lancaster link on the Ordinances page gets you to the official Lancaster Muni Code. This states that there is a restriction to decorate and light up on Halloween, and only for persons with offenses against minors. The date is 3/2013.

      You can see the ordinance that was passed last September on the pdf document. Between 9/2012 and 3/2013 Lancaster had a 300′ presence restriction to pretty much everything. Parks, libraries, museums, schools,etc. 2000′ living restriction. It does not say if it was for all or only for those with offenses against minors, and I do not recall.

      Is everything completely gone? No, but good god, what is left (Halloween) is a far cry from what it was.

      All thanks to Janice and CA RSOL? I would think so.

      • diana

        Thanks Joe. I thought I was reading it right in regard to the Halloween ban only for registrant’s whose conviction involved a minor, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks for clarifying. And of course many thanks to Janice and CARSOL.

  10. mch

    Thinking this weekend as I was volunteering my labor to repair a home…RSO’s for the most part seem to go beyond the norm in doing good works, living transparently, helping others, sort of overpaying our debt to society. The ironic thing is, society doesn’t accept the payment! Try as we will, we can never do enough for this “unpayable”debt!

  11. Eric Knight

    I’ve been trying to come up with a small piece of paper that a registrant may give to the police or sheriff or US Marshal when they pull off their compliance check. I wanted to create something that would actually preclude any vocal communication. Now, I’m concentrating on those who are NOT under the court system, since parole introduces a whole slew of different levels of supervision with regard to current punitive threats.

    Here is what I have so far. Perhaps we can bat this around and see how it can be improved.
    ________________

    Notice of Invocation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution

    My name is ___________. Due to my current status as a U.S. citizen not incarcerated or under supervision by any court in the state of California or the United States, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Salinas v. Texas (12-246), I refuse to answer any questions with regard to my requirement to register as a sex offender under California PC 290 statutes, and I am invoking my right under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If you wish to question me for any reason, then I request to contact my attorney before any questioning can take place. I fully understand my obligation to disclose statutory registration details at my regularly scheduled sex offender registration appointment, or upon a compelling order of the court in the presence of my attorney.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Useful idea. But I think you are elaborating far too much in your statement. In fact, you don’t even have to tell them your name if you don’t want to. You do not have to acknowledge that you are an SOR. Neither do you need to elaborate on anything else, including the court case your cite. In fact, you don’t even need to rely on the Fifth Amendment since these compliance checks we are talking about are not a criminal investigation nor done upon probable cause, are at best a fishing expedition, and as such, you have no more need to talk to the police at the door than you do to a stranger in a restaurant.

      I think you would be better off simply telling them to leave immediately or they will be trespassing. Once they are informed of that, they must go or be in violation — maybe you could call the police out to arrest “someone” who is trespassing. 🙂 If you would prefer, you don’t have to say anything — just close the door and ignore them. You don’t have to say anything about Fifth Amendment or who you are or case laws, or that you are an SOR.

  12. Robert Curtis

    Registry dog
    A little girl named Grace had a dog that bit another child. The police came and took her beloved dog away to be punished. In time the dog was returned to her whimpering and beaten down. He was required to be fenced in by a registry (Grace cried because she was often stared at and talked about while taking dog on walks). Then the neighbors saw that the bad dog had to much freedom so within the registry fence they had him chained and no longer could Grace take dog on walks (so Grace cried). She was told it’s for the sake of safety and security. Again the people rose up in hate against the dog in memory of the bite and said for safety sake the dog must also be put in a cage. The dog was not only fenced in the registry but tied down and caged. After all it was for community safety (Grace again cried for her beloved dog) but no one cared. Then politicians heard of the dog and said, “ hey, we’ll punish the dog too and get votes. It’s popular we can’t go wrong if we do it in the name of safety and security!” So they dug a deep hole and lowered down the caged dog so he’ll forever live in fear and never dare raise his head, come out or make a noise ever again. Grace even today must walk with a broken heart that cries out for her beloved dog. Redemption is the Question she longs for… does it exist for dog?

    We would never do such a thing to a dog, but to our neighbor that has sinned in any sexual way? We’ll do it in a heartbeat (punishment without end), but where is Grace? Grace and her friend Compassion my Christian brothers and sisters are crying and what are we doing about it? What would Jesus DO?
    By Robert Curtis

    Proverbs 16:25 States, “There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof is the ways of death.”

    There is a living death amongst us today and it seems on the surface to be right, but look deeper and consider where it started from. It started from a place of fear and darkness and from that place it has grown. It is the Sex Offender Registry.

    • Joe

      May I mention that I find your analogy somewhat lacking?

      What the dog did was bite someone – commit a crime of violence. While that sort of thing – like everything else – gets punished harshly, once the sentenced is served, the debt to society is considered paid. For this sort of transgression there is no life long, escalating registry, chain and cage.

      If, on the other hand, Fido had humped someone’s leg….

  13. MM

    My dog is on a registry until this coming January … Three years and total fines of $2,500. He never bit anyone … He just happened to get out the front door, twice, within a year and the second time got into a scuffle with the neighbors dog. Nothing happened. She filed, I fought, I lost. The hoops and changes we had to make at the house were unbelievable! Just my two cents! For our dog January can’t come soon enough … Of corse, then there is the CA registry where there is no end …. Yet.

  14. td777

    I’m seeing too many thumbs down on posts on here. It looks to me like someone is clicking thumbs down on posts just because they don’t like what this site stands for. For that reason, from now on, if I see anyone with a negative rating on a post, whether I agree with it or not, I’m going to give it a thumbs up without even bothering to read it first. I hope others of you will do the same. Let’s get show the people who come here to be negative that this isn’t the place to be like that.

  15. MM

    @td777 … This seems so trivial as I post this …. As far as the thumbs down thing. I’ve posted on this site and never had a thumbs down … This morning I simply posted in response to Robert Curtis’ post about the dog registry.

    Needed to express my own situation about two registries in our lives … Our dog and my fiancé, it’s all crazy. Yes, I’m looking forward to the first relief we get in January for the dog after only three years …. I can’t imagine what it would feel like for my fiancé after almost 25! The day will come … We hope … He’s 45 today, that would be the fiancé not the dog, lol! … It WILL happen before our time is over … And if not for us, hopefully for those individuals who may make a grave mistake …. Yet will have the tiered registry from those who showed up, spoke up and stood up!

  16. Anonymous Nobody

    As many on this board certainly know, this psychotic hysteria about sex offenders is far and away overblown and over prioritized and twisted all out of proportion. This is simply because anything to do with sex is always the most hypable thing to use — yes, use, as in use to manipulate people. Consider the draconian SOR regulations on even the lowest level registrants, as compared to a murderer who is released after a prison term and not subject to anything like this, at least not once off parole! You are dealt with more harshly if you wag your weenie than you are if you murder someone.

    In that vein, I found some comments by a woman in San Francisco (she goes by the name Gypsy Taub) who has been fighting against the new ordinance there banning public nudity to ring clear. Although she is fighting a ban on simple nudity, not the state law against indecent exposure, the point remains completely applicable to state “sex offenders” or those who are simply registrants now. So, I wanted to share an except for her comments, made in a speech last Thursday at the latest of their regular protests in SF against that ban on nudity. She fully understands and makes the point of how ridiculous and blown out of proportion these laws are simply because of the culture’s attitudes about sex, not necessarily because of any real justification:

    As we all know we were all born naked. As we all know, there are numerous cultures around the world that live nude every day of their lives. Yet we go around pretending that the human body is obscene and that it hurts children. Our society feeds children graphic violence and poisonous processed food that is known to cause cancer and diabetes.

    Let’s face it, it has nothing to do with protecting children. In this city it is perfectly legal to beat your child as long as you don’t use objects like a belt. Even though you can kill a child just using your hands, it is perfectly legal to beat them with your hands.

    I was shopping at Berkeley Bowl one day and I saw a father hit his young son in the head in front of everybody. I called the police. The police arrived but they did absolutely nothing. They don’t even report this kind of abuse to the child protective services. Yet if someone stripped naked in front of that child they would be facing jail time and become registered as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

    • td777

      Right now, though concerned about what new law might affect us, I’m also thinking about this poor girl and her family, and why this should have never happened. This guy is obviously sick, very very sick. He has proven this by his repeated behavior. With his history, he would have never been out this soon in California after harassing a 10 year old girl and making threats such as he did just four years ago. Here, sentencing would have been increased for having strikes, for each prison prior, and he would have been subject to civil commitment. As much as it pains me to say it, sometimes monsters like this just need to have the fullest extent of the law applied to get them away from the public. If the fullest extent had been applied, that little girl would not have lost her life. I’m completely sickened over this.

    • mike

      You have to ask… What’s the point of the registry if people aren’t using it for it’s intended purpose? The only time I hear of it being used is for unintended reasons like vigilantes and neighbor haters. Unfortunately it didn’t “save the One Child’s Life” this time.

  17. Tired of hiding

    Clearly this man was a repeat offender. He was also clearly a danger to children since his very first offense was attempted kidnapping. He is the type of criminal who should have been monitored. He was a repeat offender and what did he do…repeat offend again only this time he killed someone.

    So what can we learn…simple. Do NOT treat ALL sex offenders the same! Easy lesson really…concentrate on the most dangerous. Clearly there are tens of thousands who are listed and yet are NOT like this sick individual.

    If the system worked correctly those who are little or no risk would drop off the list quickly or not have to register at all after being cleared or doing their sentence. The list should be for those who are actually a danger. As it stands the list is useless to anyone!

    The ones to blame for this girls death are the members of the Florida legislation who crafted and support a clearly flawed system. They failed her – they are responsible in part for her murder.

    Let’s hope politicians will do their real jobs and serve the people instead of themselves! Lets hope they will learn and accept the fact and not just use the sex offender list to advance their careers! Well, we can hope right…even though history sadly usually repeats itself!

  18. A FRIEND

    What is clear is that registry does not work…that dude was within
    parole control…their taxpayer paid public personnel failed in their
    job within parole…within parole…are we clear..??….there is NO degree or level or risk finding by any jury or court to
    assign most dangerous ……due process would demand it…
    if this is suppose to be a team….segregating or throwing
    fellow teammates under the bus to your benefit says alot
    your ‘team’ effort and selfishness and betrayal.

  19. Jeff

    America Land of the Free

    I read an article today about an affluent neighborhood in California and how the city council was voting on an ordinance that would make it illegal to panhandle in their city. It got me thinking about how things are currently going in the U.S. I thought to myself what if I built a city and was allowed to pick my neighbors. Imagine it yourself if you can. What would your perfect City include? Would it include Nascar drivers? Would you surround yourself with Police Officers, F.B.I. and C.I.A agents? If you are a young single man would all your neighbors be Super Models and if you are a young single woman would you have Justin Beibers and Brad Pitt types running around everywhere? Would you allow only those who made over a million dollars a year in? Would you require that every house had a Tennis Court and a Swimming Pool? How about if you had a dislike for the colors blue and brown? Would you make it illegal to have a brown or blue house or car, or even a brown dog for that matter? Or maybe you would just make all pets Illegal? Would you require that any one with an I.Q under genius not be allowed to enter your City.

    Now lets get to the Juicy stuff shall we. If you were Asian would you only allow Asians in your city and would all Asians be allowed or just the rich ones? If you were Black would you allow white people but not Mexicans or Asians? What about ex bank robbers, Car thieves, politicians and other felons would they be welcome?

    Here’s an Idea just create two Cities, in one you can pick every one you would like to live with and in the other City every one else could live. You could have it all Democrat or all Republican whichever you prefer. That would teach the darn democrats you would make them live with all the people you considered below standard for your City. You could surround yourself with Christians. No other Religions allowed. So if somebody were a Christian but if they were also a Republican they would be banished to City number two. If the person did not meet all the specified requirements they would be tossed out. So now you have your perfect City. All white Christian Democrats that have no pets and no brown or blue cars or houses.

    That my friend’s is what all these City Councils are aiming for. So watch out because you and your family could be next when they banish all families with more than two children? Because after all is said and done they do not give a darn about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The only thing they care about is complete control over how you live with one goal in mind, Making themselves happy and to heck with everyone elses wishes.

  20. mch

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-county-outs-sex-offenders-yard-signs-article-1.1320230

    An interesting article I ran across. Wonder how soon some city in California will try this.

    • Jeff

      We should put signs in every persons yards as it fits. i.e. IRS agent lives here, Corrupt politician lives here. The list could be endless. We should also publish their names, addresses, E-mails and phone numbers online. We could call it the hate list that way every one can easily find someone they hate.

  21. Jeff

    According to statistics it is safer to live next to an RSO than many other groups of people. Take for example NFL Players their arrest rate is huge percentile wise. Police officers are probably up there too. And even though they are not arrested politicians are probably the most criminally active of all groups.

  22. mike

    Boise, Idaho
    June 28, 2013
    Gender plays role in sentencing of Idaho female sex offender:
    http://www.kgw.com/news/Gender-plays-role-in-sentencing-of-Idaho-female-sex-offender-213539491.html

    “I think that the state believes there should be some measure of equality or parity when a judge sentences a male sex offender who violates little girls versus a female sex offender who violates young boys. There is a difference. I have a difficult time articulating precisely what that difference is. It’s difficult to try to explain what that difference is, but nevertheless I think we know there’s a difference,” (Judge) Wilper said.

    I believe that the prosecutor should raise a Daubert motion here. What is a mandatory minimum sentence for an adult who supplies alcohol for eight minors and commits statutory rape with them? In front of their own children none the less! It’s a humanity issue. Not a male vs. female issue.
    This ruling is a ridiculous.

  23. mch

    @ Mike.

    The sentencing in the Idaho case you linked should come as no surprise, because that is the norm. Female SO’s sentences are almost always much less than their male counterparts, and on par with the sentences (if any) of law enforcement gone bad, when they’re caught. The judge in this case seems to be an idiot, differentiating between male/female and forgetting the seriousness of the crime. Had a male committed the acts he would have gotten that mandatory minimum, probably 20+ years.

    • mike

      I believe the judge is clearly using a bigoted rationale. I don’t like his justification while trying to distort the issue when he compares a case of “Little girls vs. Young boys”. Of course there would be a sentencing difference had this case involved a male with 8 adolescent pig tailed girls. But, I also believe the same judge would have been equally as harsh on a male defendant with 8 teenaged girls.

      How can they overlook the collateral damage that may have been done here? Both to her children as well as the victims by her leading them into a lifestyle of debauchery. How many of these kids will overcome this?

      According to this article she might be out on parole in as little as three years. I know a couple of guys here in Ca. that got 6 yrs. for “copping a feel” on a teen girl above the waist(first Offense). I doubt their victim will suffer as much as this defendants victims will.There’s something terribly out of balance here!

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • 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 or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

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

.