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)

California

A Better Path to Community Safety (CASOMB Tiering Paper March 2014)

CASOMB first recommended in its 2010 report to the Legislature that revisions to California’s  registration laws are needed and recently selected the issue as one which deserves increased  focus and effort. The effectiveness of sex offender registration policies and practices has also been  the subject of national focus recently, with a variety of jurisdictions addressing the importance of updating registration practices to reflect new research and evidence based approaches. Modifying  registration practices will, CASOMB believes, improve public safety in California by focusing effort and resources on more dangerous offenders. Paper

Join the discussion

  1. wonderin

    Science and those who abide by its constraints are the key to everything beneficial to mankind.
    What a great paper!

  2. mike

    I’m happy to see this condensed version of the 2010 report with a more direct approach towards change. Any amount of time on the registry is painful, so I’m always open towards a way out. They touched on the notion of keeping it for L.E. only and out of the public view which has shown little benefit and is pretty much ignored by the larger demographic. It leads me to wonder what type of character the individuals who regularly search Meagan’s list are. I just hope the board will somehow capture the attention of legislators and that they take a serious look at the harmful effects the registry is causing. It’s time for a major overhaul.

  3. Janice Bellucci

    While not perfect, this report is very welcome. It captures the effects of the registry — unemployment or underemployment, lack of housing or inadequate housing, etc. — for both the registered citizen and his/her family. California RSOL would like to hear from those who read this website your opinions regarding the proposed tiered registry recommended on page 7 which would create 3 tiers that resulted in a 10-year requirement for some registered citizens, 20 years for another group and continued lifetime registration for sexually violent predators, etc. Is this an improvement as compared to the current system? Is it fair?

    • Tim

      Hi Janice. This would be better than we have now. I don’t know what tier I would be on. My offence is classed now as serious, but being family related, I’m told I have one of the lowest recidivism rates and most condusive to treatment. So what purpose is me being on a registry for 20 years, except as further punishment. I’ll be almost 70. Better than life, though. I have a lot of questions, but one thing now stands out. In their graph all risk levels show the same low reoffence rate after around 15 years. So why put some on the registry for longer than that? Seems to go against their reasoning. I would also propose a sunset clause in any of these laws so that they are forced to be reevaluated as the research evolves, taking into account any new information.

      • Q

        “So why put some on the registry for longer than that?”

        If you think about it, “they” seem to have a hard time letting go (this holds especially true for bad ideas), and forget about ever hearing “them” admit to having ever made a mistake.

    • Austin

      Hi Janice, I wanted to reply to you and tell you that I think this is fantastic – someone actually seems to be using logic and reason now to suggest policy regarding sex offender management – and I DO believe it is an improvement on last year’s assembly bill to create a tiered registry – at least for me it is – because last year’s assembly bill did not make a distinction between misdemeanor and felony convictions of PC647.6: placing all violations of this section in the 2nd tier (register for 20 years). My conviction was for a misdemeanor violation of PC647.6 and the CASOMB is now recommending that misdemeanor violations should be placed in the 1st tier (register for ten years). So, at least for me personally this is an improvement and very welcome news. Thank you for all you do Janice.

      • noname

        Really!!! They gave me a felony conviction but I had no victim and no it was not CP, it was a internet entrapment. I have never been in any kind of trouble before. So that should make a automatic tier 2. That is BS.

        • Austin

          noname – even though your violation was a felony I believe you would still be categorized as a tier one registrant as your crime was certainly non-violent and non-serious.

        • noname

          I hope so. When I tried to get my name off of the public Megan’s list I was told by the DOJ that they did not have a procedure for non-victim type crimes. So Ihave to be listed.

        • Q

          They probably lied to you.

        • JB

          In California the only exemption is if the registrant is related to the victim.

        • Austin

          noname – do you have the option of going back to court after your term of probation and having your felony reduced to a misdemeanor? If so – the DOJ will remove you from the Megan’s Law website once it’s been reduced.

    • Austin

      Janice – I did see a potential conflict with the criteria by which registrants are placed in appropriate tiers: According to the CASOMB, if someone scores a “6” on the Static-99 test he/she is to be placed in the tier 3 category (lifetime registration) however, at the same time all misdemeanor violations are to be placed in the Tier 1 category (10 year registration) – it is possible for a registrant to meet both criteria, so how would this be reconciled? I scored high on the Static-99 test but my crime was a misdemeanor violation of PC647.6 which was, essentially, an inappropriate text based email sent to someone under the age of 18. This crime could hardly be called serious or violent, i.e., the type of crime that would land someone on tier 3. Would my placement on the tiered registry be governed by my static-99 score or by my misdemeanor violation? Thanks Janice.

      • steve

        Austin it sounds like you had previous convictions for something else? If that’s the case it seems like you would score high on the 99 and be placed in tier 3. This is only a guess as to why you scored high.

        • steve

          I should also say I am the opposite of you. I have felonies (288) but score in the low to moderate because I have no previous convictions for anything. That one box where they ask for prior convictions can really add up to a lot of points if you have priors even non-sexual priors.

        • Austin

          Yes – I had priors for alcohol related misdemeanors in my distant past (dui, intox in public) but my high score also is due to errors on the part of whomever filled out the damn thing. No one ever asked me any of those questions they just went ahead and filled it out. For example, on the question about whether one has ever co-habitated with a significant other for two or more years they said “no” which gave me a point – when in fact I have. Another mistake – “instant offense non-sexual violence” they said “yes”. My crime was about an inappropriate email – there was absolutely no violence sexual or not – there’s another point. And now I have no idea how to go about getting my static-99 score corrected.

        • A Wife

          Boy, would i be interested in your story of how you landed here. Being the mother of young adult males sometimes keeps me up at night. They do not believe the stories I tell them, but maybe if a warning came from someone else.

  4. Brubaker

    Reform would be to free current registered for the massive reckless fundamental rights violations …they’ve already crossed the line and the demand for respect pride dignity says they must free current registered list.

    • Brubaker

      Are they going by original charges or the 98% plea guilty…??. .they would need to go back to square one for everyone so they Too can plea to be off registry …due process is a wonderful thing when its for everyone .

      • Brubaker

        Putting people in levels or tiers may work for new ‘sex’ crime, but in NO way applied to current listed registered ….ex post facto for one and double jeopardy are just some of the problems with that proposal ……..remember new ‘sex’ crime will have 100% plea guilty to be off lifetime punishment ..I mean lifetime registry.

  5. B

    This is the program. This is the tiered registration system that we can and should work toward. The paper is well-researched and leaves policy makers with a very compelling conclusion: its time for a tiered registration system and the system they propose is the one to adopt.

    • Q

      I respectfully differ with your opinion; some of the paper seems well researched. Other parts like section 2 – #6 in “assumption – what the research says” seems like bias to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of the registry being beneficial in any way when searching for someone that has committed a “sex” crime.

      In #3 ¶5, “by the numbers” – “When proof is provided by local law enforcement to DOJ of a registrant’s death, he or she is removed from the registry.”

      I’ve heard on this site and a couple of other sites that this is not true at all. It’s usually more like they keep the deceased on the registry for years after their death, which causes the family and their children continuing problems and negatively impacts property values for the entire neighborhood.

      I could go down the line but that would be pointless, as this can be considered progress by CASOMB. I do agree with Janice Bellucci that this is not perfect, but the proposed changes are welcome. We’ll see.

      • B

        You are absolutely right. If registration was such a wonderful law enforcement tool, we would have it for drunk driving, burglary and gangs. In a perfect world…you know how this sentence ends.

        We live in a very political world and must make progress in that world and not the perfect world. All of these laws didn’t arrive at once and they won’t be repealed or improved at once. But I am certain that the tide has turned and we are making progress and will continue to make progress.

      • Tim

        Hi Q. I believe they are trying to balance on a very thin fence line, saying the registry ruins lives, but not proposing to give up the idea of its usefulness. It is a compromise I think they hope will gain enough support to pass. I am of a different opinion and probably none of the politicians listen because they believe it is extreme. Abolish the registry for those who have served their sentence. It is constitutionally wrong, socially counter productive, criminalises those who need reintegration and takes our civilisation backwards to a time when stigmatization and banishment were accepted forms of punishment. Whether this meerly hacks at the branches of the evil or strikes at its roots remains to be seen.

        • Q

          Hi Tim;

          I think/hope your right about CASOMB hoping to gain enough support to get something done about this whole mess that is actually positive. I think they are more like on the razors edge. Saying something non politically correct (another name for BS) could have bad consequences for these peoples careers.

          I agree with your opinion that the registry needs to be abolished except for the most extreme cases, mainly because nothing good has ever come of it, except for those that capitalize on destroying lives. I believe and think it obvious the state seems to have a hard time letting go or admitting they made a mistake.

          Did you notice how the reports mention of the negative effects of the registry has on families was just in passing? If anything, the registry should be abolished because of what it does to children. I know the “if it saves one child” idiots wouldn’t like it, and would like it even less to have to acknowledge the truth; the registry also destroys the lives of many children, and the rest have to participate in the lie their parents have to live.

        • Tim

          I also noticed that the affects on families was not elaborated on. Another thing they really could have hammered on were the deaths caused by the registry, both suicides and murders. Any cost/benefit analysys needs to consider the costs to the innocent, and the tendency for the law to breed lawlessness. The costs to families as well as the deaths related to the registry are not speculation. They are verifiable facts. It needs to be said and not by those convicted of sex crimes, but by professionals in the field: OK lawmakers you claim your laws save at least one child, show us your proof, and weigh that speculation against the evidence that your laws lead to scores of lawless deaths and hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives negatively impacted. Put this in light that it is speculation, not supported by compelling body of research that suggests any of the sex laws passed since the nineties actually reduced the commission of sex crimes.

        • Q

          Hi Tim:

          Your absolutely right on the mark with your observation that the registry breeds lawlessness; because it does. It’s like I said before; the people that have the power to stop all the murders, ruined lives of countless men, women and children, as well as all of the negative effects the registry has on families as a whole seem to have a hard time with admitting the truth.

          When their job and bank account and reputation are factored into the mix they seem to adopt the detachment that a bomber pilot has as he lets loose his load that kills and maims scores of people and destroys the infrastructure of the land he drops his bombs on. He doesn’t see what his/her actions do to human flesh. It’s not that the ability to see the truth isn’t there; the pilot makes a conscious decision to not look at the countless videos on YouTube or the pictures readily available on the web; if they did and protested their paycheck, rank and the privilege of flying an airplane would be at risk (ignorance is a choice).

          These people don’t want to see the truth. I think that’s obvious because the truth is there for all to see. You just have to want to see it. We see it in the posts on this and other sites of murders and all the other insanity the registry breeds.

          They don’t have the moral character to be honest enough to admit that the registry is an abject failure and is the cause of many deaths and other lawless acts and it does much more harm than any good they tell themselves it does.

  6. Margaret Moon

    I am so happy to see that the report contains actual facts and findings from respected researchers instead of hype and myth.
    Even though my dream is for no registry, this is so much better than “one tier–Forever…”

    • Q

      Hi B:

      So true, we would have a registry for serious crimes, crimes with double digit recidivism, and not the ridiculously low numbers associated with registrants. It’s true that all these laws didn’t arrive at once; they seem to come in spurts, with a steady trickle of laws in between spurts. It seems at times that any progress made is always under threat of being overwhelmed by new laws every time some room temperature IQ state or local official decides to exploit the name of some dead kid and turn the parent’s grief into votes and $$ for his/her self. Have you ever read the book “A parallel universe?” It gives a really good and in-depth look at the evolution of the “sex offender” witch hunt laws.

  7. mch

    I will read the article and digest the contents. Regarding the table on pg 7, the serious and violent offenders should have a much more detailed definition, spelling out EXACTLY which sections of the PC make them serious and violent offenders. One can be deemed a serious or violent offender and never have a victim…so you’d be stuck for 20 to life on the registry. Also of concern is the dependence of “predictors”, like the Static 99 and other such tests. There must be better ways than the educated guesses and psycho-babble. Who will administer the tests, a trained probation/parole officer? I hope not.It’s a small step in the right direction, but like any entity affiliated with the gov’t, I don’t trust ’em! Shorten the time frames, spell out in detail so there is no wondering who is what and gets off the registry or not. Add eligibility for AUTOMATIC record clearance and governor’s pardon after “X” years.

  8. Westcoastbestcoast

    I wish they made a possibility for registration to end sooner for registrants at tier 2, but as is, it is definitely a step in the right direction if passed as is.

    And for some laughs “even though the courts have determined that it should not be classified as ‘punishment’ does bring with it multiple unwelcome impacts on registered offenders and on their families and children”

    Just say it already, registration= consequences= punishment.

  9. Andrew Baechtel

    I think the tiers are still too severe. I believe the tier 2 duration should be 5 years instead of 20 and the tier 3 duration should be 2-3 years. The time period should include parole time so it starts the day you leave prison. The proposed 10 and 20 year time periods will still mean that many people will remain on the list for the duration of their lives. For most people I think if you haven’t committed a new offense by the time you get off parole you’re probably not going to. While the tiered system is better than what we have I think it will still be a detriment to the recovery of most people. who can wait ten years to have a fair shot at a job or good housing? In fact I think if you test as low risk, you should be immediately be removed from the public list even if you’re on parole. After all you have an agent monitoring you during that period and the police will still have you on file and that’s all that’s reasonably necessary.

  10. BAM

    I SINCERELY HOPE THAT IT CAN HELP ALOT OF US WHO HAVE MOVED TO OTHER STATES THAT ARE HARSHER LIKE FLORIDA. FLORIDA DEFINATELY HAS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. SOME OF US HAVE CHARGES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM MEGANS LAW WEBSITE BUT WHEN YOU MOVE OUT OF STATE GOOD RIDDENS. ONCE AGAIN , CALIFORNIA CRIME BUT LIVE IN FLORIDA. PLEASE DONT MOVE HERE.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      I have done quite the opposite. I moved OUT of Florida as it turning more and more restrictive. I would be living in a van by the river or under a bridge if I lived in Florida right now.

      Florida is never going to change. It is a southern state (strike one)…full of old conservative people (strike two) and full of crazy christians (strike three) and YOU ARE OUT!

      • Eric Knight

        Are you still listed on that registry, even though you have long moved out?

      • Jason Wilson

        We keep hearing that people moving out of Floriduh are stuck having to come back each year to register that they don’t live there.. for the rest of a persons life.

        What i would like to know is this: If you’ve been out of the state now more than 1 year, and if so, do you now have a warrant out for your arrest?

        And two, what did it take to move from Florida?

  11. steve

    My question is why have cascomb if the legislators won’t listen to them? Is this the first suggestion they’ve ever made? Will there be a legislator that will take this on?

    • Tim

      One problem is the voter initiatives. I believe CASCOMB recommended against residency restrictions as did many probation officers. The public doesn’t wish to listen to the experts, so the representatives don’t either. What representatives are brave enough to go against the wished of an ill informed 80% majority? This leaves the US Constitution to protect the rights of individuals against the reactionary majority. Without enforcement of the Bill of Rights, I don’t think anything will change for the better. Frank, Janice, you are on the right path. Before more reasonable laws can have a chance, the legal playing field needs to be leveled, so that extreme laws aren’t an option anymore.

  12. JM

    While this is a step in the right direction, for me, it isn’t enough. Yes, it’s better than nothing but…Tier 1= 10 years for misdemeanor offences? Most would fall under the Tier 2. Twenty years after parole or probation? That’s a lifetime of possible homelessness and lost employment. How would most ever recover? Any possible opportunities are lost, their children most likely grown, or in some cases the registrant is dead. So, twenty years, in most situations might as well be lifetime.
    Given that this report states that only 13% to 15% of cases are reported, than the true number of offenders should be around 9 million in California alone.
    Tier 3= lifetime for SVP. Don’t we already incarcerate for many years, and then commit them beyond their sentences? I do agree that if one commits a “true and horrible” violent offense, they should remain on the registry for life. Although if it is a “true and violent” offense, they will most likely be locked away anyway.

    • Q

      Hi JM:

      I agree; murderers and gang banger’s and drug dealers don’t get treated any where near as bad.

    • steve

      where does it say “twenty years after probation or parole”? Are you just going off where it says 20 years from start of registration?

  13. Jean

    Any tiered system is better than what we have now! I would want the tiers to be retro for all registrants, and would prefer that it goes by risk leave vs crime. For example, there is a huge difference between a kid streaking at his school as a senior prank and someone showing up at an elementary school everyday when school lets out and exposes himself.
    I also would prefer the registry be for LE only, as it was originally designed.

    • Q

      Hi Jean:

      The tiers should by all rights be retro; they made all the oppressive laws retro all the way back to the 40s.

      • Joe

        Keeping in mind that this is merely a proposal by the CASOMB and not yet law or even a bill, and much or nothing can happen along the way, it does say in the recommendation paper on the bottom of Page 7: “The above criteria would be applied to all current PC290 Registrants as well as to individuals convicted of a registrable offense going forward.”

  14. Dr

    It sure looks fair to me. I hope for this to pass. We need to be able to become productive again

  15. JAH

    Any idea what this would mean for my husband with a 288a back in 1986? Does this mean lifetime or 20 years additional? I keep the faith.

  16. B

    Remember: This is the next step, not the last step. We need to get this passed and then we have much more to do. To effect this many families in such a profound way is not only wrong but wastes resources on things that don’t reduce crime and destroys the productivity of registrants.

  17. Q

    Hmmm; At least they are starting to look at empirical studies instead of listening to the made up out of thin air garbage some people claim is fact when seeking reelection or are just trying to look good.

  18. A

    No one can argue that any relief is better than none. However, if I can add a scenario here. A few years ago, gas cost about 2.40 a gallon. a year and a half later, it shot up to about 5.00 a gallon. So when it dipped to 3.50, there was a collective sigh of relief and everyone was “happy”. After all these years of Hooplah in the name of public safety, and the unbelievable amount of money paid to those folks who “Manage” SO’s etc. the public has been very well trained to believe that a partial resolution is “Just fine”. Isn’t the static 99 score becoming obsolete anyway? No one wants to see anyone hurt, but hurting those that were accused and convicted decades after the sentence was served, only continues to “serve” the wallet. There are much more effective ways available, and for a much more affordable cost, to cater to this issue.
    Prevention!
    It’s a politically correct effort to Whitewash what’s already been done.
    just sayin’

  19. Sayin'

    I think the tide is slowly turning. Educate, educate. educate, and don’t allow the loudest voices to be those of the uninformed, fear driven haters. The bill of rights is the umbrella of protection, but it is so often glossed over, or worse, ignored, by the broken justice system. Use the Bill of Rights to rebuild the broken justice system, from the ground up, and don’t be afraid to make legal challenges, as Janice is doing. Fight for what is right! You are the oppressed, and the ugly mistreatment of you affects the rights of all citizens, whether or not they realize it. The very existence of this country may, one day, come down to honoring the rights of all. Our prisons need reforming too, along with legislation, which incarcerates more people than any other in the world, with its Draconian sentences. Inmates should join your effort, since they presumably will, one day, be released, and you, also, should join their efforts, as well, since there is both power, and money in numbers. You can do this!! Never, never give up!!! I don’t wear this label, but I am sympathetic, and I am with you!!

    • A

      Mere words will never come close to expressing my gratitude for you folks that can see through the Propaganda. I am doing as you suggest. Fighting. But my hands are very tied, as I am fighting just to get the powers that be to honor the plea bargain. I was sentenced under the penal code that was in place in 1994, but upon my release, I was given a 5 year parole. (there was no 5 year parole in ’94) Yet, two months from now, my 3rd year will be up and I may still have this gps on my ankle. The longer I serve this tail, the less chance I will have of a productive re-integration into society. thus far, with the terms of my conditions, I am not allowed to go anywhere but grocery shopping and school. But I am unable to attend any school functions off campus. It will violate my conditions). I have no violations and am living in a trailer far away from civilization. Student loans are keeping me alive, But it’s still not enough to appease those whom seek re-election. I am divided and conquered, just like they wanted. But it’s still not enough. They are afraid that if the plea bargain is honored, I’ll make the papers.

  20. Q

    Yea; This sounds all good, but the more I think about it the less I’m holding my breath expecting anything to come of this. I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade, but as I consider the history of action taken by those that could make this a reality my hopes start to fade. I hope action is taken on this, but I sense this is going to be just another somewhat empirical paper destined to be buried on the web. The people this paper is written to seem to not like truth based facts and seem to do everything they can to not recognize the futility of their efforts to legislate peoples sexuality into what they think sex should be. In fact. it doesn’t seem to even be about sex anymore; it’s more like just another population control mechanism.

    • Tim

      Scepticism is good. I believe it is healthy to a democracy. Laws aimed at sex crimes are particularly lacking in scepticism or opposing views. I believe this is a great injustice to victims and offenders. What is it saying when legislators refuse to look at all angles to make sure they get the best, most effective and fair legislation that will stand the test of time. This legislation by emotion is why they keep coming back to “fix” previous legislation with harsher versions of more of the same. Although sceptical, I do support getting the experts into the process. That would be a sea change.

  21. Tim

    As far as I know, I’ve never had a STATIC 99 evaluation. Maybe they didn’t do that ten years ago. I am sceptical that any psychological test can predict the complexities of human nature. As a guide to proper treatment, maybe it is useful. Anyone know about this? It weighs in heavily on their determination about who gets in what tier. What is the evaluation like and how predictive is it?

  22. Brubaker

    And what do the (Beatles said experts smexperts) experts say about putting back into parole conditions..?? ..the ones who are off parole ..??….its okay …???…c’mon dude..!

    • Tim

      No experts. Just enough of the members of the Supreme Court to say it wasn’t like parole, but like a shopping membership.

      • Brubaker

        Lets be clear…that decision did NOT have parole type restrictions that are being administered today…are we clear in that decision …???…there were NO parole type restrictions at that time of decision as there is facing registered today.. .whole different landscape compared to a long ago decision …..time is ripe to challenge restrictions on free men…free from parole…..got it..??

        • Brubaker

          Further HomeRun fact that Federal Judges have ruled these new restrictions unlawful unconstitutional…even the local panel if superior court judges ruled initially.

        • Tim

          I agree. There are now too many collateral consequences to registration for the high court to ignore.

        • Tim

          I am asking this, because President Kennedy did not hire the Beatles to get a man on the moon by the end of the decade (although their music inspired my spirit to soar to the outer limits). He hired experts in their fields to develop a step by step plan to get there. What is the plan to send a legal rocket up to eventual freedom for those who have been denied it for so long?

  23. mch

    Static 99R…Interesting but totally left up to the whim of the person giving the evaluation. Too many “could be’s” and “might be’s” and if this, then this. Look at the sample size for the scoring of this rag. Clearly not near enough data to support anything, let alone determining whether or not the issuer chooses to ruin a life by mis-categorizing the person. Looks like it was written by a junior high or upper elementary school kid! Given the arbitrary nature of the scoring and the sentiment toward sex offenders my guess is most given this “test” will be placed into a higher category. A life rests on 10 simple questions and a three minute test. What a freakin’ joke.

  24. Tim

    “In Exhibit 9, a former field service probation officer from the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections [“ADOC”] opined that the ASORA was nothing more than an extension of post-incarceration supervision.”
    This from the respondent’s brief in that case concerning Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act long ago. This is one expert and others in the brief the majority dismissed in favor of dubious reports about high recidivism rates as justification for civil regulation of former offenders.

  25. Tim

    OK. So disagreement on whether the Board is using valid science. What does CaRsol think?

  26. mch

    Future predictors are little more than a guessing game. What cannot be proven by science is the change in someone’s heart and mind. When asking a series of questions, the evaluator already has a preconceived bias and a notion that any and all sex offenders will re-offend, especially when an evaluation is administered by a “trained” probation officer. They generally opt for additional incarceration, whether behind bars or by civil punishments, thus the outcome of such evaluations is pretty much predetermined. The past is really not the past, so the past behaviors from 20+ years ago are automatically transferred to the present and the FACT that a registered person has not offended in 20+ years becomes a moot point.
    Just my opinions, but I think results would be better with bones and chicken blood and interpreted by a voodoo witch doctor. Definitely tweak the tiered system and burn the Static 99, but ever so slowly moving in the right direction.

    • steve

      My interpretation of the Static 99 is this, and correct me if I’m wrong, if you had no previous convictions for ANYTHING it seems the Static 99 is in your favor. What I understand in reading how to score they don’t count the index conviction (the ones you are most currently charged with) only priors. That’s how they think they can determine your propensity for being a “career criminal” (“This item and the others that relate to criminal history and the measurement of persistence of criminal activity” pg35

      pg35
      “Do not count the Index Sexual Offence
      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.
      Count all sexual offences prior to the Index Offence)

      If you only have one conviction date, felony or misdemeanor of a sexual offense and nothing else on your record it seems you will notvbe categorized as a lifer to register.

    • steve

      MCH: while I understand your mis-trust I like to believe the people administering this will do the right thing. It’s awfully hard for them to not to put down the right answers when it’s CLEARLY on your record.

    • Joe

      Hard to believe the credence given to these 10 questions…. starting with the name alone. Static and Risk. How can risk assessment be static? It is defined as “The probability of something happening multiplied by the resulting cost or benefit if it does.” The probability of something happening changes with a person’s situation.

      Question #1 – age of offender at release. What if I was 19 at release but now I am 69 (50 years later) but I still get 1 point for my age at release (+4 points relative to my current age) as that is never going to change? What if I am 89 (70 years later) and in a vegetative state in a nursing home? I was still, and always will have been, 19 when I was released for the offense.

      Question #8 – Unrelated victims…. so if I had a 16 year old girlfriend in high school my risk, for the rest of my life, is higher than if I abused my 5 year old daughter?

      Okay, the Stranger Victims Question #9 makes sense to me. But only 1 point difference?

      Looks like #2 can change over time – ever lived with someone for at least 2 years. That 1 point can make a difference. Can one request a re-score?

      I do not understand the underlying data but this seems rather simplistic. I wonder if insurance companies run their business this way.

  27. noname

    I took the static-99 here at home and scored a 0. But I have never been given the test in any official status.

  28. mch

    @Steve and others;

    Please forgive my negativity. Probation and Parole will generally be administering the Static 99R. While there are a few who actually do care about their parolees or probationers, the majority don’t want to be bothered and the best place for and offender to not bother their agent is back in jail. Do I think that they would lie about Static 99? Yes I do. Do clear facts matter a whit to them? Nope, not at all. Have law enforcement and mental health “professionals” lied about recidivism statistics? Yes, on a daily basis. I am part of a growing industry, the fear industry promoted by politicians and law enforcement designed to keep John Q. Public in a near hysterical state of fear because that gives them power and, in government, power translates to wealth. I believe that one may score a 0 to -3 on the Static 99 and because the person administering it has a “feeling”, that person would be bumped up a tier or two. There is no science in “feeling” or intuition.
    I’m not a pessimist, I’m an optimist with experience. Really, I’m a delightful guy!

  29. Tim

    Usually, when I read something twice, I understand it more. I read the report again and am more confused. They claim the registry is non productive to its stated goal, and may even increase recidivism. Good! Then they go and recommend it for a lifetime for high risk offenders. Does that make sense, applying a remedy that doesn’t work that increases recidivism to the group that is most at risk? Then again they recommend no getting off the registry earlier than what is assigned for your tier. Does that mean they recommend against the COR process? Lastly, just what is the criteria for defining the tiers, your likeliness to commit the crime again or how reprehensible someone judges your crime? What does “serious” mean or “violent”. Does someone who does violence not deserve a second chance? Is that a scientific observation or a moral judgement they are making? Hard to tell if they are using likeliness to reoffend, or repulsiveness of the original crime (who makes that value judgement) as a basis for the tiers. Is this fair? I don’t know. I guess if they used the static 99, since I scored -1, that would certainly be beneficial to me. What would I think is fair? Scrap the registry, restore citizenship and implement non punitive methods to prevent victimization. Radical idea, at least by today’s standards. That is my 2 cents.

  30. BAM

    I WANT TO ASK MRS JANICE IS THERE ANY REMEDY FOR ME HAVING A CALIFORNIA CRIME OF 243.4A SEXUAL BATTERY AT WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE MEGANS LAW WEBSITE. I NOW HAVE BEEN LIVING IN FLORIDA FOR 5 YEARS WITH PURE EMBARRASSMENT BECAUSE THEY PLACE EVERYONE ON THE SIGHT NO MATTER WHAT. THEY TOLD ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE PARDONED OR THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME LAW FROM CALIFORNIA THAT WOULD EXEMPT ME FROM EXPOSURE. I WAS CONVICTED IN 1996, 2 YEARS STATE AND FIRST TIME EVR IN TROUBLE. I WAS A COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER LIVING IN CALIFORNIA BUT FROM FLORIDA. PLEASE HELP ANYBODY. HAS ANYBODY EVER LIVED IN FLORIDA WITH THE SAME CRIME. I HAVE BEEN OFF PAROLE SINCE 2001, ITS 2014. WILL BE GLAD WHEN THIS NIGHT MARE IS OVER WITH.

  31. A

    I was released in 2011. Release date was scheduled to be June 19th. Was held in longer as the CDCR had to wait for psych’s to schedule the static 99’s on anyone set to be released. I actually got out July 2nd. In Calif, the rule was that 2 interviews had to be conducted prior to approval for release. The interviewers where private contractors, and they were/are making a killing in cash flow. The Static 99 interviews took longer than an hour each and was much more intensive as far as those 10 questions. If one out of the two interviewers decided the score was too high, then a 3rd interview was to be conducted and that interview would be the deciding factor in Civil Commitment proceedings or release.
    Being one the “Clients” I’ve been experiencing more and more restrictions on my movements between when I was released and now. Since that magical day, when Diane Sawyer interviewed JayCee Dugard, The national fear index rose 100’s of percentage points overnight. the Parole Division of CDCR took a dramatic turn in the CYA Dept. (cover yo Azz) It just so happened that Gurido was on an ankle monitor but was still able to keep that girl hostage in his “california” back yard. The following Monday, after the interview aired, I was told that if I went back to work, I would be violated immediately. Almost 2 years ago now. It’s not all about recidivism, it’s about public opinion and image. Among other things.

    • Brubaker

      How many years on parole (3)..??..is your parole ending soon from 2k11..?

      • A

        It’s supposed to. The alleged offence date was 1994. But when I got out… Parole put me on a 5 year. agent won’t touch it so gotta try and resolve with the court and case records.

      • Brubaker

        Just reminder…I’m not an attorney, but be sure when you started and released from prison…three year parole is the term if you started as you said but look at your dates of paperwork.

        • A

          I’ve read it all backwards and forwards. judge said in the transcript I can be on parole between 1 and 4 years.
          The rules changed while I was serving.
          Called a few defense attorneys but they have no idea.
          Clear as mud.
          I can’t do this another 2 years. My house is my prison and it’s constricting more each day. 3 years has been more than plenty of time for them to determine I don’t break the law anymore. I got it the first time.

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 *

.