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

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

78 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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

@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!

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.

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.

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.