Steinberg seeks sex offender review beyond ‘what sounds good’

SACRAMENTO– California Senate leader Darrell Steinberg says he’ll seek a state investigation into California’s supervision of sex offenders that goes beyond the circumstances of two Orange County transients recently accused of killing multiple women while they were supervised by state and federal agents and tracked on electronic monitors.

Steinberg’s staff said Friday that the Sacramento Democrat planned Monday to formally request a probe by the office of inspector general. However, speaking at a public policy forum Monday afternoon, Steinberg said his office is still drafting a call for an inquiry into the $63.5 million California spends each year supervising some 6,000 sex offenders with GPS monitors. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

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


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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

California RSOL will return to Sacramento on May 15 and 16. We will be sure to meet with Sen. Steinberg and/or his staff to discuss this issue. It is good that he is asking questions. We need to make sure he asks the right questions. Please join us if you can!

Let’s see..63.5 million for GPS, 24 million, just to maintain the “list”!
How much do they claim it costs to incarcerate one inmate every year?
How much for court costs? For public defenders? How much for law enforcement to do their compliance checks? How much for the sex offender counseling/classes?
How much is all of this costing the taxpayers of California? Did it ever occur to these politicians that if we spent some money on education, on prevention, on our at risk youth, that perhaps we would all be safer??

The inquiry must stay within parameters of parole….must focus on transients (homeless) and the parole personnel……state needs to help get parolees work and help pay for a residence …………….this can be financed by freeing people on registry already fifteen years without incident immediately without obstructions…there are gonna be alot of people without new crime that can be free from registry Today.

It’s about time someone in government started asking questions. I’m so glad Janice will be meeting with senate leader Steinberg and or his staff to input thoughts and ideas, and I’m sure they’ll be getting brought up to speed on the facts/truth about GPS monitoring and I’m sure much, much more. Thanks Janice and everyone else that goes to Sacramento on May 15th & 16th to show up and speak up. Thank you.

One thing not even considered is that even if some registrants are allowed to return to their former status where they are registered with the police only and are not on the web site or any of the predatory mug shot sites, how can Megan’s Law damage be undone. Remnants will remain and employers, apartment managers and others will still find them and discriminate. It seems almost undoable now that its already out there. Perhaps everyone should be issued a letter or card that says they are rhabbed and may no longer be discriminated against under any circumstances. Any thoughts.

GPS monitoring of registered citizens is the most politically motivated, ineffective and oppressive punishment our State applies. Satellite tracking by law enforcement of certain individuals, regardless of “justification”, is disturbing on many levels. The monitors have a documented history of failure and misreads which inure to the detriment of the wearer, their cost is ludicrous, and they are ineffective for their stated purpose. As we all know, former sex offenders have a very low reoffense rate. Spending millions of dollars to further persecute such a population, using equipment which is inundated with defects as well as preposterously expensive, is just asinine. It is the epitome of ex post facto punishment. The monitors should be returned to 3M, Qualcomm and others, their use discontinued, and a refund demanded.

It’s about time these questions are being asked. It should have happened a long time ago, and it only makes sense. Janice will be a great asset to have at the Sacramento meeting and hopefully get some answers. I noticed the word “penalty” in the article, too. I thought none of the registry was punitive, and only regulatory. I will make sure too print the article and highlight the word “penalty”.

Unfortunately you already know what is going to happen. Nothing except more restrictions and regulations applied retroactively to all sex offenders and NOT to the to the tiny handful who they should apply to.

We will all be taken back not a few steps by miles. There is nothing to be gained by politicians to get to the actual facts or the root of this problem. Logic and reason are not used…this is nothing more than a political opportunity for these parasites to use for their own selfish political gain.

Sorry…been there done that…SOS.

Someone who cares,
Good call, I missed that one. It not only state penalty, but states penalties, meaning more than one. I did print the article and highlighted as it just might come in handy at some point.

I have always talked about how difficult it is to track a person that is homeless. They can move about all day, and in some cases all night. The police would even prefer to know where a person lives. Can you just imagine a cop going into the woods to see what a P.C. 290 person is doing. It just does not work like that. No house or vehicle and what you have is a target that is hard to hit.