ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

California

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

Join the discussion

  1. Janice Bellucci

    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!

    • Anonymous Nobody

      I suggest that this is prime time to lobby hard for them to drop all misdemeanants from registration, or at least to revert back to the former standard of allowing misdemeanants (and felons) to stop registering once they complete probation and get 1203.4 relief. That is simply to revert to the state of the law through the 1990s, not invent something new. And Steinberg has indicated a great concern about the money being spent on not only GPS monitoring, but other stuff against former sex offenders. The suggestion to go beyond GPS is the tiny opening we need to drive a damn truck through. This is when to just not take no for an answer, and THEY have already put the topic on the table.

      After all, look at all the money being wasted on all this registration of misdemeanants and the collateral crap — on minor offenders. Misdemeanants by law are MINOR offenders. And probation by law is for the purpose of final showing rehabilitation.

      This bit Steinberg is putting through is the political cover the lawmakers need to do something — so do not miss this chance. And we must lead this review, not simply try to latch onto a couple points in it. No way should we settle simply for tiers. This is a one time chance — you either make the touchdown now or lose the game.

      Lead this review so as to get all misdemeanants and for that matter even any other lesser offenses subjected to registration for no longer than probation — if misdemeanants are not dropped altogether. I remind, the feds do not require registration for all the minor offenses for which California requires it, so this should be a very reasonable argument –simply conform to federal, if nothing else.

      The public has no idea that misdemeanants are being subjected to this, would not want that to be going on.

      I note, I have for many years pushed this budgeting argument, including in these threads. Now Steinberg has latched onto it, to run with it. It would have been better at the bottom on the recession, when everything in sight was being cut, but it is always good. Remind them what they could do with that money if they were not wasting it on misdemeanants.

    • Austin

      It seems that this is a window of opportunity to push the recommendations of the CASOMB’s most recent report to someone in a position to actually make some changes – someone who has finally indicated that he is willing to listen to some logic and reason when it comes to setting policy regarding registered citizens and not just political pandering. I’m so glad we have Janice in our corner on this one! Hit a homer for us Janice when you speak with him!

    • Westcoastbestcoast

      How do we lobby and where do we meet for lobbying?

      • Janice Bellucci

        California RSOL will lobby in Sacramento on May 15 and 16. We will provide training the evening of May 14. Please contact me at (805) 897-7854 for more details.

  2. JM

    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??

  3. Brubaker

    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.

    • Brubaker

      Make that reform be for everyone ten years to be off registry…they need to release from registry completely alot of current registered who have no new ‘sex’ crime.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        No! Make that what it used to be: at the end of probation! Gee, probation bylaw is supposed to be the showing that you have reformed.

  4. Q

    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.

  5. Andrew B.

    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.

    • Tim

      Even if some of us could only be on the police registry, there would still be compliance checks. You would still have to tell the police where you are living or go to prison. You would still be stopped at the airport. They have our finger prints and DNA. That’s enough. In return they should take us off permanent parole/probation, so we can see ourselves as full citizens, not hunted animals, enemy combatants, or dangerous commodities.

      • Q

        Hi Tim:

        I too believe we should be off permanent parole; I also think the government should put the brakes on every single web site that mines data from police & public records to start their own Megan’s list, always to extort $$$$ from registrants and anyone else with a record. These web sites have done me more harm than anything the government has done. The harassment at airports needs to stop too. What the DHS does to registrants is on a level with the airlines thinking someone could use a bottle of water or shampoo to blow up an airplane; this is plain retarded, and if this is the best they can do to justify their existence then they should be disbanded so they can be made to stop wasting everyone’s time; DHS, like a few other agencies are turning into the modern equivalent of the Gestapo or the Stazi.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        I presume by “permanent parole/probation,” you mean lifetime registration. Technically, while registration is be a lot like permanent parole or probation, it is not. In fact, lifetime parole has been proposed in this state and enacted in some other states.

        It was first done in the past decade in New Jersey (which also happens to be the home of Megan’s Law), because the state was unhappy that registrants were moving out of state, often to New York state, where there were fewer onerous requirements of registration. New Jersey acted like they were getting away with something and did not want them to be able to leave the state, so adopted lifetime parole for sex offenders. That is, it wasn’t happy to see them go away and thus be no danger to New Jersey residents; it was more interested in being able to beat up on them forever — which only shows how all this crap has nothing to do with protecting residents.

        That is, under actual permanent parole, you could be barred from even moving out of state! And subject to searching without warrants, and all the other crap of parole.

        • td777

          California isn’t far behind New Jersey in that regard. I can remember on parole someone wanting to be transferred out of state to Nevada. This man was a homeowner in Nevada and was having to be homeless while on parole in Orange County(the same office as the two accused of being serial killers now).

          Nevada and California had to agree on parole terms before the transfer could be approved by both states. This transfer was denied. The reason given was because Nevada refused to follow the residency restrictions set by California parole and said they would follow their laws not the laws of California. In Nevada at the time, the restriction was 1000 feet in Nevada and 2000 feet in California. Both California and Nevada parole departments told this person the same cause for denying the transfer.

          Incidentally, this man’s home in Nevada was a mile from the nearest school or park. It was not a matter of where the residence would be, he was already far enough from anything to be within the terms set by California. It was not a matter of keeping women and children in California safe from this registrant, his moving to Nevada would have done that. California officials knew it could not force another state to abide by California laws, even if the residence was within those parameters, which California officials already knew when the transfer was first proposed.

          It was a matter of California wanting to punish him as much as possible, and making a man live homeless for several years was much more of a punishment than allowing him to live within the comfort of his own home.

  6. VA Hall

    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.

  7. Someone who cares

    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”.

  8. Tired of hiding

    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.

  9. JM

    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.

  10. Omowale Alamin

    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.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Related to that, in places like Los Angeles, where the city outlaws “camping in parks,” to require you to register that you are homeless and living in a park is to violate your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. They can’t force you to put in writing that you are violating the city law.

      And extending, how can they require we give them any info under penalty of criminal prosecution if we do not — and that is not a violations of the Fifth Amendment? After all,they say this is not a matter of our sentence for the offense, so they do not have the ability to takeaway out constitutional rights.

      Again, they can’t have it both ways – they can’t both say it is not punishment and also say it overrides our constitutional rights as only a criminal sentence can.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.