CA Supreme Court Decision Harms Registered Citizens

The California Supreme Court today, in a vote of 5 to 2, overturned a prior court decision (People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185) that provided relief in the recent past to many individuals convicted of oral copulation. In the decision, the court found that there is a “rational basis” for providing harsher penalties to such as an individual as compared to other individuals who convicted of unlawful intercourse.

“Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court has the potential to harm hundreds if not thousands of individuals without increasing public safety,” stated California RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “It is yet another blow to the state and federal constitutions.”

The Court’s decision relied, in part, upon “legitimate purposes of sex offender registration” as well as legislative concerns. According to the Court, the legitimate purposes of registration are deterrence, preventing recidivism and protecting the public. The legislative concerns cited included stigmatization of a person that “might interfere with employment opportunities and the support of children conceived as a result of unlawful intercourse.”

According to the Court, today’s decision is retroactive and will apply to an unknown number of individuals whose requirement to register as a sex offender was previously terminated.

In a sharply worded dissent. Justice Werdegar noted that the government “acknowledge(s) that some form of notice will be necessary before a person, who after Hofsheier, was not required to register or who successfully petitioned for relief from mandatory registration could be convicted of the willful failure to register.” She added that the majority opinion of the Court “reinstitutes a scheme that had a disproportionately adverse effect on gay and lesbian youth and unnecessarily saddled nonpredatory offenders of either sexual orientation with the stigma and restricted liberties attendant on sex offender registration.” Justice Liu concurred with this dissent.


Related Media:

California Supreme Court sex-crime ruling criticized as unfair to gays – LA Times
Another rehearing alert: 5-2 Supreme Court overrules sex offender registration precedent
CA High Court Reverses Itself on Sex Offender Registration – Courthouse News Service


Janice’s Journal – A Reflection on Hofsheier – CA RSOL

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
  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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

so because there is the POTENTIAL for pregnancy, they dont have to register? so why dont they just say, if the sex resulted in pregnancy, you dont have to register, but every one else does… not like that would violate peoples rights or anything…