Janice’s Journal: A Reflection on Hofsheier

The California Supreme Court continues to bludgeon registered citizens with decisions that deny their civil rights. In the latest in a string of misguided decisions, the Court stripped away another fundamental right – the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution – by deciding that individuals convicted of oral copulation with a minor should be required to register as a sex offender for life while individuals convicted of intercourse with a minor should not be required to register at all.

The Court’s reason for this decision is difficult for even a veteran court watcher to believe much less understand. That is, intercourse with a minor could result in the birth of a child who, in turn, must be supported by its father, a father who will not be able to get a job and pay child support if he is required to register as a sex offender.

What? The Court is now formally recognizing that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender won’t be able to get a job. Tell me it isn’t so!

Of course, it is true. It is also true, as the two dissenting justices point out, that anyone who is required to register is stigmatized and may not be able to find a place to live.

The majority of the court says its decision is justified based upon three factors: deterrence, preventing recidivism and protecting the public. But how can this be true when, according to state government reports, the rate of re-offense for registered citizens is 1.8 percent while on parole and about 3 percent overall? These essential facts are conveniently absent from the Court’s decision.

Also absent from the Court’s decision is the quality of integrity. In its place are myths that continue to be repeated. The principle myth, of course, is that “sex offender registration is not punishment”.

But what can we expect from a Court that decided in 2013 that the government can unilaterally change the terms of a plea bargain entered into by a registered citizen? For a state that requires virtually every sex offender since 1947 to register for life the consequences of that decision have been devastating. For example, a person convicted more than 50 years ago when the internet did not yet exist now has his name, photo, and home address published on a public website that subjects him to vigilante violence, even death.

Tell me it isn’t so. Then tell it to the relatives of Michael Dodele who was stabbed to death in his home, to Bobby Ray Rainwater who was decapitated while walking in a trailer park and to Donald Crisp who was shot to death in the driveway of his home.

There is a small glimmer of hope in this case. That is, the defendant’s attorney has requested a rehearing, which if granted would be conducted before two newly appointed liberal justices. If they were to agree with the two dissenting justices, a new majority could reverse this unfortunate decision which if left intact will punish hundreds if not thousands of individuals.

By Janice Bellucci

Related: CA Supreme Court Decision Harms Registered Citizens

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 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.  
 

30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Janice – Could this be the rehearing that has been requested?:
Grants and Holds

People v. Fields (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 184, review granted 1/14/2015 (S222445/A135605). Briefing deferred pending decision in Johnson v. Superior Court (Jan. 31, 2013, E055194) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/1/2013 (S209167), which includes the following issues: Do the equal protection principles of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 bar mandatory sex offender registration for a defendant convicted of oral copulation between a “person over the age of 21 years” and a “person who is under 16 years of age” (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))? Should the court overrule People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185?