There are 3 significant events expected during the next 30 days:
- introduction of a tiered registry bill in Sacramento,
- two California Supreme Court decisions regarding residency restrictions and
- an attempt to make peace with the City of Carson.
What occurs during this 30-day period will significantly impact every person required to register as a sex offender in California.
First, there currently is a draft tiered registry bill supported by the California Sex Offender Management Board for which an author is being sought. The draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense. The bill must be introduced by February 27 or there will be no tiered registry bill until 2017. In the absence of a tiered registry bill, California will continue to be 1 of only 4 states in the nation that does not have a tiered registry.
Second, the California Supreme Court has a March 2 deadline to render decisions in two cases focused upon residency restrictions including whether such restrictions are constitutional and if so to whom they apply. If the Court accepts the argument of the Attorney General, the Court will decide that residency restrictions are constitutional but can only be applied to registered citizens while on parole (not on probation or after parole). Because of the Court’s recent heavy handed decision to overturn the Hofsheier case, many are concerned that the Court will decide that residency restrictions apply to every person on the sex offender registry. Regardless of their decision, we can expect confusion if not chaos as registered citizens look for new housing.
Finally, California RSOL will reach out an olive branch to the City of Carson on March 7. The City Council of Carson recently declared war on registered citizens and refused to honor a settlement agreement, which would have made Carson’s sex offender ordinance consistent with state law, despite the fact that the agreement was signed by the City Manager and City Attorney. Registered citizens, family members and supporters are invited to join California RSOL on March 7 at 10 a.m. at Carson City Hall for this event. Additional details will be available soon.
Keep your seatbelts buckled. The next 30 days could be a rough ride.
By Janice Bellucci
—
Related: Janice’s Journal
All politicians should be prosecuted for hate crimes, just as any law abiding citizen that is on the registry is trying to be.
The olive branch is I hope not seen as us somehow giving into their threats. Our position was one of rights lost not threats made.
and keep your hand inside at all time..
Words Mean Things.
Having said that, I suggest that the title of the bill should reflect community safety MORE than the registry. Let me be blunt.
If the law is perceived to HELP registrants, politicians will be very timid to author the bill. Basically, the next political opponent of the politician sponsoring the bill will have his attack ad tailor-made for his campaign. So while OUR efforts in CA RSOL are in alleviating the conditions of registrants, the politician’s NUMBER ONE GOAL is to remain electable.
HOWEVER…
If the bill is heavily promoted as a COMMUNITY SAFETY issue, one that REDUCES recidivism, and finally, one that would SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE costs associated with maintaining the registry, AND those three issues are CONSTANTLY promoted, then the bill has a chance of attracting a sponsor. Now, everyone knows that MOST rational politicians concur with the CA SOMB with regard to safety. But it is vital that arguments promoting the registrants’ “gains” of not being monitored on a lifetime basis be STRICTLY throttled.
In short, promote in order: 1: Community safety, 2. Lower recidivism, 3. Lower costs. Way down the list? Easing up on registrants’ lives. Finally, make sure we get an author that can handle the opposition he or she will undoubtedly receive from her potential political opponents, either from her own party in the primary, or the other party in the general.
Really hope the courts listen to the few voices of fact and reason while ignoring all millions of voices fueled by paranoia, misinformation, and folklore. I don’t know which scares me more…the thought of lifetime registration or having to move out of my home (that I have a mortgage on) so my wife and children can stay. Perhaps they will reference something called the constitution when rendering their decisions. Can only hope and pray.
At no point in history has anyone politely asked for their freedom and received it.
You have to care MORE about your OWN personal safety and privacy than the so-called child safety advocate’s flawed “knowledge is power” mission statement. You have to be MORE passionate about your cause than they are. Their arguments need to be quelled and used against them to make them look like they paranoid cowards that they really are.
This misguided protect children “at all costs” mentality in America needs to be mercilessly, viciously and relentlessly attacked and discredited. Former offenders are no longer going to be subjugated because of herd bias and worrywart parent’s paranoid cowardice.
Sorry, but as a parent, you forfeited your right to sanity the moment you elected to have a child.
Has anyone with more knowledge of the process than I have thought about what would be required to create a petition and get it on the ballot? All of the arguments we are putting out there could be clearly stated as the primary reasons to support such a bill as a peoples initiative. This would cut the politicians out of the loop and short circuit the process.
So in essence to a Tiered registry, do we have to have an assembly man in our corner to move forward or will the Registry be over hauled by chance with out an assemblyman! Please clarify.
Janice I can see your issues out in California are really a big difference than in Virginia. Since I got into this thing I really think its heart rendering for all. This issue takes doer’s and not just hearer’s. These sex offender law’s are just doctrine’s of man (man-made) Colossians 2:8 will give you food for thought. I know these are sex issues’ what’s the bible have to do with sex issues. A lot.
Just because one town doesn’t want the sex offender to live her or there or is afraid or that they need to vote on a tier level or something like that. Than the law and government need a refresher course in the bible. The bible is based on love and it is a road map of each and every one of our life’s. We should keep them in remembrance of all this. You can find all your answers in the bible of how to overcome all these issue’s that man throw’s at your seat belt.
Google Doctrine’s of Man vs todays’ law’s. thumb’s up to you Janice!
Janice,
A great thank you to you and your staff for all of your hard work!!! How likely would the residency restrictions would apply to all rso’s? It seems to me with all of the uncontitutional issues that have been brought up in different cases, that I would hope and pray that it doesn’t happen. This will cause an uproar.
Anyone know why the court accepted this case?
During the week of January 12, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review in the following case:
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?
Countless thousands of registered citizens are productive members in society, overcoming false stigma, purposeful lies, obstacles that no other group of people face. Registered citizens are slapped with “penalty after penalty”, retroactive laws and still we live right, do right, abide by this crap we’re subjected to and yet, in spite of it all, we’re largely a very successful group of people. All we want is a fair shake, equal treatment and to be left alone, yet for each success, the government comes in with blatant lies and scare tactics, convincing the sheeple that we’re so freakin dangerous. I live openly and honestly, nothing to hide, but government wants to strip away every right that’s left, limit my freedom and shame me publicly.
We’re knocked down and get back up, we are an example of and a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit, even though we’re considered sub-human. I hope the victories continue, I hope some politician picks up on what we all go through, I hope change comes soon. So few are fighting for rights, thank you so much.
Usually Janice’s posts are comforting, but this is unsettling. The thought of having to move to satisfy a residency requirement would be incredibly disruptive for my wife and children. My conviction is from 1987, paroled in ’94 and no issues since. We’ve owned and lived in this house for 14 years. To move would be stressful enough, but to find someplace outside the (insert arbitrary distance here) perimeter in a city like LA would add whole new stress wrinkle.
Well, worrying about it won’t do much good, so instead I send as much positive energy as I can toward Janice and the courts who I know will decide in our favor.
The “olive branch” being extended to Carson should be proffered ONLY if Carson officials:
1. Capitulate to the ENTIRE lawsuit’s requirements
2. Provides solid proof that they WON’T renege again (“TRUST, but VERIFY”)
3. Pays all fees and penalties, including a significant sum to Janice and CA RSOL.
If in fact all three items are completely resolved, then that olive branch can THEN be extended. I sincerely hope this is what is happening.
Otherwise, best to leave the branch on the tree.
What kind of olive branch?
I think they will just see anything like that as weakness and it will encourage other cities to fight instead of acting reasonably.
BTW with the court decision in from the Orange County cases, are any of these presence restriction still on the books still enforceable?
Wouldn’t now be a good time to email or snail mail our state senators and representatives re. the need for change and implementation of this bill? If so, I have a draft that is short enough to be copied and pasted into the state reps’ emails. Let me know if this would be useful.
The judiciary should take a switch (not an olive branch) to the City of Carson for obstinately refusing to obey a court order!
While I understand the desire to see a tiered registry introduced, I still don’t think this is the right one to throw our hat behind. Yes, it will provide relief for many, but it also negatively affects many of us as well. Under the proposed tiered registry, I go from a low-moderate risk with a chance of getting relief in a few years with a Certificate of Rehabilitation to a high risk Tier 3 with no possibility of relief.
Personally, I’m not happy being the sacrificial lamb sent to the slaughter so that others get relief. Janice has said that if the Constitution fails to protect one of us, it fails to protect all of us…well, this fails to protect me and my family.
As far as having to move this would pertain to the people after Jessica’s law was passed I don’t believe Jessica’s law was ever retroactive so most people would not have to move
While I applaud the efforts being made for a tiered registry, I will never understand how Registration is considered “not punitive”. What if I wanted to live in an RV and travel the country or even just California?
What if I wanted to travel the states in said RV? All States have varying registration requirements from 24 hours to 10 days, with some being from county to county. How is one able to travel the country legally??
Isn’t this a constitutional right? By being denied the ability to travel, after imprisonment/parole/probation are completed, seems to be at least one fact that could be used in the cause to fight Registration as a whole!
Let’s be truthful, it is worrisome to think that if your car breaks down in strange town, you may be thrown in jail for being near a playground. It is stressful to think that you may loose your home and uproot your family because a law says you now can not live within 2000 feet of a school. It is terrifying to have your name and address posted on the internet a clear target for vigilantes to find. The laws have the combined effect and sole purpose of terrorizing registered citizens as they would to any citizen of this free country.
If we gather and peacefully march in Carson, we are saying the terror stops here. It is in no way a capitulation to fear, it is a affirmation of citizenship.
Well, I for one like the present system in which once you are off parole, there are no residency restrictions. It is very disconcerting to think that might change. I wish there was a way to avoid having it come up for a vote—-after all, with all the free floating hate out there, registered citizens are an easy target.
Yes Janice, I am familiar with “technically” why it is not considered punitive. It is truly incredible how a Supreme Court Judge can “throw out” all common sense to protect a personal belief he or she may have, or succumb to pressures of political influences. It seems to me that the fight for a Tiered system in CA is a fight worthwhile even though in my personal situation, it probably means 20 years on the registry for having “consensual” sex with a minor (yes I do know that a minor cannot consent, even though a minor can be charged as an adult for murder). I do however; strongly feel that there should be a major push to get a unified national RSOL movement to challenge John Roberts and the Supreme Court to abolish the registry all together (except for the most heinous acts, etc.). What is the course of action for this? How much money would it take and how many people involved? How do we contact all persons on Meagan’s Law nationally to encourage them to donate and have a voice? I personally feel that there is enough common sense challenges to severely hamper any Justice to deny the fact that the registry is punitive. As you and others have stated; Hate Crimes, murder, prejudice of habitat, inability to find work, inability to travel freely in our very own country much less internationally, IMPRISONMENT for failure to register, or not being informed of a certain municipality restrictions, etc., etc., are all effects of being on the registry. Not to mention the recidivism stats. I will not pretend to be legally savy and I am new to all of this so please forgive me if all of this, has previously been disclosed by you. From the one meeting and I have been too in LA, I know you are understaffed and underfunded. I will be at the LA meeting in March!
” the Supreme Court explained most recently in its 2013 decision striking down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), “[t]he Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.'”
Anyone here feeling “politically unpopular”? Yeah, me too.
By Roberts saying registration is like a price club application, he probably didn’t think registration would get out of hand. So I think he could still save face and overturn 2003 decision. Clarence Thomas seems to be aware there is a Constitution, being the rightwing constitutional literalist he is. I recall seeing some Scalia op-ed piece on how the US could be rife for internment/concentration camps. Hopefully, Breyer and Ginsburg have not changed their minds from their dissent of the 2003 Smith v Doe decision. Kagan, i don’t know what she is thinking, as well as Sotomayor who I probably don’t want to know what shes thinking and Kennedy is probably not on board, since he is a tough on crime guy. But right there, that is the 5 we need. This is just off the top of my head…