California is one of only four states that require adults convicted of certain sex crimes to register with local law enforcement each year for life. Crime-free for 50 years? Bedridden? It doesn’t matter. This lifetime requirement has turned California’s registry into the largest in the country. There are roughly 800,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S., and around 100,000 of them live in California. Full Article
Related posts
-
ACSOL to Conduct In-Person Meeting on March 11, 2023 in Pasadena, CA
ACSOL will conduct its first in person meeting in more than two years on Saturday, March... -
Action Alert for CA: Time to Sign Up for Lobby Day in Sacramento
It’s time to sign up for Lobby Day in Sacramento on March 21. You can use... -
ACSOL February 18, 2023 Online Meeting
Please join ACSOL Executive Director and civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci as well as ACSOL board...
Amazing. A fairly balanced and well-presented article on the subject from the media. What a pleasant surprise!
Damn good article to say the least. Lets hope now that the politicians listen for a change, but I have to believe that there’s a fat chance.
It’s a good article, but it still doesn’t shed light on the concerns I’ve raised, which include whether having multiple charges will be viewed the same as multiple convictions and automatically put someone on Tier 3, and that the proposal will take someone with more than one “low level” conviction and labeled low risk and change them to being a high risk Tier 3.
AWESOME ARTICLE! Hit it out of the ballpark.
Td you do have a legitimate concern I’m in the same position multiple offenses for the same conviction but if I interpret the recomendation correctly then only someone that has reoffended or has been declared a SVP by a mental institution will be in tier 3 . And I don’t agree that we should sacrafice some just to get relief for others. If my interpretation is correct then the tired system will actually not change ones status from low or moderate risk to high risk and if that’s the case then its a good thing but your right if it changes a person status from low to moderate to a high risk then it isn’t a fair or just bill.
So; just because John Gardner, one individual no less; committed a bad crime the proponents of these draconian and foolish laws think they need to continually punish thousands of people and their families? I’m not seeing how this makes any kind of sense or demonstrates sane thinking.
1. GREAT ARTICLE! Fair, factual and direct!
2. Regarding the John Gardner horrible crime argument, let’s extend that reasoning to the drunk (and previously convicted) DUI driver who recently drove the wrong way on a SoCal freeway and killed several people (including children) in a horrible head-on crash.
Applying the Gardner-style argument, ALL – yes, ALL – DUI drivers should be placed on a lifetime website registry AND have a big decal on their license plate (or vehicle) so everyone will know that person might just cause a similar terrible accident.
But because our society is so freakishly obsessed with sex, it’s only the (s)ex-offenders that get a public website registry for life. Very frustrating!!
BTW, DUI driving has a 44% recidivism rate.
All of this is moot if someone doesn’t champion this bill in the next few days
Tick Tock….