Tier it up

Join the discussion

1. Matt February 19, 2015

   Amazing. A fairly balanced and well-presented article on the subject from the media. What a pleasant surprise!

2. Jim February 19, 2015

   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.

3. td777 February 19, 2015

   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.

   • Matt February 19, 2015

     TD, with respect, how would a news reporter know the answer to your questions? We haven’t seen the bill as it is currently written. Which means the reporter hasn’t seen it yet either. The simple fact that we were not demonized, as usual, by a member of the media is a big deal all by itself! The bill we haven’t seen yet will likely be revised a dozen or more times, if it ever even makes it to the floor for debate. We all have questions about how this bill, if it ever materializes, will change our lives for better or worse. But this must be looked at from the big picture perspective. If you look at this from your individual standpoint, it may be negative for you. But it could be positive for THOUSANDS of other people…and tens of thousands of people if you include the loved ones who have had to take this journey with us through no fault of their own. I suggest, with respect, that your get out of your own head a little bit and see what happens. Worrying about unknowns is unproductive. And if it turns out to be negative for you, realize that it may be positive for a huge amount of people. The laws regarding RSO’s have been a kick in the head, each and every time, for decades. This may turn out to be a partial reversal. It’s one step towards a goal. It isn’t the end. Abolishing the registry outright is not a realistic goal. This is going to be a long, hard battle. I personally believe it will only be resolved by the Supreme Court. But if some people can get relief, even at the expense of some others, it’s the right thing to do.

     • td777 February 20, 2015

       Of course I’m looking at this from the perspective of how it will negatively impact me, whether we admit it or not, we are all looking at this from our own perspective as well as the sum of the whole. But it’s not just me, it’s my family as well, so yeah, I’m against anything that is going to impact my family this negatively. And again, I’m sure there’s not a one who is truly accepting of something that will negatively impact themselves and their family, even if it does provide relief for others. If relief for others was at your and your family’s expense, would you be OK with that? I doubt it.

4. G4Change February 19, 2015

   AWESOME ARTICLE! Hit it out of the ballpark.

5. mike February 19, 2015

   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.

   • td777 February 20, 2015

     I get that, but unfortunately I was hit with a bogus second case and in which I was not properly able to fight and forced into a plea. Both cases were not serious offenses and had no victim, and the sum total time in custody was only 14 months(shows how non-serious they were). However, from everything I can find out, this proposed tier system will move me from being rated as low risk to high risk and take away any chance I might have to get relief from a C.O.R. in a few years.

6. Q February 19, 2015

   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.

   • Timmr February 19, 2015

     Well, don’t you know, a minor illegal sexual act is like a gateway drug to harder stuff. Sooner or later you’re up to kidnapping rape and murder! Remember the papaganda film “Reefer Madness”. Well now we have CSI and To Catch a Predator to create the myth of the sex addict.

7. David February 19, 2015

   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!!

   • Timmr February 19, 2015

     …and all DUI’s who drive violently get 25 to life. Like to see that pass the legislature unanimously.

8. David February 19, 2015

   BTW, DUI driving has a 44% recidivism rate.

9. Jo February 20, 2015

   All of this is moot if someone doesn’t champion this bill in the next few days

10. steve February 26, 2015

    Tick Tock….