UPDATE: The Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled the hearing for SB 54 on June 30. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in Room 4203 in the State Capitol building.
Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Although a specific hearing date has not yet been set, the committee must hear the bill in either June or July to the Senate schedule.
As currently written, SB 54 would prohibit most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or place where children gather. The author of the bill is Senator Sharon Runner, an author of Jessica’s Law, which has similar restrictions.
“It’s time to write and send letters in opposition to SB 54 to the Senate Public Safety Committee,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.
The CA Supreme Court ruled on March 2, 2015, that CDCR could not require all registered citizens on parole to comply with Jessica’s Law because the restrictions violate their constitutional rights of liberty and privacy. The Court did not, however, decide whether residency restrictions violate the constitutional rights of registered citizens who are not on parole.
“It has long been recognized that people on parole have limited rights,” stated Bellucci. “It is logical that registered citizens not on parole have greater rights than those on parole. Therefore the state legislature should not pass a law that requires registered citizens not on parole to abide by residency restrictions.”
A copy of the letter sent by California RSOL opposing SB 54 as well as the list of Senate Public Safety Committee members can be found below. Letters should be sent as soon as possible to ensure they are read by committee members.
Related
Janice’s Journal: Jessica’s Law Authors Attempt to Overturn CA Supreme Court Decision
Where is the copy of the letter??
I’m just amazed how much effort keeps going into making new..stupid..laws for offenders. If half that effort went into other problems of this country, we might actually solve one or two of them. Oh well, gotta get back to drinking and driving while tagging my gang’s logo everywhere and selling drugs to the local kids. Those things don’t matter as much and I can live anywhere I want.
No letters are showing
This crap is like an 80s horror movie. Sequel after sequel, yet the villain keeps on coming back. Unbelievable!!!
Deja Vu all over again! Like a zombie (SB267) that just won’t die and stay dead!!
S. Runner will certainly not meekly withdraw the bill like the sponsors of the earlier bills did. Letters and phone calls will have to be very effective.
Deja vu all over again. I’m glad I saved my SB267 letters… cut-n-paste, clean ’em up, ready to mail. (And yes, I’m certainly happy that we got a favorable decision from the CA Supreme Court. But it would have been much nicer if they made a clearer, stronger, more decise ruling. On the bright side, if this garbage does pass into law, maybe the resulting Supreme Court case and decision will clearly cite the CA Constitution – and U.S. Constitution!- and make it unequivocally clear that this bullshot is not legal.)
I hope this lunatic Ms. Runner will start burning bridges with this move. We need to warn everyone to keep far from her, including children from that “Christian” school, that she and her obsessed husband, foundered in Lancaster.
The Runners sure do wast allot of the citizen’s money on their self appointed mission to weaken and degrade the constitution and bill of rights by trying to force a created class of people (that’s us I’m talkin about) to perpetually pay for transgressions we have already paid for.
Looks like it’s time to flex our collective muscle again by making ourselves heard; again!
And now for the million dollar question; where’s the letter and the list of Senate Public Safety Committee members? It’s not showing up!
I’d like to suggest that everyone call Mark Leno and Loni Hancock this week and personally thank them for their insightful comments during the senate committee on public safety hearing for SB 267. They were the only two Senators who showed up for the hearing and they both spoke for our side about the need for evidence based legislation.
This is the list of contacts for the Committee on Public Safety:
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock (D), Chair
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4009
Senator Joel Anderson (R), Co-Chair
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4038
Senator Mark Leno (D)
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4011
Senator Carol Liu (D)
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4025
Senator Mike McGuire (D)
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4002
Senator Bill Monning (D)
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4017
Senator Jeff Stone (R)
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4028
What is it called when you do the same thing over and over expecting different results?
Residency restrictions create chaos. I’ve read myriad articles where communities are outraged due to clustering of registrants. Communities that voted FOR residency restrictions, not anticipating the backlash. The haters become bigger haters when they see their results. It’s cyclical madness! Residency restrictions have not produced any tangible benefit to community safety. If increased recidivism, vigilantism, and homelessness is what you consider beneficial, you’re on the right track Sharon Runner.
This roller coaster must stop!!!! I’m at a loss for words, again. Living with constant uncertainty AND sadness just seems to be the way of life.
So many of you have written strong, insightful, and meaningful comments. The next step is to write to the senators on the Public Safety committee.
Encourage your family, friends, and others to do the same. There is power in numbers.
I just don’t understand how this bill is any different than the others? The results will have to be the same. How many times can someone change the wording for the same bill in the hopes that it might pass this time? Aren’t the Senators getting tired of having their time wasted over and over again? All the letters and phone calls they will receive again. What a moronic desperate attempt. Writing letters again and making phone calls. Can someone explain what the difference is with this bill?
It is either constitutional or not. If it is deemed unconstitutional for all SOs on Parole, how can it possibly be deemed constitutional for those not on parole? Is this a joke?
This isn’t about a bill, it’s about a reputation and attempting to save face. The Runner’s co-authored a bill that keeps getting splintered apart with actual facts. As time goes on, they will continue to lose political integrity. They’ve sold the voters on the premise that all sex offenders are child molesters, and misinformed these same voters with made up statistics in the name of public safety. An awful lot of money has been invested in their continued success. If investors and other “interested parties”, begin to see their ship plunging towards sinking, they will find other, more reputable puppets to control.
just my opinion.
This bill has in it a judicial process of petitioning the court for relief so I’m assuming that they can claim there is due process in this bill. It’s bs how can they expect an individual who is very lucky if they can find a job pay a lawyer to petition the court and prove they can not fund compliant housing this ridiculous. It never ends. Let’s all do our part and hope our state don’t end up like the insane state of Florida which shouldn’t even be considered a part of the US with their unconstitutional draconian laws. Traitors to the constitution all of them.
The focus of SB 54 is residency restrictions, not presence restrictions that were the focus of SB 267. Therefore, please do not send the same letter! Below is the letter sent by CA RSOL to all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
We are writing in strong opposition to SB 54, which has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. The bill, as currently written, would prohibit most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or where children regularly gather.
If SB 54 is passed by the state legislature, there will be a significant reduction in public safety because the number of homeless registered citizens will dramatically increase. That increase would be in addition to an increase of more than 300 percent following passage of Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law.
According to the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), the state’s experts on sex offender policy, the promulgation of conditions which create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders is counterproductive and continues to be the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in CA. Therefore, CASOMB recommends elimination of one-size-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live.
In addition, SB 54 is inconsistent with the recent decision of the CA Supreme Court which determined that residency restrictions violate the liberty and privacy rights of registered citizens and bear no rational relationship to advancing the state’s goal of protecting children from sexual predators. While the scope of that case is limited to registered citizens on parole, it is only logical that registered citizens who are not on parole have the same or even greater liberty and privacy rights.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above, we request that you vote “NO” on SB 54.
Well, I think meeting this person would be quite interesting. It would be very interesting to sit down and speak to her about why she feels so strongly about this. Statistics? Stories? Past experience? Newspaper article? Needs attention? I would certainly think she has to have a reason for her actions. I might recommend Janice contact her office. When we have State Officials requesting a tiered system, parole officers altering their tactics and judges over turning these biased laws, she must have a reason? Furthermore, I would love to hear her response in regards to numerous studies stating these laws don’t work? Why not ban gang members? Drug dealers or murderers? I’m dying to know her reasoning? I would imagine that anyone with any intellectual capital has both a very valid and serious reason? ?
So I’ve come to the conclusion that the Runners are either completely insane, stupid as can be, or just so mean and power hungry they will do anything to further their political power. Personally, I’m led to believe the latter.
In 2006, when the Runners cash cow was Henry Nicholas, on KFI, I heard him thanked for paying the mortgage for The Runners home during around the time Prop 83 was being campaigned for. Recently, Sharon Runner quietly ran and won her current California Senate seat so she could furthur make money the only way she and husband know how, scapegoating registrants. They may not have a new mortgage to get paid off by an angel-billionaire, but they may have liability for lack of employee oversight possibly due to the false sense of security as a result of the Prop 83 they championed, for the actions that victimized the children at the George and Sharon Runner’ founded Desert Christian Academy, of which Sharon is still on the Board of Directors. As long as Sharon and George get to cash in by proposing laws to unconstitutionally burden registrants and create counter-productive conditions in regards to public safety, with gifts from billionaires, I see no reason for them to stop gaming the system.
To bad some sort of class action lawsuit can’t be brought against Sharon Runner, and some of the others, for harassment or whatever the like.
Some how this NONsense has to stop.
Please vote no on SENATE BILL 54 (sex offender residency restrictions).
Senate Bill 54 will be coming before the committee and needs to be scrutinized closely as it is in direct conflict with the recommendations of the experts in the fields and seems to ignore any of the empirical evidence that suggest it is counterproductive and is a solution where there is no problem.
None of these failed policies have achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry. Legislators should have enough integrity to investigate their issues before they present bills to the legislative bodies and be sure that there is some evidence to support the conclusion that there is a need for such legislation and that such legislation will further a legitimate legislative purpose or objective and not just a platform to exploite public fears for their own individual personal agendas. They should also use credible evidence and follow recommendations from their own agencies that were created to study the issues that are being presented in any new measures such as the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), .
I strongly oppose SB54 and suggest that legislators and committee members heed the evidence and recommendations from the experts in the fields and also the recent Supreme Court decision and vote NO on SENATE BILL 54.
It is a attempt to impose residential restrictions on virtually all the registered sex offenders in CA, not just on certain high risk offenders as the bill implicitly suggest, but on almost all of the over 100 thousand ex-offenders in the state regardless of any risk they may or may not pose to the public.
The legislature created the CASOMB to have experts investigate, study and recommend policies that would further the legislative objective of increasing public safety and reducing sexual abuse.
According to the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), the state’s experts on sex offender policy, the promulgation of conditions which create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders, such as residency restrictions, is counterproductive and continues to be the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in CA. Therefore, CASOMB recommends elimination of one-size-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live.
The CA Supreme Court has also determined that residency restrictions violate the liberty and privacy rights of registered citizens and bear no rational relationship to advancing the state’s goal of protecting children from sexual predators. While the scope of that case is limited to registered citizens on parole, it is only logical that registered citizens who are not on parole have even greater liberty and privacy rights interest. It is a fact that a person on parole has a higher risk of reoffense then a person who has completed parole supervision so there is no rational basis to subject a class of citizens who have a greater liberty and privacy interest and have a lower risk of reoffense to the same residency restrictions that were determined by the court to be unconstitutional for people on parole.
Senate Bill 54 if passed would cost the state millions of more dollars in litigation simply to come to the same apparent conclusion that residency restrictions as written in SB54 would be held unconstitutional by the court.
Here are some more facts that you may or may not be aware of from the leading authorities which indicate what a failure sex offender registration and public notification laws are in the US and maybe useful in any decisions regarding any future sex offender legislation. These laws are a waste of tax dollars and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and gov. agency resources.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registaring agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lifes of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernable benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is availible online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.
The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483
Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.
The full report is availible online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483
These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
People, including the media and the legislature should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of certain legislators as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense after a three year period is 1.8% of the 69.5% that return to prison. 88% of that 69.5% return to prison for parole violations.
The full report is available online at.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_Research_Branch%2FResearch_documents%2FOutcome_evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei=C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ
Bureau of Justice Statistics
5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013
Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf
Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.
A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf
Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf
Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.
Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.
The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do.
From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.
For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
Senate Bill 54 would bring more chaos and instability to an allready challenging environment in which this class of ex-offenders have to navigate and attempt to reintegrate back into. It would also be counterproductive to the states legitimate interest to protect its citizens. Residency restrictions would make it more difficult for law enforcement or the public to supervise or locate high risk offenders while increasing known risk factors for reoffense for lower risk offenders.
Please vote NO on SENATE BILL 54.
Thank you for your time.
Guys, you should all be commended for your writings! Although, you need to think out of the box! Writing multiple paragraphs loses the readers interest. Did you read my above statement? Do something that they don’t expect. Ask her for an interview? Meet her! Request a newspaper or reporter to interview her? Ask the reasons why? Her answers are based upon? Her actions are based upon?
Senator Runner must do something in response to the pulling of SB-267 and AB-201 sense Jessica’s law defines her political career and is her base action for community support. Our focus against her is to hammer on the very point she justifies Jessica Law and residence restrictions…public safety and safety to children. That is the one and only single nail to target. How could putting people on the streets by limiting their options for housing make children safe? Where do the homeless sleep while homeless? Usually in parks where children are often playing right? How is that making children and society more safe? Many children become homeless due to abuse…now these Jessica Law kind of actions by default put even more of those vulnerable children at higher risk. So, is Senator Runner for protecting children or harming them? The application of these kind of harmful measures against registrants has an even more harmful result to the community as a whole. Whatever makes Senator Runner look good for political gain is what seems to matter and not actual results! TRUTH