ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

CA State Legislature to Consider Presence Restrictions Bill on Jan. 12

The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing on January 12 during which it will consider Assembly Bill (AB) 201.  The bill, if passed, would allow local governments to adopt laws that restrict where a registered citizen may be present such as parks, libraries, swimming pools and fast food restaurants.  If the bill is passed, the lawsuits filed during the past two years that eliminated presence restrictions in the state of California would be overturned.

“We stopped AB 201 in 2015 when we showed up, stood up and spoke up in opposition to this bill,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.  “We must speak up again in 2016 to end this bill for once and for all.”
Assemblyman Brough (Republican, Orange County) introduced AB 201 in January 2015.  The bill was considered and passed by the Local Government Committee in April 2015.  The committee then referred the bill to the Public Safety Committee.

During the 2015 hearing, 10 people including representatives from the ACLU, CA RSOL and Housing California testified in opposition to AB 201.  In addition, hundreds of letters and dozens of phone calls were made to legislators opposing the bill.

The day after the hearing, the bill’s author withdrew the bill from further consideration in 2015.  AB 201 must be passed by the Public Safety Committee as well as the full Assembly in January 2016 in order to remain viable.  If the bill is not passed by both groups, the bill will not be considered by the Senate.

————

REASONS TO OPPOSE AB 201:

  • State appellate courts have ruled that presence restrictions adopted by cities and counties are preempted by state law which provide adequate protections
    • Court of Appeal – January 2014
    • CA Supreme Court – April 2014
  • Bill would delegate state authority to cities and counties by allowing them to adopt “presence restrictions” that prohibit registered sex offenders from going to public parks, beaches, museums and libraries
  • Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
  • Recent presence restrictions in 79 cities and 11 counties created chaos
  • Current state law adequately safeguards public safety
  • Presence restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions
  • Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
  • Registered sex offenders on parole commit a subsequent sex offense at a rate of less than 1 percent according to CA Dept. of Corrections
  • Children are sexually assaulted by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy in more than 90 percent of such assaults, according to CA Sex Offender Management Board
  • Many registered sex offenders never harmed a child
  • Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches
  • Presence restrictions violate state and federal constitutions
  • Denied access to public libraries violates 1st Amendment
  • Denied access to public parks, beaches, etc. violates 14th Amendment
  • Taxation without representation
  • Local law adopted after conviction constitutes ex post facto law
  • Presence restrictions already passed by cities and counties are inconsistent and do not provide registered sex offenders to be law abiding citizens
  • One city allowed registrants to use dog park while another city does not
  • One county allowed hiking on public trails while another county does not

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    wow here we go again….. Why don’t these politicians focus on some real problems like gang bangers, drug cartels, and repeat violent offenders… Oh because that would be doing something logical which they are severely lacking.in logic…….

    • The Anon

      Let’s not forget terrorist activities. With over 900 terror investigations going on in the U.S. many of which are in California I would bet, you would think that they would have more important things to worry about.

    • Robert Curtis

      Here is a video of my son and his best friend Reef (the Blonde child)that died of a birth defect related issue at 9 years old. I saved my son’s life twice once from drowning and once from choking…but my son is NOT good enough for me to be there for that third time (if need be) because I’m a registrant…AB-201 violates my child’s safety by disallowing a child’s first line of protect to be present with them. Is their anything MORE punitive than this kind of laws and/or restriction? This is an act of WAR against our children’s life….it is pure evil and wrong. Has there been any history of registrants violating a child in public places? No? Then why the law?

      Please view:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ykJk8aoGU

    • John

      Please call the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee today if you haven’t done so already! The hearing is scheduled first thing in the AM tomorrow. They need to hear that we are opposed to this bill!

      Assembly Member Bill Quirk (Chair)
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 2163, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

      Assembly Member Melissa A. Melendez (Vice Chair)
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031, Sacramento, CA 94249-0067; (916) 319-2067

      Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059

      Assembly Member Tom Lackey
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036

      Assembly Member Patty Lopez
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039

      Assembly Member Evan Low
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

      Assembly Member Miguel Santiago
      P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-205

  2. USA

    Well, if I’m not mistaken, the public safety committee was the same committee that recommended a tiered system and was opposed to enacting this same law

    • curiouser

      USA, that was the Senate Public Safety Committee, now chaired by Loni Hancock and Vice Chair Joel Anderson. Ms. Hancock and Mark Leno were the ones who told Runner to come back with a tiered proposal. Brough withdrew his bill prior to committee, as it likely would not have passed.

      Bill Quirk, who is Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, was the one who refused to hold the 11th hour meeting to pass Hueso’s internet identifier bill. The Assembly Public Safety Committee is made up of five Democrats and two Republicans.

  3. TJ

    Janice, are we to go thru the letter writing campaign once again. If we are please forward the letter that you want us to mail, and to whom. I am certain we can all get the Assemblies Public Safety Committee addresses, just provide us with the letter that you would like sent.

    BTW thank you for all of your hard work and all of your teams work.

    Ted

    • Janice Bellucci

      Here is draft letter to be sent to members of Public Safety Committee. The names and address of committee members can be found in comment below.

      Dear Committee Member:

      The purpose of this letter is to request that you oppose Assembly Bill 201 which has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. The bill, if passed, would allow local governments to prohibit more than 100,000 individuals who are required to register as sex offenders (“registered citizens”) from being present in or near both public and private places.

      These restrictions, known as “presence” or “proximity” restrictions, do not achieve their stated goal, that is, to protect children from sexual assault because they are focused upon people who are unlikely to commit such assaults in places where those assaults are unlikely to occur. That is because it is people who are not registered citizens — family members, teachers, coaches and clergy — who actually commit more than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children in places such as homes, locker rooms and churches according to the California Sex Offender Management Board.

      If the state allows local governments to adopt presence restrictions, registered citizens will once again be thwarted from acting as law abiding citizens because local governments will return to a “patchwork” of local laws that prohibit a registered citizens from walking on a pier or in a dog park in one city yet allow registered citizens to walk on a pier or in a dog park a different city. The punishment for violating such laws were harsh and included a jail sentence up to one year, a fine up to $1,000 or both for each violation.

      In closing, please know that two attempts were made in the recent past (AB 655 and SB 386) to pass a similar law and both were stopped by elected officials who understood that current state laws, such as California Penal Code Section 3053.8, adequately protect children and prevent the previous patchwork of local government laws containing presence restrictions. Thank you.

  4. Avig

    Some of these people seem to have a relentless desire to persecute. I wish they would find a different hobby.

    • Harry

      Well, if they were not picking on the RCs of this State, they would drowning puppies in the lake.

    • j

      They have a secret hobby – they dress up in Nazi uniforms and do the Third Reich Salute – something out of Fantasy Island. Then they put on regular clothes and act like regular people, then try to put Mein Kampf into today’s laws. Make no doubt about it – that is who these (very dangerous) people are.

  5. USA

    I’m thinking the Senator might have dementia. Let’s be real, this is absurd. I read the old proposal and it absurd/there was a comment staring high re offense rate. This is truly disturbing and very dishonest. The saddest part is that study after study has proved these restrictions do nothing but create havoc on families and individuals. In addition, like presiding judges have already state, registered citizens wouldn’t even know what to do as they travelled from one city to another

  6. curiouser

    California State Assembly
    Committee on Public Safety

    Assembly Member Bill Quirk (Chair)
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2163, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

    Assembly Member Melissa A. Melendez (Vice Chair)
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031, Sacramento, CA 94249-0067; (916) 319-2067

    Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059

    Assembly Member Tom Lackey
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036

    Assembly Member Patty Lopez
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039

    Assembly Member Evan Low
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

    Assembly Member Miguel Santiago
    P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053

    • Janice Bellucci

      REASONS TO OPPOSE AB 201:

      • Bill would delegate state authority to cities and counties by allowing them to adopt “presence restrictions” that prohibit registered sex offenders from going to public parks, beaches, museums and libraries
      o Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
      o Recent presence restrictions in 79 cities and 11 counties created chaos
      o Current state law adequately safeguards public safety
      o Presence restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions

      • State appellate courts have ruled that presence restrictions adopted by cities and counties are preempted by state law which provide adequate protections
      o Court of Appeal – January 2014
      o CA Supreme Court – April 2014

      • Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
      o Registered sex offenders on parole commit a subsequent sex offense at a rate of less than 1 percent according to CA Dept. of Corrections
      o Children are sexually assaulted by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy in more than 90 percent of such assaults, according to CA Sex Offender Management Board
      o Many registered sex offenders never harmed a child
      o Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches

      • Presence restrictions violate state and federal constitutions
      o Denied access to public libraries violates 1st Amendment
      o Denied access to public parks, beaches, etc. violates 14th Amendment
      o Taxation without representation
      o Local law adopted after conviction constitutes ex post facto law

      • Presence restrictions already passed by cities and counties are inconsistent and do not provide registered sex offenders to be law abiding citizens
      o One city allowed registrants to use dog park while another city does not
      o One county allowed hiking on public trails while another county does not

      • CA

        Janice, does it say in the bill, that it is retroactive??

      • Robert Curtis

        Janice I am taking a personal and professional interest in those members that signed on to this Bill. This election year will be very interesting! Anyone want to help? It’s going to be fun!

  7. someone who cares

    This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. How many more times can they propose the same thing? I am addressing envelopes now to be ready to mail when necessary. What a waste of time yet again.

  8. USA

    My conclusion is this. Unlike most states, California has neglected to address the dire need to change its laws. First, almost every state in the nation has a tiered system in place. Most registered citizens fall off the registry after 10/15/20 years, if they have obeyed the laws ect. This is the right thing to do. We have (I bet it’s in the thousands) many individuals convicted of very minor and sometimes expunged offenses from 20/30/40 years ago? So, if the senator is truly concerned, she should support a tiered system to allow the states resources to focus upon those individuals who have been recently released or have repeat offenses. Prohibiting them from visiting parks ect does nothing more than create obstacles for those seeking to live a normal life. The state currently can’t even update their website with accurate information? Let’s set up ways to help and support those individuals who truly want to better their lives. This isn’t what America stands for.

    • New Person

      But why have a tiered system? Do others convicted or ex-convict have to register as well as regulate their movements all the while preventing them from travelling the world?

      I say no to the tiered system as this is still a violation of our constitution. We haven’t done anything wrong after being released from custody. Why should I feel as though I’m still in custody? No other convicts go through this.

  9. USA

    New Person, I totally agree. Truly. Although, Rome wasn’t built in a day. We have to all start somewhere. Best wishes

    • Timmr

      Truly, if you want a tiered registry, the way is to not write a post in favor of it here in this forum or even go petition the government; what you do have to do is to convince 1000’s of registered Americans and their families to turn out and create such a noise and be a consistent pain in the butt for elected officials, that they will be looking for ways to reduce the size of the registry. It will be their idea, and it will only work if it is their idea.

  10. David

    New Person, yes, this is our screwed up world! A convicted drug dealer can attend his daughter’s school play, but we can’t do so. Convicted DUI drivers – a group with very high recidivism rates – can still buy alcohol and still operate a car, endangering many innocent people. But we are the ones they harass and endlessly punish.
    At least a tiered registry might get some of us off the list eventually.

    • New Person

      There is a tiered system in one of the New England states. The lower tier was set up for 10 years. When the 10 years came up, it was later bumped to another 10 years. Guess what, they want to bump it again.

      When there’s a tiered system, then it signifies there are no constitutional laws being broken. That’s why that one New England state can continue to add more years to the tiered system. A tiered system implies no constitutional rights are being broken or abused, when in fact constitutional rights are being trampled upon.

      Should we wait 44 years to finally make the US government wake up? How about 60 years?

      Janice isn’t waiting that long. She’s already won presence restrictions and she’s aiming to help us all. Facts are truths. Less than 1% re-offense rate. Registration is punishment – cruel and unusual. The truth, hopefully, will set us free.

  11. David

    The registries and all the assorted restrictions, laws, and regulations are, in effect – lifetime probation. There’s really no other way to view it – it certainly exceeds anything that’s “merely administrative”.

  12. mike r

    Yeah I would like to see them try to make anyone ever convicted of a dui to install ignition interlock systems in their vehicle for the rest of their lives. It would have a rational basis and would undoubtably save hundreds if not thousands of lives. And it would be strictly regulatory so let’s see that stand constitutional scrutiny….

  13. Someone who cares

    I agree, the registry needs to be abolished all together, but I will take every little step forward as a victory. This bill can not be passed. It was too confusing in the first place. In some counties you can visit parks, and in others you can’t. Who would have the time to find out where a registered citizen can be in a park, and where he can’t. LE will not be able to understand these confusing laws, neither can we, nor should we be expected to. This bill will be struck down once and for all.

  14. CA

    There is no retroactive statement in this bill, therefore, only individuals convicted of a sex offense, after this bill passes (which I highly doubt) would be affected by it. Remember a federal judge said in 2007, “that in order for a law to be retroactive, it must be written that it is retroactive in the law itself”.

  15. mike r

    Man its going to get ugly and bad things are in store for this state if these laws pass. There will be to many of us adversely effected and people are going to end up snapping.

    • Craig

      I hope they do snap, just like with the HR 515 formerly known as “International Megan’s Law” with another NEW title “International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification… you get a sign placed on your passport which becomes totally useless. But with that being said most of the RCs wont snap because they are law-abiding citizens of this once great country that many made one mistake, They are trying so hard to take care of their families even under all this stress, which shows the real courage of many of these human beings yes there are dangerous people out there, but they are the one %, I am totally speechless about what is taking place in a election year.

  16. Craig

    It seems every time you win one small one they hit you with 50 more, is this ever going to end? I really do not know how some of you people handle this. It must be really hard for the ones with no support system.

  17. CA

    If this bill becomes law, when would it be applicable, January 2017?
    If anybody knows, please comment, Thank You :]

  18. CA

    This bill is TOTALLY unconstitutional…

  19. Eric Knight

    All I have to do is hit the “resend” button on the emails for the most part. I don’t even have to change most of the addresses. They REALLY don’t understand the concept of deceased equines, sticks, and hitting motions, do they now?

  20. mike r

    Man I want to see them try to pass a law stating that everyone ever convicted of a DUI has to have an ignition interlock system installed on their vehicle for the rest of their lives. That means everyone past and future. Its strictly regulatory and far less restrictive than the registration scheme and has a much more rational basis.. Lets see that pass constitutional muster…….Im telling ya I am fed up with these lawmakers now with our passport stating sex offender on it… They are lucky I cant buy a gun I can tell ya that shit……..Shits gunna hit the fan pretty soon just watch and see………..

  21. LJ

    This explains a situation I dealt with today. I was recently assigned a new parole agent. Immediately upon taking my case he informed me I was not allowed to leave the city limits. I had always taken drives in the country. I find it therapeutic. According to my parole conditions, I have a 50 mile radius I am allowed to travel within, without requiring any prior approval. I am never alone. I have Parkinson’s disease and cannot drive. Also, my prior agents gave me permission to travel within county on occasion for recreation. Typically my 72 year old mother drives me. Now I am not allowed to even exit city limits! Then today I get a text from my agent asking why I go to this certain shopping center. Well there is a fueling station there and a couple of restaurants I like to dine at. When I explained that he told me I couldn’t go there anymore. Is this preparing me for restricting my ability to enjoy a good meal or getting fuel and a water or a hot dog? This is unreal! The list of things I can’t do already is so incumbering I feel like I can’t breathe. I can’t go look at properties to invest in. I can’t see my children. I can’t go outside the city. I can’t associate with most of my support system, because they have children. I can’t go bowling. Can’t go to the park or library. Can’t spend holidays with my family. Can’t see a movie at the theatre. Can’t go to the mall and shop. Can’t, can’t, can’t. Yet I was a model prisoner without any write ups and have been a model parolee. I have graduated most of the programs they had me in. None of that is taken into account. In the words of my agent, “I only know you’re face sheet.” That’s all they see. Not who I am. I am not judged on the content of my character or by the progress I make, but by my past. It leaves an already diffucult time of year for me seem hopeless for the future. I am truly discouraged.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Please contact me directly as the parole conditions you have described do not sound reasonable.

  22. Tobin's Tools

    A ‘tiered’ registry is a stupid solution. A tiered registry relies on the Static-99/R. The Static-99/R is junk science; it is inaccurate and unscientific. See Shoba Sreenivasan, “Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms,” J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. (2010); see also California Sex Offender Management Board, Year End Report (2015) [citing Static-99/R accuracy at 29 percent in flagging so-called “high-risk sex offenders” (yet CASOMB has the audacity to sugarcoat and call this figure ‘very accurate’)]. A tiered registry would require many first-time non-violent sex offenders to register for life because of the junk Static-99/R score. Yet many violent sex offenders would NOT be subject to lifetime registration under a tiered registry. A tiered registry is disproportionate and void of logic.

    • steve

      “A tiered registry would require many first-time non-violent sex offenders to register for life because of the junk Static-99/R score.”

      That is only true if you had PREVIOUS convictions for something non-sexual. The static 99 hits those the hardest who have had previous and post convictions of anything sexual or not.

      • Simon, Psy.D

        Steve is incorrect. Tobin’s Tools is correct. The Static-99/R would disproportionately hurt any non-violent, non-contact, first-time offender with multiple misdemeanor offenses (especially those of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism). The Static-99/R scam (because the Static-99/R IS a scam) does not differentiate between felony and misdemeanor offenses. This is one of the countless flaws to the Static-99/R. The Static-99/R is NOT scientific!

        • steve

          “Item # 7 – Any Convictions for Non-contact Sex Offences
          The Basic Principle: Offenders with paraphilic interests are at increased risk for sexual recidivism. For example, most individuals have little in terest in exposing their genitals to strangers or stealing underwear. Offenders who engage in these types of behaviours are more likely to have problems conforming their sexual behaviour to conventional standards than offenders who have no interest in paraphilic activities.
          InformationRequiredtoScorethisItem: Toscorethisitemyoumusthaveaccesstoanofficial criminal record as compiled by police, court, or correctional authorities. Self-report of criminal convictions may not be used to score this item except in specific rare situations, please see sub-section “Self-report and the STATIC-99” in the Introduction section.
          THE BASIC RULE: IF THE OFFENDER’S CRIMINAL RECORD INDICATES A SEPARATE CONVICTION FOR A NON-CONTACT SEXUAL OFFENCE, THE OFFENDER IS SCORED A “1” ON THIS ITEM. If the offender’s criminal record does not show a separate conviction for a non-contact sexual offence, the offender is scored a “0” on this item.”

          I don’t see how a “1” gets you lifetime on the registry. I don’t even see where if you have multiple offenses those each count for a separate point.
          YOUR INDEX (MEANING YOUR CURRENT CHARGES) ARE NOT EVEN COUNTED. So you would have to have prior convictions for something else for misdemeanors, like you say, to lead to lifetime registration. So, no I am not wrong.

        • Simon, Psy.D

          The following is a link to the Coding Form: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

          You said: “I don’t even see where if you have multiple offenses those each count for a separate point.”

          See “Question Number” — or so-called “Risk Factor” — five; it is titled “Prior Sex Offences” (note: British spelling used, as the Static-99/R scam was created by non-Americans). Charges/Convictions coincide with 1, 2, and 3 points (depending on number of charges/convictions). Thus, a person released between age 18 to 34.9 (+ 1 point), who has never lived with a lover at least two years (+ 1 point), whose victims were unrelated (+1 point), and who has at least four first-time, non-violent, non-contact misdemeanor convictions of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism would be subject to LIFETIME registration under CASOMB’s tier registry proposal. Contrastingly, a violent rapist with one to two felony rape convictions would not be subject to lifetime registration under CASOMB’s tier registry proposal. This is outlandishly disproportionate!

          As cited by Tobin’s Tools, the Static-99/R treats all sex crimes equally. The Static-99/R scores a felony sex crime equal to a misdemeanor sex crime. A non-violent, non-contact sex offense is treated equal to a violent contact sex offense. Thus, one class disproportionately harmed by the Static-99/R scam would include the first-time, non-violent, non-contact offender. I argue that first-time, non-violent, non-contact offenders should never be subject to lifetime registration. Furthermore, the Static-99/R samples are NOT represented by first-time, non-violent, non-contact offenders; it consist mostly of violent and/or contact offenders. The Static-99/R lacks sample representativeness (in addition to uniform measurement of outcome, as Static-99/R accuracy has proved unstable [particularly at higher scores]).

          Nonetheless, we can argue the unfairness of the Static-99 scam all day (because it IS a scam). But there is one thing we can all agree with: it is disingenuous for CASOMB to sell the Static-99/R scam as science. The Static-99/R is more inaccurate than accurate in flagging High Risk Sex Offenders. For CASOMB to sell the Static-99/R as science only proves that they would much rather try to sell a scheme that tries to make the risk assessment process more scientific than it really is. In my opinion, CASOMB should admit there is NO EVIDENCE a registry prevents sex crimes. Research shows the sex offender registry as either having no effect on recidivism, or perversely causing recidivism.

          And it makes sense. The registry only serves to ostracize citizens who have already paid their sentence. It’s time to move on from past mistakes, people!

        • Tobin's Tools

          The fact the Static-99/R ‘developers’ — Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, Andrew J.R. Harris, David Thornton (in my opinion, all scam artist psychologists who bought their Ph.D’s from barely reputable schools) — claim their scam is applicable to non-violent, non-contact offenses is most unsettling.

          In the Coding Rules, the developers claim Static-99/R applicability to non-contact crimes as exhibitionism, theft of undergarments, and voyeurism. Yet the Static-99/R sample is not represented by such crimes! How can the developers be so overtly misleading? And how can the State of California and CASOMB buy such hogwash? Just because the Coding Rules claim applicability, it doesn’t make it true! Can CASOMB be so naïve? (As emphasized above, the Static-99/R lacks sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome.)

          Fact is the Static-99/R consist of the most incorrigible, often violent, offenders. The Static-99/R proves about 29 percent accuracy in flagging High Risk Sex Offenders at best (according to CASOMB — whose credibility I start to doubt). Thus, for every correctly flagged recidivist, two people are incorrectly flagged. The incorrectly flagged people suffer greater — unfair — scrutiny. Furthermore, what effect does labeling a person ‘High Risk’ have on the person’s psyche?

          Not to mention: the 29 percent accuracy does not account for type of sex offense recidivism. Exhibitionism is not equal to rape. Exhibitionism is not equal to child molestation. Again, a non-violent crime differs from crimes of violence.

          Scam artist psychologists Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, Andrew J.R. Harris, and David Thornton may try to sell their scheme as scientific. But history will prove the Static-99/R as a terrible instrument that has negatively impacted many lives (in form of excessive supervision, improper triage placement, and its use in indefinite detention determination).

          In sum, the Static-99/R has only served to make the risk assessment process seem more scientific than it really is. All at the expense of oppression. The Static-99 developers ought to be ashamed of themselves!

          Finally, the ten “Risk Factors” of the Static-99/R cannot predict human behavior. Correlation does not imply causation.

        • Tobin's Tools

          “Fact is the Static-99/R consist of the most incorrigible, often violent, offenders.”

          To clarify, the Static-99/R SAMPLE consist of the most incorrigible, often violent, offenders. How is it fair when the Static-99/R is applied to corrigible, non-violent, offenders?

          When the Static-99/R frauds (Phenix, Hanson, Harris, and Thornton) claim the sample is applicable to even non-violent crimes, they are simply misleading. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Again, the Static-99/R lacks sample representativeness — as well as uniform measurement of outcome. Furthermore, the inherent flaw to the Static-99 scam is in its name: “Static.” The Static-99 assumes people do not change. One’s Static-99/R never changes. And most importantly, the Static-99/R score does not take treatment into account. Thus, scam artists Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, Andrew J.R. Harris, and David Thornton are essentially saying therapy is a worthless endeavor.

          Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, Andrew J.R. Harris, and David Thornton are a shame to the field of Psychology.

        • Mike D.

          So according to Steve, an exhibitionist or underwear thief are less likely to conform to society? Curious as to the evidence you base your claims on. Also, steve’s comment assumes truth to the Static-99 Coding Rules. The Static-99 and the Revised actuarial, along with its “Coding Rules,” are based on junk statistics. We can all agree that a tiered registry on the Static-99 and Static-99/R scam is illogical. No test can predict human behavior. And the Static-99 scam has proved more inaccurate than anything else.

  23. Tobin's Tools

    To add: “Static-99 scores do not predict the severity of potential future offenses, however. Rapes involving extreme violence and the abuse of young children are lumped together with crimes like voyeurism and indecent exposure.” Peter Aldhous, “These 10 Questions Can Mean Life Behind Bars,” BuzzFeed News, Apr. 22, 2015. This is what a tiered registry fails to consider!

  24. concerned registrant

    I have always been concerned about the Tiered Registry. my offense 32 years ago involved a child. I did my time, did probation, and have not reoffended. So when I hear concepts among RSOs that I, and others who have committed this category should be heavily punished as the real bad guys, while they who committed lesser offenses should be let off the registry, it makes be concerned. All RSOs are currently the pariah, and you suggest that the right thing to do is make “me” the pariah. If you were in my shoes, would you want to be forever labelled the worst-of-the-worst?
    The counter to my concern that I have heard is: We need to start with the tiered registry to help those with lesser offenses, and eventually we can work on getting relief for those with major offenses who have not re-offended. That sounds good. I certainly don’t see value in everyone suffering as we are; I don’t want any of us to suffer lifetime restrictions. But, knowing human nature, knowing that people always want someone “worse” to compare themselves to so that they can feel better about themselves; knowing that this is the product of our sinful nature, as the Bible states, “Those who compare themselves by themselves are unwise”, I expect that the tiered registry would specifically target me, and the RSOs who are not of my category would suddenly go silent. If that be the case, registrants with low-level offenses who get relief might take their trophies and go home, or worse yet, pick up their pitchfork and flaming torch and join the mob seeking to destroy Frankenstein’s monster.
    So please don’t get upset if I express my credulity about the tiered registry. Maybe it would be best for everyone, including me, but maybe it would be the worst thing that could happen to me, and you cannot assure me otherwise. Remember that my name here is “Concerned Registrant”.

    • Jake

      A tiered registry does nothing but divide and conquer — thus weaken — our anti-sex offender registry cause. CASOMB emphases segregation between so-called “High Risk Sex Offenders” (HRSO) and Non-High Risk Sex Offenders (Non-HRSO). This delineation is without good reason — as it’s based on the Static 99 scam. Further, no evidence exist proving the sex offender registry preventing recidivism. I say NO to a tiered registry. A tiered registry aims to divide our cause. NO ONE should be subject to registration after they have paid with incarceration (especially a LIFETIME registration period). We have paid our time and dues to society!! “Dr.” Tom Tobin: get real.

    • j

      The registry is unconstitutional for all regardless of the offense even if the offense involved a minor, and there is no imminent or potential threat. It is punishment and societal banishment many years after the fact and with no statistical basis other than the politics of fear.

      To save many at the cost of a few is what it essentially amounts to. All or nothing at all…

  25. CA

    Why can’t we challenge the registry, in the state supreme court? Im sure they would agree that the registry is useless based on all the data provided by CASOMB. In the report provided by CASOMB, they stated that it cost the state of California almost $25,000,000 every year to keep it up and running, and in the report, they also stated that it is not effective.

    • mk

      too bad that for the cost, they cant even get it accurate, or complete. Waste of money, time.

    • Craig

      I have always wondered the same thing, we fight the restrictions that are placed on us each year after the fact but never seem to address the root of the problem which is the registry it self. Especially for the 100s of thousands that have paid their debt to society. It is really hard to believe that any sane person cannot see this as never ending punishment.

      • CA

        Craig, Why can’t we propose this to the ca supreme court, maybe they will here it and find it unconstitutional.

        I wonder if Janice is working on doing that??? WE MUST DO THIS!!!!!!!!

        • Craig

          CA, I wish we could do this, I definitely would be willing to donate $1000s if others would to get something like this going but on a federal level. IMO Federal level is what will work, it seems if it is tried on state level the FEDs would come back with some new law and right back on we would be. I might be wrong, I will leave it to the ones that would know.

    • Ostracized Witch

      JANICE, how/when can we finally tier the Registry?

  26. michael

    I have a dismissed conviction per 1203.4 for a misd. Sex charge I currently reside in Oklahoma.(starky vs.OK) the supreme court has ruled the 3 tier post ex facto so thousands are getting off the registry. Which was originally 10 years for starky. He had been register ring since 1998. the supreme court also agreed the registry was punitive and in essence amounted to lifetime probation yet they say in conclusion the benefits outweigh the costs in essence.

  27. michael

    These ordinances have nothing to do with sex offences its about pushing a population of people to the point where its impossible to live without breaking some rule have they built the concentration camps yet?

  28. CA

    OK, in the “Bill Analysis” it says this= Bill Summary. This bill allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances, rules or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to the ability of people who are required to register as sex offenders to reside or be present at certain locations within the city or county. The bill also specifies that a local agency is not preempted by state law from doing so.

    SO THINK IT SAYS, THAT THEY CAN MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THEN STATE LAW, BUT THEY CANNOT VIOLATE STATE LAW, AND STATE LAW CANNOT PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE!

    BUT IF THE STATE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO PARTICULAR REGISTERED CITIZENS, LIKE THOSE CONVICTED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF JESSICAS LAW, THEN IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE REGISTERED CITIZENS.

    I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES AND COMMENTS, SO WE CAN ALL BETTER UNDERSTAND THE TRUE DEFINITION OF THIS BILL.

    • Paul

      You are speaking of ex post facto laws which, largely, do not apply to registrants as the Supreme Court, in Doe v. Alaska, determined that the registry is not punitive because it is not criminal; it is civil in nature. Because it is considered a civil regulatory scheme, ex post facto does not apply.

      • CA

        Paul, this bill is part of Prop 83, therefore not retroactive, once again, when prop 83 was created, it was never intended to be retroactive. Therefore only registered citizens convicted after Prop 83 passed would be affected. and how is this civil in nature, when there is a punishment included for violating the ordinance?
        there would be only a fine.
        The bills goal is to reactivate the ordinance laws, which were never retroactive.

        • New Person

          Hmmm…

          Just my basic understanding of criminal and civil are that the consequences differ.

          Criminal consequences can get you sent to jail or prison.

          Civil consequences are fines.

          Yet, if a registrant doesn’t register, then the consequence is a felony and get sent to jail. Well, that isn’t a civil consequence.

          That’s where registration crosses the Constitutional line, imo.

          Anyhow, a 290 check came about past 10:30 pm. Sure feels like perpetual probation b/c they can come at any time. I’ve been off probation for a couple of years now, but yeah… i’m stigmatized. it won’t stop b/c it’s lifetime.

      • Timmr

        By definition, a registry is only a list of names, and as only such, yes, can not be in and of itself punitive. These ordinances go way beyond that and beyond what the registry was in 2003 Alaska. How far can later courts stretch that decision to apply to new restrictions before it breaks and is meaningless? A reasonable person would already say it has gone too far. We shall see what the sophists on our courts come up with next.

  29. CA

    Paul, do the Justices that can block these bills, have to worry about being reelected?
    If not then we do not have to worry about a election year, does that make sense? They do not have to worry about re election, and can rule against these unconstitional bills.

    • Timmr

      Not being elected does not make judges impartial. Many still want to look like the good guy in the public eye and bring prejudices and partisan ideologies into the room. They are human.

  30. Cool CA RC

    I just looked at the Committee Members on the PS staff.
    It seems like those are NEW members.
    Are there any of those there last year?
    http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

  31. Cool CA RC

    I send email to all PS staff.
    thank you

  32. Leo

    RSOL readers and supporters… enough is enough, right? – please unite w/o delay and hold VERY strong!

    Sharing the info. to follow as a FYI… plz. consider doing something similar… TIME SENSITIVE! Any written opposition must be in their office by 1/7/16 at 4 p.m.! Contact them directly for an email address to send WRITTEN opposition for consideration by the deadline… I just did it and got a reply (from a human) that my email was received! Or better yet, show on 1/12 and SPEAK civilly, but firmly for the ~100,000 tax paying and currently law-abiding citizens potentially adversely affected! Thank you. 🙂

    Assembly Public Safety Committee
    1020 N Street (LOB), Room 111
    Sacramento, California 95814
    916.319.3744 phone
    916.319.3745 fax

    AND/OR SHOW UP 1/12!

    Committee Hearings
    Tuesday, January 12, 2016
    Public Safety

    QUIRK, Chair
    9 a.m. – State Capitol, Room 126
    Committees: Public Safety
    Hide Details
    HEARD IN SIGN-IN ORDER
    Summary:A.B.No. 201 Registered sex offenders: local ordinances.

    **********************************************************************************

    Hello Committee on Public Safety Hearing Staff…

    Please read in full if at all possible.

    As one actually ‘living the life’ and potentially and directly adversely affected by further restrictive, and consequentially punitive (in my opinion) PC290 related legislation, I am wanting to convey strong opposition to AB201 and respectfully request not passing this (or any other similar) bill… please…

    Although society’s ongoing unhealthy level of ‘hysteria’ on anything related to PC290 clearly continues (to include prejudging and putting all such offenders in the ‘same boat’ w/o knowing the facts), please consider that such proposed legislation only perpetuates bringing out further ‘raw emotion’ on the topic rather than moving to facilitate and find a true, humane, safe, long-term, and equitable balance and resolution to the understandable related concerns and corresponding challenges surrounding the topic.

    [To this end, I assert that a long overdue reforming the California 1947 Sex Registry process – to include the implementation of a ‘tiered registration system’ – is desperately needed, should be the current focus, and would be going in the right direction. In my case for example, I am not a recidivism statistic – 25 years later – yet I remain ‘on the dreaded, ‘scarlet letter’, and marginalizing public list’ (for life) while concurrently trying to make a living in the same community as many of you – as a law-abiding, hard working, tax paying, voting citizen and neighbor. FYI – as I am confident many in the same situation would concur, “life-time registration” meant to me at the time – 25 yrs. ago as was told to me – that this would ONLY be with official law enforcement agencies (and I am still fine/agree with this today as there is no interest to re-offend)… However, this registration requirement was definitely not indicated or understood to be for the entire community or online world-wide access and definitely not knowing that the current 100,000 registrants in CA would have to endure continual and frequent ‘adverse change’ to this ‘requirement’ through new and ongoing retroactive legislation (such as the proposed AB201)].

    Your awareness of the adverse and life-changing ramifications of such legislation; consideration of this genuine written opposition; and supporting a ‘no vote’ on AB201 would be sincerely appreciated.

    Please see further opposition communication sent to both the State Assembly and Senate.

    Thank you for your time and support of opposition if at all possible please.

    —– Forwarded Message —–
    Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 2:28 AM
    Subject: 1/12/16 – AB201 – Further Restrict 290 Registrants

    State Assembly (District 9)
    Assembly Member Jim Cooper-DEM
    State Senate (District 6)
    Senator Richard Pan-DEM

    NOTE: Find your reps here:
    http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff

    Regarding the scheduled Committee on Public Safety
    Hearing on 1/12/16 & AB201 – please – for numerous personal & communal reasons… it is respectfully requested, & I implore you, to vote NO on this & any other current or future similar proposed legislation. In short, please consider that doing the right/honorable/humane thing is often not the easiest or most popular thing (especially serving in an elected political office), however, I assert that this legislation is one such life-changing occasion that one needs to remain steadfast in opposing such restrictive & further ostracizing legislation directed toward only one ‘class’ of offenders put in the ‘same boat’. Prior offenders or not, we are all human beings, neighbors, & community members first… before we should be swayed by politics or any ‘hype’. I too have a job, pay taxes, partake in community activities, volunteer, remain law-abiding (25 years later), & vote in elections. None of us can change poor/immature/hurtful choices from so long ago, however, those affected can choose to not have any further victims & strive to be the best law-abiding citizens that we can be. Reasonably, however, we need the chance, laws, support, & resources to be able to do this. Further restrictive, punitive, & marginalizing legislation only significantly adds to one’s already challenging ‘scarlet lettered’ existence in our community. At this rate, with the ongoing ‘societal hysteria’ on the topic in general, & with such proposed legislation, those affected will potentially not even be able to walk pets, bicycle, run, eat, etc. in public for fear of passing a park or school or other ‘forbidden area’ under a local agency’s jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration & doing the right thing… voting NO & opposing AB201 (& HR515).
    I remain available by email to share my personal story – not as an excuse, but as an explanation to better understand that we are not all undeserving of a second chance & fair treatment & less ‘Big Brother’…

  33. LS

    Mailed all my letters and sent all my e-mails today. Thank you Janice, for all you do!!!

  34. Harry

    What is the address and time of the AB201 hearing? I will not promise any thing, I may come, if the traveling weather is reasonable.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Below is information regarding Public Safety Committee hearing. The bill we oppose, AB 201, is the FIRST bill to be considered. Therefore, please arrive no later than 8:30 a.m. We will be sitting together near the front if possible.

      Tuesday, January 12, 2016

      Public Safety [Edit]

      QUIRK, Chair
      9 a.m. – State Capitol, Room 126

  35. JM

    Sent emails to all of them. Praying for sanity.

  36. David Kennerly

    I have written the following to my District 17 Representative, David Chiu. However, when I attempted to send it to the Committee members, starting with Bill Quirk (great name), it would not let me send as a form submission. To clarify, is it that we should email everyone on the Committee? If so, do we have email addresses not dependent on their damned submission system? Is there anyone else we should send these to? Thanks!

    I urge you to oppose bill AB 201.

    It is ineffective, as now demonstrated through a number of studies (see California’s own CASOMB [California Sex Offender Management Board] recommendations which categorically repudiates the effectiveness or utility of either residency or presence restrictions) and violates both California and U.S. Constitutions.

    Presence restrictions do not increase public safety but do violate principles of due process, the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes ex post facto punishment under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

    Registered sex offenders on parole commit a subsequent sex offense at a rate of less than 1 percent according to CA Dept. of Corrections.

    Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches.

    Implementing a system of internal banishment without due process is contrary to the principles of our democracy and our state.

    State appellate courts have ruled that presence restrictions adopted by cities and counties are preempted by state law which provide adequate protections (see: Court of Appeal – January 2014 and CA Supreme Court – April 2014).

    Presence restrictions violate fundamental precepts of fairness and citizenship by denying Registrants access to public resources to which they are entitled and for which they have paid through their tax monies.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Unfortunately, E-mails are restricted to constituents. Therefore, please send them by FAX at this late date.

  37. PR

    Another round of phone calls just made…………Let’s do this! Keep calling.

  38. mike r

    You can email each of the members simply by using their street, city and zip in the fields in place of your own

  39. David Kennerly

    HERE ARE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS FOR EACH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBER:

    The web-based email system doesn’t work if you are not in a Representative’s district. So I called and got the pertinent email addresses which, in several instances, are for staffers rather than the representatives.

    If you email martin.zindiola@asm.ca.gov who is the staffer in charge of the Public Safety Committee (and not attached to a particular Representative) then your email will be entered as a matter of public record attached to the bill.

    Bill Quirk, Chairman, public safety committee
    Capitol Office:
    Tel: (916) 319-2020
    Fax: (916) 319-2120
    if sending to his email address for the committee, it becomes a matter of public record:
    martin.zindiola@asm.ca.gov

    Melissa Melendez
    CAPITOL OFFICE
    (916) 319-2067
    (916) 319-2167 fax
    The staffer WOULD NOT give me her email address!

    Reggie Jones Sawyer
    Capitol Office:
    Tel: (916) 319-2059
    Fax: (916) 319-2159
    stephanie.burri@asm.ca.gov

    Tom Lackey
    CAPITOL OFFICE
    PO Box 942849
    Sacramento, CA 94249-0036
    Phone: 916-319-2036
    Fax: 916-319-2136
    ANTOINE.HAGE@ASM.CA.GOV

    Patty Lopez
    Capitol Office:
    Tel: (916) 319-2039
    Fax: (916) 319-2139
    christopher.sanchez@asm.ca.gov
    also send to:
    assemblymember.lopez@assembly.ca.gov
    as well as cc: (so he may be sure to get it [a good staffer!]
    william.ulmer@asm.ca.gov

    Evan Low
    Capitol Office:
    State Capitol
    Tel: (916) 319-2028
    Fax: (916) 319-2128
    assemblymember.low@assembly.ca.gov

    Miguel Santiago
    Capitol Office:
    Tel: (916) 319-2053
    Fax: (916) 319-2153
    brandon.gaytan@asm.ca.gov

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you for providing this information! It will allow “late” letters to be delivered before the hearing next Tuesday.

  40. David Kennerly

    CORRECTION: One of the email addresses sent in previous post, under Bill Quick, is incorrect. It should read:

    martin.vindiola@asm.ca.gov

    • jo

      Thank you! Just sent him a letter not as a registrant but as a local business owner and home owner

      • John

        Good! They need to know registered citizens are and can be productive members of society and are more than the label they give us. Student, taxpayer, homeowner, business owner, spouse, parent, big/little sibling, grandparent, significant other, productive member of society.

  41. NPS

    Made all my phone calls yesterday. Good luck to everyone who will be speaking up in Sacramento. Wish I could be there, but I am home with the flu. I will be watching the hearings from home.

  42. steve

    The Bill FAILS! Great work by all!

  43. Janice Bellucci

    Yes. We stopped AB 201! The Public Safety committee did not pass the bill and it is dead!

    • ValueGirl

      Woo Hoo!!!! Awesome! Congrats for your hard work and to all the people it is going to help! You and all involved ROCK!!!

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.