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)

California

Tiered Registry #1 Recommendation of CA Sex Offender Management Board

The California Sex Offender Management (CA SOMB) published today its Year End Report for 2015. The #1 recommendation in that report is creation of a tiered registry. The other recommendations are to limit the use of residency restrictions, continue to fund sex offender risk assessments, bridge gaps in what is known about registrants, encourage collaboration between victim advocates and sex offender management professionals and continue use of polygraphs.

“We are encouraged to see that CA SOMB continues to support a tiered registry,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “Support from the state legislature, however, will be required to make such a registry a reality.”

According to the Year End Report, CA SOMB recommends a three-tiered registry that would allow some registered citizens to be automatically removed from the registry after 10 or 20 years provided that they have not re-offended. Those who would be removed after 10 years include those convicted of a low level offense and are assessed to be a low risk to re-offend. Those who would be removed after 20 years include those assessed to have a moderate risk to re-offend. Individuals who have committee specified crimes, multiple crimes or assessed to be at a high risk to re-offend would continue to register for a lifetime.

“Tiering would achieve considerable fiscal savings by discontinuing the monitoring of those thousands of registrants who pose a negligible threat to community safety after 10 or 20 years,” according to the CA SOMB report (page 3). The report also notes that California is 1 of only 4 states in the nation that requires lifetime registration for all sex offenders.

According to the Year End Report, there were 74,018 registrants in the community in December 2015. In addition, there were 22,417 in custody and an additional 8,208 on community supervision.

Year End Report – 2015

 

Join the discussion

  1. Nicholas Maietta

    Would this be retroactively applied?

    After all, they like to retroactively apply news laws to people.

    I’d be off the registry in 3-4 years if this happened. My case was more than 16 years ago.

    • Joe

      How can you be sure?

      This highest level requires lifetime registration for individuals who have committed specified crimes, multiple crimes or who have been assessed to be at high risk of committing a new sex crime.

      Let’s see the list. The devil is in the details…

      • steve

        Joe here is what the proposed in the tiering background that they mention.

        An Overview of the revised system proposed by CASOMB is provided in the Table below

        Lifetime
        Sexually Violent Predators; kidnappers; offenders with repeat violent sex offenses; high-risk** sex offenders

        Two
        20 years
        “Serious” or “Violent” * felony sex offenders who are not high-risk* sex offenders

        One
        10 years
        Non “Serious” and non “Violent” sex offenders; all misdemeanor sex offenders

        * These are felony offenses described as serious or violent in PC 667.5 and 1192.7, plus 269 and 288.7.
        ** High risk is defined as scoring 6 or above on the Static-99 or Static-99R.
        *** Petition for removal from Megan’s Law public web site is permitted if the individual has not been convicted of a new sex offense or a new “Serious” felony or a new “Violent” felony offense after 10 years. The offender must continue to register for 20 years.
        **** There may be certain very limited exceptions for youthful offenders.

        • Matt

          Curious: 10 or 20 years from when? Time of offense? Conviction? Release? End of supervision? Any thoughts?

        • jon

          from conviction date

    • Janice Bellucci

      According to prior statements made by the CA SOMB, the bill would be applied retroactively.

    • jo

      Yes, but don’t hold your breathe. There is not a single politician who is going to write that legislation.

      • Friend of RSOL

        I think we had Tom Ammiano behind the legislation before. Is there anyone else like him in office?

        • G4Change

          Would Mark Leno introduce such a bill as Tom Ammiano had in the past which codifies what the CASOMB is recommending? Doesn’t he seem to vote sensibly in these matters?

        • NPS

          Mark Leno was already asked when the proposed bill was already written, but he wouldn’t even touch it. Completely hypocritical when he goes on the record at these hearings saying how much we need to listen to CASOMB and develop a tiered registry, yet he wasn’t willing to attach his name to the bill.

        • Harry

          A statewide ballot measure could be an option. With the right wording and information, the public may vote for it. If, the public voted this in, the chickens in the legislature may lose some feathers.

        • Frank

          The public has been so brainwashed that they are being fully protected by all of the previous legislation…I can’t see them voting for it.

      • PR

        Sure there is Sharon Runner…ha ha ha

        • Harry

          Runner might, if Chris Kelly paid her. That would be a jaw dropper.

      • David Kennerly

        Tom Ammiano did write such legislation, as his swansong before retiring from the State House, but it went nowhere.

      • Friend of RSOL

        OK, given that politicians are concerned about their careers, how can we work with that? We’ve got to find a way to make positive changes a lower risk for them, at least the ones who are fairly secure in their districts.

        Maybe emphasize the cost factor (always a winner, especially with Repubs), focusing on fewer offenders, distinguishing between SOs and serial pedophiles (this one is harder for people – too much complex thought required, apparently) – *something* that could translate well and turn the tide!

        Of course, the Sharon Runners of the world won’t care, but maybe there are some rational legislators who could support this if the rhetoric were toned down and they could defend themselves to their constituents by focusing on cost and safety – over and over again. The talking points need constant repeating.

        This might be a pipe dream, but it seems like we need to work on the PR and the discourse. Wish I had some ideas about how to do this in a practical, quick, and effective way.

        • Friend of RSOL

          Oh, and the fact that California is one of only four states that has a universal, lifetime registry. Maybe if people emphasize that they are not pioneering here – they are just coming into line with other states.

          I noticed that the National RSOL has a Communications team – seems like we need one in California as well, or maybe it exists already? Issue press releases, write editorials, write comments on articles, lobby legislators – perhaps friends and relatives who are not on the registry, since people on the registry may not have Internet access or are required to keep a very low profile.

        • Neil B Fisher

          The number of offenders in California is now at the Goldilocxs number of 100,000 but it is known to the majority of persons in this field of study that only 5 percent are of the most dangerous offenders and the other 95 percent are of the 10 year low threat and the 20 year serious there is no way no how to properly watch and monitor 100,000 persons and the cost is in the millions . Thoes in authority who are concerned about being made to APPEAR to be weak on crime and safety relating to Sex crime and it’s offenders ARE infact being weak on crime and safety on Sex crime and it’s offenders because the putting all in one basket so to speak is what causes the number to be 100,000 and that makes it impossible to properly watch and monitor so many persons and causing the yearly cost to be IN the millions . The Tier System will weed out all thoes 95 percent low And moderately risk offenders and who is really the only ones left on the registration list ? Thoes who have recently been convicted of a Sex crime (we don’t know yet if they are truly dangerous or not)and all the high risk dangerous offenders being the serial rapists and serial pedophile all under the name of “PREDATOR ” mostly known and termed “the Sexual violent predator”

          Also thoes in this field now know that the majority of information used and caused for the registry being the way it is came mostly from propaganda , misinformation. Wrong information , false facts and folklore example would be : ” Stranger Danger” when the true fact is the major majority victims knew the offender infact some 98 percent was and is a family member step dad , brother , uncle,. mom, step brother etc. Not some stranger jumping out from the bushes and the list of the true facts goes on and on . All this is what need to be addressed and then vote or sign into law the best laws rules and regulations relying to Sex registration and the. Tier System puts a fix to the broken registration laws in California and what about the 47 other states who use the Tier System what are thoes in authority there saying? There saying it works . I hope this helps.
          Neil B Fisher

    • Jason

      It won’t be applied at all because this is simply a recommendation from professionals. Politicians won’t vote for this.

    • Timmmy

      And you did not sue them for violation of the due process clause and 13ht Amendment?

  2. Q

    It is indeed encouraging that CA SOMB is supporting a tiered registry. It’s the only just and humane thing for the state to do. Unfortunately I believe most in the state that have the power to make this a reality are more concerned with their careers that they are with humanity and justice, let alone honesty and truth. I am surprised the continued use of lie detectors is recommended; they have been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be junk science and completely useless in determining if someone is or is not being honest.

    • Timmr

      That is too bad about the lie detector tests. It has been shown that with the right suggestions, people can remember things that did not exist. Look particularly at the legal example shown in this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_implantation . The work done by Elizabeth Loftus on this subject is highlighted in the PBS series, “The Brain”.
      Even if the person is being honest, he could be wrong.

      • Jason

        Polygraphs are pseudo-scientific bull ****.

        However, they DO work in sex offender management only because the offenders believe they do. The research shows that people on probation admit to more past crimes when subjected to the polygraph.

        The Fed sent a guy to prison for exposing the polygraph and teaching offenders how it worked. If it actually worked in a real sense, they would have to do that. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-crazy-story-of-an-ex-cop-who-ran-a-website-that-taught-people-how-to-cheat-polygraphs-2015-5

        • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

          The report reads & states the following.

          “Current law requires use of polygraph
          examinations and waiver of the Fifth
          Amendment privilege for purposes of
          Containment Model supervision and sex
          offender-specific treatment for registered
          individuals on probation and parole.
          (Penal Code, §§ 1203.067, subd. (b);
          3008, subd.(d).) This requirement could
          change after the California Supreme
          Court reviews the constitutionality of these laws in pending cases. The lead case is People
          v. Friday (S218288.) For now, the law is still in effect.”

          So my question is when will the Court make a Ruling?

  3. sadandmad

    Hold up now. I’m considered high risk, and a multiple offender because I had two minor girlfriends back back… lame

    • ByNeil B Fisher

      Yes sounds like you are in that gray area between serious and dangerous the thought being your track record of two girlfriends I can only guess both were 288 and was there any penetrating of any kind and the difference between your age the victims age. Just the touching is the 288 but then there is use of a forien object like a finger or going down on one or the other or both, sodomy and unlawful sexual intercourse all are separate statues was alcohol or drugs used or greatly suspected . It’s the charging of each and separate act making so many felonies then how many times being you put the so called vicitims as girlfriends many times can be easily applied .
      And where it happened the U S of A don’t help . Having younger girlfriends in the back lands of TJ Mexico goes back a long time and is well… custom for example then the offender comes to America and younger girlfriends is not tolerated but to the offender it is normal but in America it is considered to be Not natural like having sex with an animal thats also not natural .
      It should be brought to the attention that according to both the American Medical Association and the American psychiatric Association to be termed pedophilia the victims age are of the single digits 9,8,7 etc. Ten and above up to 18 is termed child so a person who is having a relationship with let’s say a 10 or 12 or 13 year old is not pedophilia its child sexual abuse. In California 14 and 15 year old victims are even under separate statues . In some states its not illegal if the persons is 16 but in California its 18 to have legal sex . In California there is both a high anxiety on Sex and death. Look at the commerical in America then look at the commerical in other countries as well as the age of consent. One must put in mind that there is a law of the age to be able to give lawful concent even if he or she says yes if that are under the age of concent its the same as if they said no. It’s that simple. And so often the adult is not a some predator just did not use good common sense and finds themselves in big trouble.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        Note that he said “back back.” If it’s truly been a long time (i.e. perhaps at least decade) — and the person (“sadandmad”) has been offense-free in the community since — then I doubt that he falls into the “…gray area between serious and dangerous…” as you claim.

        This is what this tiered registry FAILS to recognize when it places the OP into Tier 3.

  4. David H

    finally a solution I think is fair to those subjected to these laws; and public safety!! i support this on ever level–takes the wind out of Runner’s runners sail!!

    i have a question for one of the attorney’s please; it;s only since this HR 515 caught me attention that I learned of this support group and resource. in the process, i can see since I last looked about 2001 California appears to have really revamped section 288. Given today’s statutes there is a subsection that correctly defines my situation, as opposed to the one I have and it’s punishment is less and would make my offense immediately eligible for rehabilitation. Is it possible to go back to court to get re-sentenced under a different law and the other expunged or something to that effect–gone with the old in with the new!! 288(a) to 288.2

  5. KangaroOCourt

    Luther Jones Jr. Wouldn’t be eligible to freedom from registry under this tier proposal. Just recently in the news on his serving 27 years in prison for a wrongful conviction.
    How bout a tier proposal that anyone without a new ‘sex’ conviction in ten years can be automatically be off registry…Period.

    • Timmr

      Yeah, since report says all are at the same risk for offense after 17 years, why not at least that length maximum?

  6. wonderin

    It would be nice to see Frank Lindsay finally able to get off the registry. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

  7. Craig

    A tiered registry would be a good start, seems like the time line could be reduced for people that have no other charges, good for California. I hope you all get it, at least it will give some a end.

    • Timmr

      It would be progress if the legislators followed the CASOMB recommendations when it reduced the burden of registrants. They listened when it meant more punishment, re: “one strike and you’re out” sentencing.

  8. Registered Citizen

    I am “high risk” per the Static 99/R scam. Yet I was required to register under a crime not specified in Section 290 — as I was required to register per 290.006. Under a tiered registry, a non-violent, non-contact, first-time offender — whose crime is NOT specified as one of the 40+ sex crimes under 290 — may be required to register for life if the Static 99/R scam’s so-called 10 “Risk Factors” score a person unfavorably. Scientific studies prove the Static 99/R as not accurate. Fact is no actuarial can predict the future or free will of a person. A tiered registry aims to divide and conquer our cause. If CASOMB were to study registration, they will find Megan’s Law not preventing crime — as empirical evidence show Megan’s Law perversely creating crime. This would reflect badly on CASOMB — as its membership consists of prosecutors (i.e. Janet Neeley, Nancy O’Malley), business interests (Tom Tobin) and police: most of whom have used the registration label to advance their corrupt self-interests. Unfair!

    • Craig

      Registered Citizen , you said A tiered registry aims to divide and conquer our cause.

      Why? How? Is it because some will be relived of this burden that is placed on them, that some might actually be able to move on with their life. I would see this as a good thing. That some can finally move on while the others keep up the fight. There is no need for everyone to go down with a sinking ship, we will never be able to have laws removed or written that will please everyone or make it fair for everyone, such is life. We should be happy if some or many make it off this damn registry. I have said that when IML was passed we are all in this together, but I have always wanted a way off the registry for people whether it helps me or not. JMO

      • Rob

        I can see how a tiered registry would divide our cause. The fact Registered Citizen and I disagree with you on why a tiered registry is unfair is clear evidence — and one example — of how the tiered registry has already divided us. Listen, there is NO evidence EVEN a so-called “high risk” (HRSO) registered citizen who does not sexually reoffend — while free in the community — after 17 years will sexually reoffend; this is per the Static 99’s own scam artist “developers.” So what is the purpose for keeping lifetime registration — or registration greater than 17 years — for anyone at all?

        If CASOMB were not to be disingenuous, they would simply admit there is no evidence showing sex offender registration and Megan’s Law as having an empirical showing of preventive effect on sex crime recidivism. Rather, CASOMB would much rather introduce a “tiered” registry — with as much convolution as our tax code — to complicate matters and peddle the Static 99R scam. The Static 99R is a complete fraud — and it makes assessment only *seem* more scientific than the process really is. Fact is no actuarial (and certainly not the Static 99R) can predict something as complicated as human behavior! In fact, none of the 10 Static 99R oversimplified/dumbed down “Risk Factors” even take treatment and/or life lessons and/or EVEN CURRENT age into account. Your Static score remains the same. But reality is people mature and nothing in life is “static”.

        In sum, tiered registry is outlandishly ridiculous — and only serves as a diversionary tactic (I agree with the others) in not pushing CASOMB to be honest and admit Megan’s Law — and the premise of the registry — serves no other purpose than to odiously ostracize us for our PAST mistake.

        • Craig

          Rob, you make some very good points, A tired registry is certainly not perfect but this might be all the RCs have at this moment. The best answer would be to do away with the registry altogether but we both know that will not happen. Yes the Static 2002R is what they use here, I assume it is basically the same as the 99R, You also have to have the LSI-R and the PCL-R for your evaluation. I would have thought that in CA you would have had to have a complete eval before they rated each person. I know here anyone who has 2 or more charges is rated high risk, or had a younger victim. I will continue to support CARSOL and help in the fight anyway I can regardless if it ever helps me but as I have said before I would be happy to see people drop off the registry anyway they can.

        • Timmr

          “The best answer would be to do away with the registry altogether but we both know that will not happen.”
          Call me crazy or whatever, but I don’t think this is true. I think there is a better chance of pointing out the flaws of the registry, that it is punishment, that it is structured on faulty science (even under this tiered proposal), or no science at all, and make progress in the courts, than trying to get a California legislator to pick up this bill and be attacked by the Runners and their like and there with be run out of office. I am afraid the unconditional support of any registry legislation or questionable science may be used against us in any later efforts to fight in court or in the legislation halls. Anyway, I am not an expert on this, but I am really learning a lot more from people disagreeing, than people chiming the same tune.

        • Craig

          Timmr, It would be great if you were right, It is just after all these years I see very little movement on getting rid of it.

        • Timmr

          I said it would be easier to go through the courts now to get change than through the legislatures — not easy. The vast majority of people want more restrictions on offenders who commit sex crimes, not less. the population still thinks the judges overall are too lenient. Nonetheless, if this tiered registry goes through, I will swallow my words al dente.

        • New Person

          CASOMB has a PDF available on their recommendation against AB201. In their “Assumptions and Myths” section they wrote the following:


          ASSUMPTION 3. Most convicted sex offenders will reoffend. Therefore extremely robust controls
          and restrictions are needed to stop them. – – This assumption is not supported by the research.
          Measuring and accurately stating recidivism rates is very complex. However, all of the various
          published studies indicate that the overall rate is considerably lower than is commonly believed. The
          largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3
          percent for the entire sample of sex offenders based on an arrest during the 3-year follow-up period.
          As more time passes, the re-offense rate continues to drop.
          Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the
          world has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk
          assessment instruments (cf. http://www.SARATSO.org ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2
          percent.

          ASSUMPTION 4. Every sex offender will continue to be a significant risk to reoffend for the remainder
          of his or her life. – – The research provides ample evidence that this assumption is not true. The longer a
          sex offender remains offense-free in the community, the lower the risk that that individual will reoffend
          in the future. Because California continues to be one of the four states requiring universal lifetime
          registration, many, many thousands of California’s approximately 83,000 registered sex offenders
          living in the state’s communities have reached the point where, according to the risk assessment
          research, their risk of reoffending is negligible. Yet apparently they would all fall under the scope of
          this Bill and, with no scientifically defensible justification, would be subject to residence restrictions and
          exclusion zones.

          ASSUMPTION 5. Previously convicted sex offenders account for a substantial proportion of the new
          sex offenses committed. – – This assumption is false. The research has found that only about 5% of new
          sex offenses were committed by individuals previously convicted of a sex offense. Conversely, almost
          all new sex offenses are committed by individuals who have never been previously convicted of a sex
          offense. Efforts to prevent new sexual victimizations by focusing on PC 290 Registrants are
          misplaced and a waste of resources. Instead, increased attention and resources should be directed
          toward broader prevention strategies

          These three rebuttals of the assumptions make the case for NOT having a registry at all!

          The tiered structure would be another false assumption based upon these SCIENTIFIC facts that CASOMB is continually reiterating. CASOMB either stands by these three rebuttals or they do not – because those three rebuttals SCIENTIFCALLY support that registries are not working.

        • Mike A.

          Timmr, I agree completely that this issue is something that will be resolved with the Courts, not the legislature. It’s a complete turnoff that the legislature, along with ca somb, would continue to sell a “tiered” registry that is very flawed. The Static 99R is just the most ridiculous thing the state is trying to sell. I do not at all believe the Static 99R is accurate… because I feel it has labeled me inaccurately!!!

  9. steve

    So are they going to re-assess everyone? I never had a static 99. Next year would be my 20th.

    “Those who would be removed after 20 years include those assessed to have a moderate risk to re-offend”

  10. Tobin's Tools

    Labels are for soup cans. CASOMB tries to “tier” the registry as a diversion tactic from admitting no evidence supports efficacy of Megan’s Law and labeling a person “registered sex offender.” CASOMB peddles the Static-99/R fraud, when credible sources prove the Static-99/R as not accurate. Equally troubling: CASOMB supports continued polygraph use. Both the American Psychological Association — which has compared the lie detector to psychological torture — and the more conservative American Medical Association deem the polygraph as NOT scientific. The National Association of Scientists also consider the polygraph bogus. If CASOMB were the credible entity we are led to believe, why would CASOMB support continued use of the inaccurate Static-99 and polygraph schemes? Shyster Static-99 “developers” Harris, Phenix, Hanson, and Thornton — as well as the contract polygraph examiners — financially benefit. But it is at the cost of our fellow Registered Citizens, as well as a shame to true evidence-based science.

    • pgm111

      Please cite the source of the claim that polygraph tests are tantamount to torture. Thanks.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        In 2002, The National Academy of Sciences published one of the most comprehensive studies of polygraph accuracy, concluding that while the tests could “differentiate lying from telling the truth at rates well above CHANCE,” they aren’t accurate enough for security purposes.

        Here is the link, go & read it for your own satisfaction.
        http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10420

  11. Tobin's Tools

    To correct myself, it is the National Academy of Science (NAS) that considers the lie detector bogus (in addition to the APA and AMA). I find it troubling that government officials — who we are supposed to trust — would much rather sell fraudulant schemes like the Static-99 tests and polygraph exams. When CASOMB peddles pseudo-science, it is not only harmful to Registered Citizens… but the proliferation of the Static-99/R and polygraph is disingenuous to the public and public safety (i.e the Static 99/R and polygraph are inaccurate, thus providing a false sense of security). Static 99 “developers” Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton are not even statisticians; they earned their Ph.D’s from barely reputable colleges! Hardly the type of people one should trust building an actuarial — as the ~29 percent accuracy in flagging a so-called “High Risk Sex Offender” (HRSO) speaks for itself. Hope the Static 99 fraudsters are held accountable for the harm their “test” has done to people.

  12. USA

    Well, this is wonderful news! As I’ve mentioned before, we all need to remain vigilante and positive! You can’t win every fight. This is a Governmental Agency seeking to change the current laws. Great News! Stay positive

  13. KangaroOCourt

    This is soooooo in your face unConstitutional it should be called joseph stalin law.

  14. David

    It would be great if some courageous lawmaker/s would push this Tiered Registry forward in the name of saving valuable tax dollars and making communities safer. (We can dream, right?)

  15. USA

    Well stated Dave.

  16. ValueGirl

    Just curious, does anyone know what other three states that have a universal, lifetime registry?

  17. ValueGirl

    Nevermind. I just found it. They are Florida, South Carolina, Alabama (& California). I was reading on the DOJ’s site about STATIC-99; apparently, it can’t be used for a lot of cases. I’m a little confused. The report doesn’t recommend STATIC-99 (at least I didn’t see it). The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offense before they were arrested for their current nonsex-offense, if they have not committed a new serious or violent offense of any kind after release in the community for 10 years. Anyway, the point is…I guess it can’t always be used so where does that leave people who, say, were in possession of CP and that was the only offense they ever had – nothing 10 years before and nothing 10 year after??? Does that mean they will be S.O.L. if STATIC-99 was adopted?? Can someone make sense of this for me???

    • mch

      We know that the Static 99R is total vodoo science. To call it science or relate it to anything medical is an insult to medical professionals. The Static 99 is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there.

  18. Harry

    FYI: Here are some links Static99/R information. I do not know much this apply to CA.
    http://meganslaw.ca.gov/riskfaq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
    http://static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

  19. Tobin's Tools

    The Static 99/R is pseudo-science. Allen Frances, MD — a REAL doctor (unlike the Tom Tobin and Karl Hanson types) — held THE MOST respected position in Psychiatry/Psychology: Chairperson of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (AKA “The Bible of Psychology”). Frances is also Professor Emeritus of Duke Medical School. Dr. Frances — along with two professors from USC and a researcher — wrote “Alice In Actuarial-Land: Through the Looking Glass of Changing Static-99 Norms,” which was published in the J. Am. Acad. Psy. L. The professors claim the Static 99R lacks “sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome.” The authors conclude that the Static 99R “violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine.” This is common sense considering ALL types of sex crimes are lumped together in a so-called statistical model. Rape is not equal to a non contact offenses; but the Static treats non-contact even worse. (I think the “99” in Static 99R stands for 99 percent bull****!)

    • Timmr

      I might be wrong, but this is the first time in this country a broad group has their freedoms curtailed due to a few statistical crime studies. Why don’t all who have been convicted of a crime have their risk assessed? Maybe, in the future they will. Everyone will be assessed a risk based on some grouping they will be put into based on one common trait. Sounds like another name for racism, although not based on skin color, but another equally nebulous trait, like what type of crime you were convicted of.

      • David H

        This is different. Honestly, and it’s shown throughout history, I believe the government is seeing how far they can let a situation go in order to see how they could control or possibly eradicate a certain class of people– what if they learn, for example, that they make people fear Muslims to the extent they can do to them that which they are doing to us.

        We are chipping away at some of this stuff,but only because family members, white citizens that are not on the registry coming out to speak out about how their lives are being impacted; oh and then there are the juveniles–everyone’s child being crucified; and dont forget they’re beginning to see the consequences of these laws on state budgets! these are largely the only reasons we are gaining ground. Otherwise, we’re hated and despised people would just as soon see us executed than to hear about our injustices! it’s silly to think otherwise!

  20. Laurence T.

    WHY I THINK THE STATIC-99R IS FRAUD: “‘It was very much about the triage of prison populations,’ Thornton said. ‘It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.'” Peter Aldhous, “These 10 Questions Can Mean Life Behind Bars,” BuzzFeed News, Apr. 22, 2015. But wait: first-degree fraudsters Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton have sold the Static-99 as a tool for forensic assessment! The STATIC-99R Coding Rules say nothing with regard to scam artist David Thornton’s comment (a bit dishonest… you don’t think?). California uses the STATIC-99R scam like its some type of miracle fortune teller. I am AGAINST tiered registry so long as it incorporates any type of STATIC-99R fraud. I too have unfairly been labeled a “High Risk Sex Offender” (HRSO) for peeping in dressing rooms ELEVEN YEARS AGO (2005). I was 28 then (first, and only time, offense). I learned! These fake psychologists should be held accountable for the pseudo science they play.

  21. Timm

    If you got off of this registry under this fictitious tiered system in California, would the federal government still put a label on your passport and send out notices to countries? Would you still have to registered if you visited the Everglades or Charleston for a certain amount of time? Does the registry, still a legal remedy, hang around like a sleeping dragon? I am not asking anyone to answer this, just things to think about.

    • Paul

      Being off the registry in one state, does not mean that you will not have to register in another. Depending on the state (all state laws are different), you might find yourself right back on the registry.

      The federal law, as written, will still trigger a notification to the destination country, regardless of you are still required to register. It appears, however, that the passport identifier goes away. So, either way, you’re still facing the possibility of being denied entry.

      • Craig

        Paul, so if you are not required to register any longer in your state, you have no final conviction, Case dismissed, only thing on your record will show that you were arrested and that is it, would a notice be sent out if you traveled out of the country? Thanks
        Craig

        • New Person

          The current Passport Identifier legislation can make anyone involved with a minor be forced to have a Passport Identifier. John Doe #3 in the lawsuit presented by Janice denotes that he no longer has to register and had his case dismissed, but still is forced to have a Passport Identifier.

          Outside of that, once you are off the registry, then no Passport Identifier. But I doubt other countries would update their data to remove you.

        • Craig

          Thank you.

        • Confused

          I don’t understand. What makes John Doe 3 a special case? It sounds like you are saying he gets an identifier and everyone else who gets off the registry doesn’t? Is that what you are saying?

        • New Person

          If you were not involved with a minor and are off the registry, then you are left off the Passport Identifier.

          Doe #3 is not on the registry, but since his case involved a minor, then he is still subject to the Passport Identifier as is the bill is written.

          Anyhow convicted involving a minor will always have the Passport Identifier, according to this legislation, regardless if he or she is no longer on the registry.

        • Tuna

          Section 8 of the bill covers the identifier. It defines who is covered “for the purposes of this section”. I’ve read it several times, and unless I’m missing something, it appears to say those who get the identifier must be A) an offender, AND B) required to register. Can someone clarify?

    • David H

      exacyly!

  22. USA

    Well, I personally feel that anyone who opposes a tiered system is either self centered/a repeat offender or never getting off the registry. This is serious business. Providing relief for thousands of individuals is a positive step! Furthermore, we now have a governmental agency who supports such a change. This is a positive step forward and not backward.

    • Anon

      Respectfully, I don’t agree with you. We could end up with a very weak tiered registration system, such as Nevada’s, in which just a handful of registrants ever get off the registry. This would be a victory? It is said that once we have any offramp in place, it will be easy to build more. But the truth is never that easy. Once politicians take the difficult step to establish a tiered system, they don’t want to deal with the issue again. Ever. So whatever system we settle for is what we are going to get. If we get the Nevada system or the Mississippi system, no one here will be happy. Some may say, “Well, it’s a start”, but it will really be a tremendous defeat for us.

      • Timmr

        I guess that is why we still have the lifetime system. Not willing to change it once it is there. It was put in place back in 1947 and the only thing that happens is more people get put on it. Kind of like the dilemma at Guantanamo. You imprison people some of whom were harmless, and then you are afraid to let them go, ’cause after they been through what you put them through, you are afraid to acknowledge you made a mistake. That population has been reduced, because many people cared about us making mistakes.
        Who will care about the mistakes being made with us?

      • David H

        it’s ridiculous to say a step in the right direction is: ” very weak tiered registration system, such as Nevada’s”

        we dont know that yet but personally and logically I dont see any other path out of this!! Bring it on!!!

  23. USA

    Timm, you make no sense. Go onto general comments. As noted, I believe you have every right to be upset. I get it. Although, don’t drag everyone else down because of your unhappiness. Nobody gets anywhere by being negative. There are thousands of minor offenders with misdemeanors that have long ago been expunged ect. Like myself, I plead to a summary probation offense. I’m no better than you, but some is better than none

    • rs

      This is a great topic that we need to unite on. I definitely understand that this tiered system (if we ever have one) will benefit some of us more than others. The fact is, we are all registered for life TODAY. The fact that some of us will be relieved by this system is amazing. Let’s not forget that removing some of us is a huge step forward and in no way is it worse than screwing all of us and our wives and our kids. I plead no contest to an ATTEMPTED 288(a) (basic internet sting for lewd acts with child under 14). I don’t even know if this proposed system would get me off in 10 years, 20 years or leave there for life. But I would never reject someone else’s relief just because it doesn’t benefit me. Our first step is to find a way to make this a reality instead of “what if” conversation. I know that its been up for debate a couple times and rejected. What do we need to do to get this on the table again?

      • David H

        getting “some” off doesn’t spell the end of it for all others–so dont fear it means there is hope given a rational foundation has been built that you should applaud

      • One Day at a Time

        rs, I’m in the same boat as you. I’m hoping that we would be classified in the 10 year category as there was no actual contact. If you have not done so yet, go and get your record expunged. That will help with employment opportunities.

        If I’m fortunate enough to be able to put this nightmare completely behind me, I will continue to stand with those who are not. Enough is enough already.

        • ValueGirl

          One Day at a Time, Can you expand your comment about getting your record expunged? What were the circumstances, etc.? Any idea where I can research to find out more about that? Wondering if my friend would qualify…

        • ms

          Not everyone, depends on lots of factors (penal code, prison vs no prison time, etc, can get their conviction expunged. I was able to get my conviction expunged. Check out http://www.recordgone.com They have a free eligibility test on their website. It’s who I used for my early termination of probation, reduction of my wobbler felony to a misdemeanor, and expungement.

      • New Person

        Some New England state has a tiered system. Guess what? They voted to extend the years of the lowest tier.

        If I did not know about this, then I’d be happy for a tiered system. The tiered system says it’s okay to have registries and it is not unconstitutional. Because it’s okay, then they can extend it any way they can. Well, the registries are unconstitutional as it is punishment. Neglecting to register is a felony. Neglecting to re-new a Shopping Membership has no consequence to a person or their life.

    • Timmr

      Well said, USA. But I am no repeat offender. Under this proposal, I would be off the registry in four years. I am not an SVP, and I have never had the Static 99, but I scored myself and it came out 1. So I am not afraid for myself, per se, and I have to admit it would be wonderful to just fall off this list. The whole point of my statement was to not drag other people down to save yourself and alienate others. I don’t want to get involved in deciding who is on and who is off the registry, thank you — especially if it is based on questionable science. You can’t just discount the negatives in this proposal by casting aspersions on those who bring them up. That is not the way to build support for anything.

  24. USA

    Well stared Timmr. I don’t think this system will drag anyone down. I would be off in either 1.5 years or fall off immediately (17 B Battery). Thank you for being cordial

  25. Cindy Z. Yee

    I am very disappointed after reading this. The CA SOMB thinks it’s fine to push the lie detector on people, as well as label through the STATIC-99/R? Where is evidence that proves the polygraph and STATIC-99/R as valid forms of science? As some of you note, both are not scientific; they are both unscientific! History will one day prove the STATIC-99/R an inaccurate fraudulant scam sold by a bunch of people pretending to be psychologists. It takes only basic logic to deduce many reasons proving the STATIC-99 — and its “Revised” version — as voodoo science. As for the lie detector: it’s psychological torture based on the faulty premise that fear response equals deception. How sad the CA SOMB would try and sell my husband and I a dumb “tiered” proposal. The government is so corrupt! Why are corrupt government officials, like those on the CA SOMB, not held accountable for fraudulant practices they impose on others? It’s clearly fraud!

  26. mike howard

    thank u supporters of RSOL .. its 1 thing to hv to register n a totally other when innocent of said allegation..
    btw, as I text this according to my research of 15 yrs and in my court record Im still waitng to be sentenced after 24 + yrs.. strange such legal perversion should prevail .. also Ive been married 2 x’s n am now raising 6 kids n divorced ( my own blood) but its odd to be a dad, totally free of parole 18 yrs and still in county jail.. thats where my county record stops.. so much for justice..btw the county reported that a new crime was committed in 1994, strange, I was in atascero then for a 2 wk eval that lasted 14 months.. according to a letter from atascero they only do evals for 2 wks.. but then they sent a letter to county jail saying,’ come get him or we wil let him go,’ unquote.. theres much to be ‘over-hauled’ including REAL JUSTICE..
    ty n hv a gd day..

  27. USA

    In conclusion, the bottom line is this. I fought the law and the law won! We can complain all we want, but the bottom line is that a tiered system spells freedom for thousands of individuals who have so long ago paid their debt to society! Don’t forget their families as well. So, instituting a tiered system that would allow you to fall off the registry after 10-20 years is GREAT News! Amazing. You can complain ect, but facts are facts.

    • 4sensiblePolicies

      I will concur with you USA. People comparing the CA SOMB tiered (leveled) registry proposal to Adam Walsh Act are missing a key difference:

      AWA puts the vast majority of RC’s into the worst ‘level 3’ category based on conviction, making it impossible for most to get off the registry. Only a small minority of the lowest level offenses make it to level 1, leaving most persons on the registry for 25 years to life. I believe something like 10-15 percent end up being level 1 and everyone else is pretty much out of luck.

      When looking at a past CA SOMB proposal, it was found that the inverse is true. When looking at actual risk, it is found that generally only 10 to 15 percent present a propensity to reoffend.

      If the registry has to stick around – which it will for quite some time – I think it would be preferable to see 85% having a path off of the registry than only 10 or 15% – or nobody for that matter.

      • New Person

        The re-offense rate is lower than 10%. The highest is 5%. The recent CASOMB research on parolees re-offense rate was under 1%.

        – That’s their scientific findings.-

        Whether a tiered system or not tiered, according to CASOMB scientific research, the registry will still be useless b/c only less than 1% re-offend.

        There should not be a registry at all because it is a form of punishment. Also, no other groups of convicts are levied these types of registries either. So the registries are unconstitutional.

        So while CASOMB is recommending a tiered system, their findings actually recommend to do away with the registries altogether. Less than 1% re-offense rate.

  28. Mike A.

    I do not at all agree with this tiered proposal. I am also considered a “high risk offender” according to the Static 99R; this is something I have always disagreed with. It was a first time offense, no contact, non violent, from 2008. I have lived a clean life since (I was 21 then)! In fact, I’m so “high risk,” I’m not even listed on Megan’s Law website. Yet the Static 99R rates me a 6 score, subject to lifetime registration under this ridiculous tiered regisry. The Static 99R is totally inaccurate/unfair!

    • Steve

      For those who never had any offense prior to their sex offense or nothing after this tiered registry and static 99 are in your favor. If you have had previous or post convictions the static 99 is saying, in a non compassionate way, you should have learned your lesson. Hopefully once a tiered registry is established under these parameters they’ll go back and re- asses people with multiple convictions and learn the truth that some are not a threat… For those poopooomg the static 99 right now it’s our only hope and a start. Be patient.
      Also, it doesn’t make sense that a single non contact offense gets you a six score. There has to be more to the story? Unless I’m missing something with the static 99 rules.

      • Mike A.

        Steve, the Static 99R actually scores me worse with a no contact offense than a contact offense (look at the coding rules, question seven, and see how the static treats no contact worse than contact for yourself — as no contact gets one point and contact gets zero points… which makes no sense at all). These is no “more” to my story: just your misunderstanding to how the Static 99R unfairly scores people. So perhaps you should look into the details behind the Static 99R fraud prior to making claims lacking merit.

        In the end, the Static 99 scores me 6 because of a first time, no contact offense without violence. It was a mistake I made many years ago. The fact this tiered registry scam treats me much worse than a child molester or rapist makes no sense at all.

        • ValueGirl

          So…the Static 99 says: It is not recommended for adolescents (less than 18 years at time of release), female offenders or offenders who have only been convicted of prostitution, pimping, public toileting (sex in public locations with consenting adults), or possession of indecent materials.
          What happens to people who were non-contact with possession of CP? They just can’t qualify to be on the Tier system and their SOL???

        • bumblebee

          I know a registrant with a non-contact charge of possession of those indecent materials, and they were required to take the Static 99…

  29. Ostracized Witch

    What IS the purpose of the Registry? Is it so victims cam peruse this database in search of a possible suspect? 74,000 profiles would make this task daunting. Or, is it’s existence merely to punish sex offenders for life?

  30. R.T. Chen

    No one has mentioned the data behind the Static-99/R (particularly it’s sample offenders) has never been publicly released; this violates section 8.14 of the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics. The Static-99 con men “developers” — Harris, Phenix, Hanson, and Thornton — wrongly claim the Static-99’s applicability to non-violent crimes. The test is like a comparison of apples to oranges. Read “Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms,” as it’s written by qualified professionals (unlike the ‘developers’ of the Static-99). Personally, I am troubled CA SOMB would create a tiered proposal based on the wholly inaccurate Static-99R. It makes me question CA SOMB’s true motive — as tiered proposal is not based on the very “evidence-based” data CA SOMB ostensibly relies on. What is lifetime registration’s purpose when even alleged “high-risk” offenders do not recidivate after 17 years? Plus: ~ 95 percent of sex crime are committed by first-time offenders.

  31. Simon, Psy.D

    Steve (no “reply” function under commen to Mike A.): You clearly have not read Question Number 7 to the Static 99R Coding Form. If you had actually taken the time to read the Coding Form, you would note in no uncertain terms the Static 99R perversely gives ONE point for non-contact offenses, whereas contact offenses earn ZERO points. This is one of the countless logical flaws to the Static 99R hocus-pocus. If Mike A. was released between 18 to 34.9 (+1), never lived with a lover for at least two years (+1), had unrelated/stranger/male victim (+3), and had a non-contact offense (even non-violent, first-time) (+1)… then Mike A. easily earns a 6 under the illogical Static 99R. Any credible statistician would agree the Static 99R is a phony sham — as it flaunts the statistical tenet: “Correlation does not imply causation.” It is clear Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton are NOT statisticians by trade. Because had the developers even taken a basic statistics class, they would have learned the above tenet.

    • Mike A.

      Thank you sir for a more clear explanation. I remember back in 2008 when I was scored by a fake PhD in my county’s probation office. When she told me I was high risk, I couldn’t believe it. When I educated myself to the real facts behind the Static 99R, I learned that it is not accurate, not science and not even created by statisticians. People that think the Static 99R is valid have not educated themselves on the subject.

      • New Person

        To piggy back on this Static 99…

        I tried to use that information to refute that I am a predator as I was scored a 1, a low level.

        There was a two step process to determine whether or not registration was required and apparently that Static 99 test doesn’t matter even if you scored a 1. So what’s the point of the test if the courts don’t adhere to its own findings and still give out lifetime registration? It seems like the whole thing is a farce.

        Ohh… I never went through a whole two step process b/c the appellate courts said there is no other outcome despite the local court not following the whole two step process.

    • rs

      The Static 99 test makes me insane. I never took it, my conviction was in 2003. I have looked it up and self administered it and the best part is that I get a point for having a victim who was a stranger AND I get a point for a non-relative victim. My case was an internet sting. I only score a 3 on the thing, but the whole thing is designed to rack up points for who ever takes it and make us all look horrible. No doctor or statistician or actuary would ever use a test like this to make any assessment of anything. The board has to take a closer look at the actual design of this test and come to a clear understanding that it is useless and harmful.

  32. J.J.

    Wow this Static 99R is a big sham. What exactly is defined as high risk? If one is an exhibitionist, or other non-violent offender, and flagged “high risk” … then certainly that is not the same as, say, a violent sex offender (not to say he didn’t learn from a mistake) who is flagged high risk. The Static test treats both the non-violent and violent alike, as the crimes are lumped in a bogus statistical model tantamount to junk science. I think this is the biggest flaw to the Static 99R: it doesn’t differentiate between “prediction” of severity of sex crime(s). The Static 99R treats all sex crimes and offenders alike, when the reality is each case is very different.

    • anonymous

      Actually, the static tests do not treat violent and non violent crimes “alike.” Strangely, non violent crimes are treated worse under the static tests. A commission of a violent offense scores you lower than a commission of a non violent offense. A violent rape will get you less points than a crime that involves no contact whatsoever.

      I know, it doesn’t make any sense. The static test is complete fools gold. Our government is stupid.

  33. Static-99R Critic

    The tiered registry is a false prophet because it incorporates the Static-99R fraud. Ten so-called “Risk Factors” do not define human behavior. And the Static-99R certainly is unable to predict the future. The Static-99 tests are, themselves, false prophets.

    • Neil B Fisher

      The number of offenders in California is now at the Goldilocxs number of 100,000 but it is known to the majority of persons in this field of study that only 5 percent are of the most dangerous offenders and the other 95 percent are of the 10 year low threat and the 20 year serious there is no way no how to properly watch and monitor 100,000 persons and the cost is in the millions . Thoes in authority who are concerned about being made to APPEAR to be weak on crime and safety relating to Sex crime and it’s offenders ARE infact being weak on crime and safety on Sex crime and it’s offenders because the putting all in one basket so to speak is what causes the number to be 100,000 and that makes it impossible to properly watch and monitor so many persons and causing the yearly cost to be IN the millions . The Tier System will weed out all thoes 95 percent low And moderately risk offenders and who is really the only ones left on the registration list ? Thoes who have recently been convicted of a Sex crime (we don’t know yet if they are truly dangerous or not)and all the high risk dangerous offenders being the serial rapists and serial pedophile all under the name of “PREDATOR ” mostly known and termed “the Sexual violent predator”

      Also thoes in this field now know that the majority of information used and caused for the registry being the way it is came mostly from propaganda , misinformation. Wrong information , false facts and folklore example would be : ” Stranger Danger” when the true fact is the major majority victims knew the offender infact some 98 percent was and is a family member step dad , brother , uncle,. mom, step brother etc. Not some stranger jumping out from the bushes and the list of the true facts goes on and on . All this is what need to be addressed and then vote or sign into law the best laws rules and regulations relying to Sex registration and the. Tier System puts a fix to the broken registration laws in California and what about the 47 other states who use the Tier System what are thoes in authority there saying? There saying it works . I hope this helps.
      Neil B Fisher

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        Care to provide sources to substantiate your statistics? Because, respectfully, I disagree with a lot of the statistics and claims in your post.

        Also, it seems troubling that virtually every registrant I have spoken to who lives in one of the tiered states have said NOTHING good to say about a tiered registry. All seem to say the same thing: tiered registry is just as bad as any other form of registry. In fact, I can’t even think of one registrant from other tiered states that have said ANYTHING good about their tiered registration system.

        What makes you think California’s will be any better?

        • Timmr

          The registry is a product of the idea, no the religion, of registry-ism the idea that if you make people record their locations and inhibit access to certain locations, society is going to end harmful sexual abuse. It is a back ended regressive solution, based upon scant and usually contrary evidence, but founded on belief and culture. Cultures at odds with reality can adapt and change, but it usually is a bloody path.

  34. Roldan

    I don’t understand why Janice or the ACLU or any lawyer hasn’t filed a class action lawsuit challenging the application of the static 99R and also the fact that the DOJ do not have documentation of a static 99R score of many RSOs and also not to also bring out the the fact that probably many like myself were given the static 99R prior to being paroled on a non violent or serious offense and has not committed a violent or serious offense prior to that for 10 years and also that an RSO can not get section 8 should be challenged in a Court of Law because it violates our constitutional rights by falsely labeling us and punishing us and our children and loved ones. I’d appreciate all comments and Ms Janice comments also. Thank You

  35. Roldan

    By the way, if it’s that they need money to investigate my claims further and to file a class action lawsuit then we should all chip in whatever we can afford to make it possible because all of us have good valid constitutional issues that violate our constitutional rights as a whole that deprives us of our liberty and puts our lives and the lives of our loved ones in danger ! Remember we have paid for what we have done and we’re allowed to be released back into society and we’re not committed as sexual violent predators for treatment Therefore we should at most be labeled as ex sex offenders and not “Sex Offenders” and continue to be punished in more ways than one to the point banishing us from society completely !

  36. Ostracized Witch

    VOTE CLINTON…3 more LIBERAL judges appointed to Supreme Court. Increase odds for a Tiered Registry!!!!!

    • D

      You do know that the president has no control over California law and the federal registry is already tiered right?

  37. kelnothiding

    stack it any way you wish , when that may help many , it still chucks other so called violent/dangers offenders under the bus , so let me get this right , if a person goes out and murders someone , or drives there car drunk and kills a whole family , they just go do there time / probation / what ever , and that’s it ? yet someone that took a deal back in the say 79 or 80 , and do 2 years on class c felony , and after doing there time they see that the cops will never leave them alone , they move back to CA (home) only to end up yet again cot up in some sh!t that has nothing to do with a sex crime , and your honest when they ask if you have ever got any felony’s and tell them about the class c, just under 5 years before , now the crime your looking at a sex crime , now its Intent ! rather than a trespass or at most b&e , end up having to take new deal , 9 years , , hell no I am not going to chuck anyone under the bus , because in know way was eather crime the same , at no time was there ever a fare trail , it was never safe in eather jail , and no lawer that gave crap about facts , everyone , is just that 1 , most people don’t know anything about the courts Witch Hunt back in the 8os , if someone has been out of prison for over 20 30 years did there time there is no reason to supect thay will commit the same crime , that will just allow the courts to witch hunt , after being clean that long , I think the courts need to be looked at , because its the courts that need to be looked at!! , and the jails!! that make it so hard for you to fight your case ! no I am not going to jump under a bus ! hell why not just pass laws to just kill us ? or make it fun and make it open hunting , or maybe sell sex offender hunting perment ? for the intertainment of the stalker spaz out there , you know the ones that have real bones to hide , the RSO laws are unjust , and the new ones to come will be worse,

    • Roger

      Some RCs have said a three-tier bill must be perfectly fair and good to them or they would fight against it. To see why this is a short-sighted mindset, read this CNN review of the movie ‘All the Way’, which shows how President Johnson got the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, which was considered impossible:

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/opinions/all-the-way-review-opinion-zelizer/index.html

      Compromising and working political deals is the only way to get a foothold we can use as a starting point. It would give fairness to many RCs now, then we can incrementally make improvements.

      I will not benefit from a three-tier system, but I am willing to fight for freedom for many of my brother RCs.

      Which other potential tier 3 RCs will join me in committing to focus on unity toward getting 3-tier passed even if it doesn’t benefit us in the short term?

      • steve

        It’s easy to say when someone doesn’t personally have a lot at stake. If you’ve been living for 20 years as what is called now a “serious offender” (currently there are now 3 levels: low risk, serious offender and sexually violent predator) and are thrown in the group with sexually violent predators who have much more stringent requirements not to mention MANY more eyeballs and BS that comes with being on a “predator classification”. And I would not be surpassed if all “level 3’s ” were required to go in every 90 days. Currently, you need to have a psychologist designate you a sexually violent predator.
        There are quite a few lawsuits around the country now where people who were supposed to be off the list at 10 years but were increased due to AWA. Ohio was one state that ruled it unconstitutional. Granted we don’t have a “publicized” tiered system, California does have a system.

        • Roger

          Steve, you are making an incorrect assumption. I DO have a huge amount at stake because I am classified as a tier 3 serious offender as I assume you are.

          I am willing to register more often if it will free tens of thousands of my brothers. I would also have the hope of incremental change that could allow me some relief someday. Most importantly, a three-tier system is a necessary evil as a starting point.

          Speaking for myself, I am not selfish enough to want tens of thousands of people to suffer just to make things a little easier for me.

          Read the page I posted the link to for the movie ‘All the Way’. You will understand that real change requires compromise and ongoing change.

        • New Person

          In totality, a tiered system is bad because it signifies that the registry is legal.

          What’s amiss is the fact that since it’s seen as legal, then the terms can be changed whenever, which it has for some states. There’s an article up that a person was supposed to be off in 10 years, but under the new laws, that person has to register for life now.

          The registry should be classified as punishment. If so, then the terms cannot be changed as well as be challenged empirically.

          If you paid your dues, then you should be able to try to live your life as a fully restored citizen. This registration prevents one from living a fully restored life as a citizen. Case in point, you have to register wherever you go. No other class does that. Or this IML being pushed through, it’s preventing travel as well as besmirching you as a person who will undoubtedly re-offend as a sex trafficker.

          Your constitutional rights are being trampled upon. I don’t trust the government as they’ve already increased the terms from 10 years to 20 years to registrants in some states already – increasing punishment.

        • Timmr

          I agree with you. I am not sure it is wise to fight against a tiered registry or fight for one, time and resources are limited, needing to be applied strategically to sail our ship all hands on deck, towards the promised land called restoration of rights. The gale force of public sentiment is what we are up against and the very source of the laws. It needs to be turned around or at least dampened. Because of it, the punishments can be made retroactive, terms of registration can be changed at any time and we are smashed on the rocks, back with our heads just barely above frigid waters. Judges, legislators, leaders of civil society are too weak or corrupt to withstand its siren sounds of endless retribution and lend us a hand.
          We need to focus our part on getting more registrants involved, getting resources to the RSOL affiliates with the long term, but necessary goal of convincing the general population of the wastefulness of these laws. Don’t expect any of them to feel sorry for felon or misdemeanant. But I think it is possible to make people see the present system is failing victims and offenders alike. Anything else is just unfurling your sails then having your ship blown off course by the gusts of public opinion.

        • Notgivingup

          The one thing I disagree with is, (The gale force of public sentiment is what we are up against) The real reason the public hates us is because the MEDIA and the lying lawmakers have told them the same myth for so long much of the public believes it. The public needs to know the real truth, I know when I explain to some how easy it is to be labeled a sex offender many people are shocked.

        • steve

          Roger

          “Serious offender” is more or less a tier 2 right now which I am, and probably which most are. The chances of losing my job,not being able to pay for my kids college, going in foreclosure is to big of risk for my FAMILY. I think your thoughts are noble but I am not willing to lose everything again. Again I am only assuming that I would change based on the article in this story. The writer could have made a mistake but I am going to be ready nonetheless.

        • Brubaker

          And what system is that.?
          When did it start.?
          I’m against it. And extremely against a wanna be double jeopardy tier Racket.

        • steve

          Brubaker,

          Right now California classifies you as low risk, serious offender or sexually violent predator.

          And Roger:

          If i choose to fight my re-classification, IF that happens, it would not change anything about the creation of a tiered registry.

        • Brubaker

          OK Steve.. when did classification start.? Who was suppose to tell me.? Is this classification on registry listing ? How are they telling the public and not me.?

  38. Informant

    If I had the resources, I would totally sue the California Department of Justice, along with the Canadian Static 99 developers (Karl Hanson, Thornton, etc.) for peddling the Static 99R fraud. The Static 99R makes many false and misleading misrepresentations and has incorrectly labeled many lives as “high risk.” Only in the sex offender “treatment” industry is hocus pocus, Minority Report style, psuedo-science endorsed by frauds in our government. There is an intense flavor of dishonesty and corruption in the people that supposedly represent us in government.

  39. someone who cares

    I have to agree with New Person as I see the registry as illegal and added punishment that should not exist in the first place. By changing the terms of the registry, we still leave it intact, and it will still impact so many registrants and their families and children. We need to keep fighting to get this nonsense abolished once and for all.

  40. Tina

    Hmmm i scored a 2 on the static 99r. My conviction is 261.5c and 251.5d for one case. Id be at 20years on there tier if i read correctly? Anyone know please? Thanks

  41. Joseph

    Tiered registry is 100% phony baloney. I may not be the most educated man in the world but when CDCR calls me high risk because of the Static 99 and I KNOW IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO BE REPEATED, then why have me register for life under this so called tiered registry? With all the caveats behind tiered registry, seems like it is designed to help only a few while throwing everyone else under the bus.

  42. Andy

    I read the CASOMB report and am disgusted at its propaganda. The California Containment Model is a complete scam. What’s more troubling is its assumption that the Static 99 score and tests are accurate, and that the polygraph is also a valid form of science. Such claims cannot be further from the truth — as even an amateur scientist, with an elementary grasp of science’s very basic concepts — can determine for themselves that there is absolutely nothing scientific (or even accurate) with the Static 99 tests or its illegitimate relative, the lie detector. If the state can outright lie for something like this, what else are our politicians and imposter psychologists (like tom tobin) being dishonest about?

  43. kay

    I concur that the Static 99 and Static 99R tests are complete frauds. A study needs to come out and discredit the Static tests!

  44. Neil Fisher

    We all know that the major majority of offenders(95%) are not a danger and only 5% are so lifetime registration is not what is needed the. Tier system is what is best for california. The majority of everyone wins and how often that happen?

    I will be talking to Judge Steven Manley at the Veteran Standdown nextweek.. It would help if you also contact him and advise him of all the true facts as well. He is a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County Ca.
    Have a good day
    Neil Fisher

    • steve

      The problem is they want to do the same thing Nevada has done OFFENSE based tiering. So yes only %5 (and probably less) are a true threat however I would bet 60% of your %90 would end up in tier 3. No, a tiered registry is not good unless there is due process. Frankly, there should no registries at all.

    • Punished for Life

      Yup, be very careful what you wish for. You don’t want what Nevada is attempting to put us through. I believe that “time”, proves more than any offense based system.
      But one thing Nevada has had correct is a chance to be removed after so many years. That again may be going away for some.

      From what I read here on this forum, California is a total mess when it comes to rehab and petitioning the court for relief from the registration. And then under certain situations, the only way to ever be removed from registration is a Governors Pardon.

      CA. it appears, makes it nearly impossible to obtain relief from registration.
      Maybe I’m wrong, but again, be very careful what you wish for.

      Frank

    • Erwin

      A tier system based on offense can be good if it doesn’t deviate and go off in different directions. For instance here in Wisconsin, it’s pretty straight froward. Low level offenses like voyeurism, possession of CP, use of internet to facilitate a crime (i.e. Chris Hansen’s to catch a predator category) will all land you in the 15 year tier 1 category. And of course a repeater will bump you up a tier.

      However, some tier states like New York may incorporate Static 99 and “stranger danger” in accessing risk level. So it’s not just a matter of getting caught with CP. It depends on how many “images” or if the “victim” in the photos were known to the offender. If not, you can be bumped up a tier.

      And there is the problem of a tier system “re-categorizing” offenders into a higher tier. This shouldn’t happen. Once you’re initially categorized, and you’d remained in a state, you should be grandfathered in on the basis of your initial category.

      Other than the concerns I mentioned, a tier system is pretty workable

  45. Allen W

    I live in a state with a tiered SOR…..Don’t do it. When I was initially classified by the Department of Corrections before my release from prison I was set at level 2 but the country Sheriff arborterilly raised my level to level 3. Why? Because I released to a county of non conviction and didn’t have any family in the area. I’ve been at this high risk level placement for 13 years without any issues. Ten of those years I was on active supervision with only 3 violations in those 10 years and each one self disclosed to my probation officer. While incarcerated I had 0 infractions. My sex offences, child molestation (step-daughter) communicating with minor for immoral purposes (her friend). The problem with a level is getting your level lowered. Nobody wants to sign off on lowering a RSO. If there is a method of reclassification in place that is automatic so nobody has to sign of on it then great. If it was like car insurance rates being lowered automatically for driving good, that would be great but if it requires someone to sign a piece of paper recommending your level to be lowered…. good luck!

    • Erwin

      Prosecutors & sheriffs shouldn’t have no business deciding a person’s level of risk. They have a vested interest in locking people up. I’m more comfortable if courts and judges made those decisions.

      The tier system can be beneficial depending on the state. If your offense had been limited to your step daughter, you would actually been considered lower risk by static-99 and some tier states. Until only a couple of months ago, Arizona didn’t publicize level one offenders whose crime involved female family members. But when a victim’s rights crusader allied with a politician found out about that loophole, they got the AZ legislature to close it.

      Since your step daughter’s friend was involved, I still don’t know if you would have been put in the “stranger danger” category. Close friends could be lumped in with family members and still make you low risk….at least under static-99.
      I don’t know….maybe it’s something to look into

      • Allen W

        My main point I was trying to make is once your level is set good luck getting it lowered.

  46. WM

    I think many will regret a tiered registry that uses the Static 99R to determine if one should be subject to lifetime registration. There is more proposed law and policy that incorporates the Static 99R and it is personally troubling because I know the thing is not at all accurate in the prediction of the future. It will be right sometimes, but wrong most of the time when it labels someone high risk. Hope the Static tests are aggressively challenged and discredited in the future. There are many charlatans — who proclaim to experts — that support the Static-99R because they claim “it’s the best tool we have.” I won’t drink the Kool Aid.

  47. Jonathan

    I hate to use the STATIC-99R scam; but if so called “high risk sex offenders” do not recidivate after an offense-free period of 17 years, then what is the point of having a lifetime or even 20 year registration term under this “tiered” registry? Logically, the maximum term should be 17 years. Why would CASOMB see it necessary to add 20 year and lifetime tiers? CASOMB seems to be making very disingenuous proposals when their own “science” does not even substantiate such proposals.

    Too many details, exceptions and caveats under this “fictitious tiered registry.” As a business owner who has managed to build a profitable business with three full-time employees (despite my lifetime obligation), I’ve long learned that convolution complicates and rarely leads to a goal. This tiered registry is much too convoluted. Many of us will be thrown under the bus, even when offense-free since 1988.

    Sorry, I can’t agree with this fictitious tiered registry.

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 *

.