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.
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.
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.
Hold up now. I’m considered high risk, and a multiple offender because I had two minor girlfriends back back… lame
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
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.
It would be nice to see Frank Lindsay finally able to get off the registry. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
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.
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!
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”
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.
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.
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
This is soooooo in your face unConstitutional it should be called joseph stalin law.
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?)
Well stated Dave.
Just curious, does anyone know what other three states that have a universal, lifetime registry?
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???
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
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****!)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!