CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases New Statistics, Discusses Tiered Registry Bill

I looked at the 2014 tiered proposal and can anyone explain what this means:
“The above criteria would be applied to all current PC290 Registrants as well as to individuals convicted of a registrable offense going forward.”? would this be retroactive or would have to start fresh?

After giving consideration and thought to this information we have so far on the tier proposal, I have come to a conclusion. I will wholeheartedly oppose this proposal, this is evil, this is a diversion. This was written by the prosecutors, and that shows at every turn, at every detail. Yes, the prosecutors are the ones writing this — even their attitude — this is set in stone — reeks of the wrong, bad attitude, that of a prosecutor (and dictator). The people proposing this are NOT our friends — too many people at this site seem to think they are our friends. And I think this group should do the same — AND write up and offer its own tier proposal. Of course, I think our tier proposal should go along with the various points I have made over time in these forums about the tiers.

Wee need o speak out against this plan strong only — and offer all out points in our own competing proposal. That can be done every time the lobbyists from this group meeting with a legislator, it can be done inn written form to all of them, and it can be done at every hearing on this by presenting a number of copies of our written proposal at every hearing on the matter.

With the mindset of our legislators, sure, we might not stand much chance, but it is one way to definitively show them a GOOD alternative — write it for them, as when they actually have a bill proposal before them, they are more likely to consider it. Even if it does not help us this time, we then have that to refer back to, and after they hear it again, and again, we might get action. I can assure you, if we do not, this is all we will EVER get — and that is is horroblyunacceptioble. 10 years minimum! That is insane, especially in light of all studies showing all criminal offenders — all, including sex offenders — have every little recidivism after five years clean. That even used to be the basic standard, and the time frame for a COR even for registrants! Out of nowhere but hate, we now use 10 years as the standard, completely unsupported.

OK, some points about this evil proposal:

As for the supposedly “automatic” relief for those whose conviction are more than 30 years ago, that is BS. There is nothing automatic about it, it is the maximum tier and you must have a court hearing for them to consider it –that means you can be denied! And you damn well better hire an expensive lawyer for that hearing, because I guarantee you you could find yourself very surprised when you show up.

30 years is WAY too long, do not ever say anything to support 30 years for ANY registrant. But don’t forget, that window even is the same for misdemeanants! Why can’t they make it 10 years for misdemeanants, matching the lowest tier they propose — surely they are suggesting that some misdemeanants should be put in the highest tier — and maybe be their assessments will do that (I have warned about their assessments)?! But that hardly matters, as the”automatic” relief is harder to get then the tier relief, since for their tiers I believe you simply file with the people who proposed these tiers and have already assessed you, not with the court where anything goes. What is the logic behind having “automatic” relief that apparently will be harder to get than the tier relief most of these registrants would be eligible for anyway?! If that doesn’t send up flags for you, you better think again.

In reality, that “automatic” relief is being set up as a checkpoint to try to get you for something. It might not even be related to a sex offense. Hey, these 16,000+ registration violators — that is not a sex offense, but consider, even if they previously had been relieved of registration via 1203.4 40 years ago, they will be nabbed if they seek “automatic” relief now — why, what is the difference, its just nitpicking when your 30 years is based on that proving you are not a threat. But that point is very possibly why they are requiring the court hearing — but why, the entire idea only undermines the idea that 30 years is more than enough test to show you are not a danger.

Also, they already say you will not be eligible if you had a repeat sex offense. Should not the time frame be measures form your LAST offense, not your first? If you committed misdemeanor indecent exposure back in 1947, and you managed to do it once again in 1950, and never again, you get denied this automatic relief! Why?

And frankly, why is this tier proposal coming down so hard on misdemeanors anyway — 10 years!? If this group doesn’t consider that to be cruel and unusual punishment, then this group should disband! That we could say OK to that is shocking. If you must make misdemeanants register at all, and even that is cruel and unusual punishment for mere poor demeanor, then make it only for the time of probation, and relief with 1203.4 — like it used to be. If you can’t settle for that, then make it three years tier for misdemeanors. If you won’t accept that, then no more than 5 years no matter — and frankly, I have a very hard time finding a way to accept that.

Notice, they are painting this as one size fits all, even as they propose tiers.

Watch out, I’ll bet the further details will end up requiring or leaving open that we can be required to do the registration in California. If you move out of state, you might never be able to get out from under registration because your registration is out of state. If you move out of the country, so aren’t even registering, you will find the same. So, someone moves to a foreign country, for any number of reasons,and now return, 30 years later — no registration backgrounds, except make their first year. I presume they will be denied the”automatic” relief, and will have to serve their entire registration tier in California, even if their job is in New York. This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Either the time frame is the proof or it is not! If you were in another country, you were not any danger to anyone in California, so not registering here should have no bearing on whether you have passed the test of time. Same for another state. Even those 16,000+ — hey, if they have been so good that they have not been picked up for so much as a jaywalking ticket, then I don’t see any gain from catching them now and making them register for 10, 20, 30 years. They’ve already been super-good when not registering, we do know that as much as we would if they were registering — and this is a point to remind when the opposition says all kinds of contrary things.

and that is one of the points I have made all along — these tiers, and this “automatic” relief should not even be based on time you have registered, but solely on time from the date of your offense. Getting nit picking about time registering is just plain sick! That is arguing unsupported technicalities for that time as more important that no further offenses for that long. That is sick, to continue with punishment based on unsupported technicalities.

This is a VERY devious proposal on a number of fronts. I thought about how they might have chosen that 30-year number for the “automatic” relief, and I realized something, something I had spoken about here many times in the past: 30 years ago is just about the very time they stopped allowing people to stop registration upon getting a 1203.4 expungement. That used to be the standard, not a COR or a pardon — and it worked very well.

So, they seem to have picked the year, I think that is about the same year, that they stopped allowing felons to stop registering if they had probation and got 1203.4 relief. (They stopped that relief in the early side of the1990s for misdemeanants, and in the mid 1990s it was applied retroactively against the — people who had been relieved of registration, had earned that relief, had the relief taken away!)

But they won’t even let it go at that punishingly long 30 years, they have to add a tripwire, a checkpoint, they are going on a fishing expedition to try to catch you for anything, however trumped up or minor, by requiring a court hearing. That hearing is not to simply decide if your conviction was prior to that date, they already know that. That is where the prosecutors, and I presume for both the county where you now live and the county where your offense was as is the case for a COR, to argue against you getting the relief, for whatever argument they might want to give. They have done that before, trying to prevent people from even getting 1203.4 relief even thought they successfully competed probation, they supposedly only requirement for the relief. So, they are definitely setting that court hearing up to do that to us too.

And you better expect the judge most hateful to us will be the one assigned all sex offender relief matters. All the courts in the state are dominated by right wing judges, and the presiding judge of each court decides who hears what cases. You will be hard pressed to find much of anyone who has been elected to the court in this state who cannot cite a background as a prosecutor; in fact, in recently years, they are all inventing ways to cite that they are a “sex offender prosecutor” or a “child molestation prosecutor.” That is who is going to be presiding over your hearing.

How many times have I written here to point out the checkpoints and the evil that lies in them? When 1203.4 was the standard, you did not have to have any court hearing for relief from registration, it is not part of the consideration of getting 1203.4 relief since it was a different statute that provided that relief on the basis of 1203.4. You had the expungment, so you simply stopped registering, that is all there was to it. They already know, you don’t have to go tell them, you don’t have to have a hearing to consider that is now that you are known to meet the standard and can stop registering, should they really let you stop. Something like that is put in a tier proposal simply out of evil intent.

And while I have generally addressed the length of the tiers, I now do so directly. 10 years in unacceptable. 20 years in unacceptable for ANY offense. Gee, in New Jersey, the home of Megan;s Law, at least a decade ago (I haven’t checked lately), the worst of the worst offenders could get out from under registration after 15years! Thee worst of the worst. Not sure, but I don’t think they even make any misdemeanants register — why can’t we just do the same and drop that for misdemeanants, at least after 1203.4 relief? That should be the tier for misdemeanants — heck, even if they did reoffend, its simply poor demeanor, not some big deal! We should be yelling to the legislators that misdemeanants are caught up in this — I doubt most of them even realize that, the public certainly has no idea and would not support it!

Misdemeanants are a strong argument we can frame a lot of this in. They can easily think we are right. And from there, you have now gotten to to considering what they are doing, and they can then take a closer look at the felons, and registration itself. Once they get into looking at it, then progress can be made., For now, there is no looking, they are doing only the safe political thing. I doubt most will even read the tier proposal, they are not going to consider it, they are simply going to go with the sure political position — unless we can get them to realize what they are doing to people they didn’t even know they were doing it to.

And of course, the sick scheme to evaluate all offenders to place them in their tiers. This is VERY, VERY, VERY dangerous. Set the tiers by the offense, and allow people to file to be reduced to a lower tier if they want to. Again, any misdemeanants should not get even the 10 years, but they certainly should not be inn danger of longer from these evaluations!

I know, this is WAY too long — and I probably will think of various ideas I have accidentally left out. I will leave it at this for now.

We MUST write our own bill, not a list of ideas, but an actual bill as it would be written to be introduced by a legislator. We must give them to them every time we see them, and at every hearing. They will not consider an alternative if they haven’t been presentation. They are not looking to devise an alternative from what we tell theme — we must devise it and present it.

And I will wholeheartedly oppose this tier proposal, and I think this group should too, and support our own proposal. We will not get anything until wee fight the bad proposal that has been drafted by the prosecutors, our enemies, and produce our own. To actually write a bill for them will have a psychological effect that will give it greater chance of actually being looked at, not that I have any expectation our proposal would ever be adopted, but parts of it might be.

G12: I also happen to be a minority of us that think a tiered registration bill is foolish. It does nothing than perpetuates the idea that sex registries are effective when they do nothing but create unneeded fear, suffering, homelessness and unemployment after a person has paid a sentence. G12, you say: “I would be willing to bet that a lot of people that are left on it are left because they are specifically high risk.” G12, what facts do you make your “bet” on? Have YOU read the tiered proposal? G12, how do YOU know the tiered registry bill won’t include the Static-99R scam to classify people into tiers? To me, tiered registry just seems like a bad idea. Look at the states that have tiered. They are in no better shape because too many low-risks are wrongfully placed as “high-risk” (whatever it is “high-risk” is). Just phony semantics to me.

This will be my last post on this subject. It’s clear that when you have a minority opinion on this site, that you get misquoted and attacked for not agreeing with the rest.

I’ve been a RSO for almost 19 years now, and have endured many of the hardships and shame that go along with it, so I have every bit the same right to my opinions as any of you. I have the right to be open to any proposal that may allow me to go from being a lifetime registrant to coming off the list. Because it seems that there are a lot of you who don’t feel a tiered system will benefit you, doesn’t make those of us who would benefit, wrong for being open to it.

I’ve stated numerous times that I don’t believe in a registry. For ANYONE. Yet, I keep seeing challenges made to me that make it seem like I’ve actually spoken out in favor of the registry. I don’t appreciate being misquoted nor attacked for my opinions. It’s an open forum so we’re all given the right to our own opinions and beliefs. If you don’t agree with me, fine, I can respect that. We each have our own reasons for why we would and would not support a tiered registry. One’s reason doesn’t make someone else’s invalid.

I thought it was ok to post differing opinions, but it’s clear it’s not unless you want to have to defend yourself against statements that you’ve not even made. I can now understand why there’s only a select group of people who post regularly on here. Most are probably afraid that if you oppose someone’s opinions, you’ll be attacked and not welcomed. So much for coming together as a group of people who all can understand, in some ways, what each of the others are going through.

“Lester A.,” above, said: “The way I look at, tiered registration just puts us a step closer to being an Adam Walsh Act state… which would not be good.”

This is a very troubling point. So let’s say our state legislature passes whatever “tiered” bill that partitions labeled “sex offenders” into three levels (which is exactly what the Adam Walsh Act does!).

Assuming the ‘tiered’ registry passes, how far-fetched would it be to expect that the next logical step for California to take would be to introduce legislation making California an Adam Walsh Act state?

The way I see it, this ‘tiered’ bill *might* just be setting the California government to “checkmate” registrants into being further oppressed by the more draconian terms of the Adam Walsh Act. As it is, California has been a very willing participant in adopting any so-called (and ostensible) “public safety” measures propagated by the federal government.