During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same. That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted.
Those wishes are now nearing reality in the form of a tiered registry bill expected to be introduced in the state legislature early next year. As drafted, the bill would treat registrants differently based upon both their current risk and the offense for which they were convicted by assigning them to tiers that would allow some registrants to automatically be removed from the registry while others could petition for removal after 10 or 20 years. A final group would continue to remain on the registry for their lifetime.
If the proposed tiered registry bill becomes law, more than 10,000 registrants would “immediately” stop registering and about 60,000 registrants would “ultimately” stop registering.
The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”. Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments? Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.
The board of directors discussed this topic in depth a week ago during its annual face-to-face meeting. No consensus was reached, however, in part because a copy of the bill was not yet available. Now that the bill has become available, the choice the board must make is even more stark.
The board of directors will meet again on December 8 and in the interim, the opinions of registrants and their families about the bill are being gathered. All opinions expressed prior to the meeting will be considered. The board of directors may or may not make a final decision regarding the bill on December 8, however, to ensure that your opinion is heard by the board of directors, please add your comment to this article before that date.
Thank you.
— by Janice Bellucci
Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill
(added on 11/21)
TIER 1 (10 years)
Misdemeanors
Indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314(1), (2)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(e)); inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a)); annoy/molest a child under 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6); contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Pen. Code, § 272).
Felonies
Inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); sending harmful matter to a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.2); contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a).)
TIER 2 (20 years)
The following offenses, most of which are serious or violent described in subdivision (c) of section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of section 1192.7:
Assault with intent to commit described sex crimes (Pen. Code, § 220); rape (Pen. Code, § 261); spousal rape with force or violence ((Pen. Code, § 262); rape in concert (Pen. Code, § 264.1); abduction for purposes of prostitution (Pen. Code, § 267); incest (Pen. Code, § 285); forcible sodomy or sodomy of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 286); lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288); continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5); forcible oral copulation or oral copulation of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288a); forcible foreign object penetration or foreign object penetration of a minor under 14 (Pen. Code, § 289, subds. (b), (d), (e)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(a), (d)); solicitation of rape (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (c)); trafficking a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subds. (b), (c); out-of-state sex offenders required to register in California whose offense is not equivalent to a California registrable offense (Pen. Code, § 290.005).
TIER 3 (Lifetime)
Murder with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 187)
Kidnap with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 207, 209)
Sexually violent predators (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Sex offenders sentenced to life term (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))
Forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288(b))
Aggravated child molestation (Pen. Code, § 269)
Sex crimes with child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7)
Registered sex offenders who are convicted of a second and violent sex offense
Assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense in the commission of a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 220(b))
Offenders with well above average risk level (formerly denominated high risk) on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Habitual sexual offenders (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have been assessed with well above average risk level on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have ever been civilly committed to a mental hospital in a proceeding equivalent to California’s sexually violent predator proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Offenders sentenced to 15 or 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61
Note: All described registrable offenses include any attempt or conspiracy to commit these crimes.
Related
Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill
Read all Janice’s Journals
First, there is no guarantee on the numbers of those going off the registry… Secondly, that’s a token amount considering the people staying on and the newer people coming in later. Consider also the upward moves of tier 1 to 2 and 2 to tier 3. I’m sure if they can give you a projection on the 10,000, they have predictions on the bump ups and the growth with the new changes. None….
Advocate groups, in my opinion, should be like doctors. Do no harm. I warned you about the message support for a tiered registry would send and the potential of helping the state further their next registry schemes. Now we have a registry planned for Muslims. No registry is good, if you believe the targets are human. It’s a disgusting practice that should be eradicated. You have no right to safety at the expense of another’s rights.
I strongly disagree with this draft bill as it is now written.
While I respect that this bill will help others, I suggest that this organization work to make the following amendments:
1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation, relieving one of the duty to register, remain. Even for Tier 3 offenders.
2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state’s studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)
3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.
Here is the premise to my suggestions:
I was convicted of a non-contact, first-time offense about six years ago. The offense was under 290.006, so it was not one of the over 70 offenses requiring registration under mandatory registration. I scored low-risk on other risk assessments and had favorable assessments.
But unfortunately, my crime had multiple stranger victims. I was in my early 20’s. And because my crime was “non contact” (as opposed to contact), I am actually given a worse score than a contact offender. These “risk factors” do not score favorably under the Static-99R. And I score right at the borderline of Tier 3. (It doesn’t make sense that the Static scores ‘non contact’ offenses worse than contact offenses.)
It makes no sense that our futures can be determined based on 10 questions that do not take our CURRENT state of life into account. The Static also fails to take into account our offense-free period in the community. It doesn’t even take into account any counseling! In fact, the Static score never changes! Unlike this draft bill, which Nancy O’Malley has said is “set in stone,” our lives are hardly ‘static.’ Our destiny is not ‘set in stone.’ Our learnt experiences shape our future decisions. And the Static-99 tests do not take what we have learned from PAST mistakes — such as healthy coping skills — into account.
I had no violations during my two-year incarceration. No violations during supervision. (I discharged free of any violations.) No other crimes other than the one conviction.
Right now, I work full-time and volunteer for a non-profit. Since committing my crime, I completed my degree. I have matured from that time in my life. And the Static and this tiered draft does not take this into account in placing me in the Tier 3 level.
Currently, my address is not listed on the Megan’s Law website.
However, this proposed law would place me in a Tier 3 level, thus requiring publication of my address. I would still be required to register for life. Further, this law would have the perverse effect of publishing my address. This bill will actually make life much worse for me.
I had looked forward to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation in about four more years. Under existing law, I am eligible for relief at the 10-year mark. But this proposed bill does not allow for the Certificate of Rehabilitation to relieve one of the duty to register. At minimum, I am of the opinion that that provision should stay. At least it would give Tier 3 offenders a way out.
I suggest that this organization consider the following amendments:
1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation remain: even for Tier 3 offenders.
2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state’s studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)
3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.
Thank you Janice !
I have been registering over 30 years. I finally can see the end of a very dark tunnel.
First of all Janice thank you for all you have done. I am not sure how you have come to those numbers but I think you are way off. I believe the majority of people are on the list with a 288 conviction and for those people, as I read it, there is absolutely zero risk assessment and automatic tier 3 without a hearing or any due process. I cannot support this bill written this way. There are already 3 tiers in California low, serious offender and svp. To throw us in the group of predators is just wrong. To be classsifed an Svp you need to be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be a repeat offender but not anymore apparently. The 6th circuit said its unconstitutional to classify someone after the fact with no individualized assessment. There is a poster “Mark” who says he is not even on the website but this new scheme will put him on.
The only way I support this bill is if those who are moving up a tier for any conviction, are given an assessment for current dangerousness as the 6th circuit says. For the record I am a onetime offender. 20 years on the list, no previous convictions and no post convictions for anything. Would have scored low risk on static 99 if it were given to me.
Supporting a tiered registry (a “fairer” registry) does not necessarily mean support of the idea of having a registry in general. BEST is not the enemy of BETTER.
Please support this legislation.
While this is an “All or Some” choice, working for “All” should be the stance. It wasn’t liberating some of the Jewish people in the camps, but liberating all of the Jewish people in the camps regardless of what they had committed in the eyes of the judge, jury and executioner. This is the same situation with the same effort required.
If those who chose to administer this bill properly don’t want to do the analytics of who the individual is as a person regarding their particular matter, because no two matters are the same, then they need to step back and recuse themselves from the efforts to better the system for people. They need to choose a system of analytics that is impartial and personal to the individual. CA can do this. They are smart enough to do it, but will they put politics aside and work to get it done? CA has lead the nation in many efforts before, they can do it again. Soon this could be swept up in the hysteria of the immigration movement that is coming after January 20 and be lost. If this is not done right, correct and proper from the onset, it will be a mess shortly thereafter and even more painful.
There will be votes by those who want off of it now and then will be off of it soon enough. There also will be opposition from those who don’t have to register now, but given what the bill states, will need to register where their info becomes public. It is a swapping of one for another without any rhyme or reason to bring them from out of their productive, quiet, lawful shadows. This nation was once a great nation that would allow quiet, productive, personally redeemed lives to happen, but not now and perhaps never again. This nation has become a nation of labels, individuals, people always out for blood and a step up on the back of others regardless. This bill should deal with those who are currently impacted in their present format, not those who are not, but could be because things change. The tiered system is a flawed system based upon what people know, don’t know, chose to read and acknowledge and blatantly ignore. Do it right or go home.
People here are going to find who their friends, colleagues and enemies are when voices are spoken in this comment time you have posted. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will prevail in the voices who speak up.
You, Janice, are in an unenviable situation here, but you are the voice here, the Joan of Arc leading this charge. You are looked up to gratefully by many. There should be no martyrs here in this effort. Don your armor with your sword and shield and climb aboard the horse to lead the liberation charge for All. May you be provided the strength and fortitude with the blessings of the Almighty as you traverse this path.
It is very important that we do not look at this as a choice but as an opportunity, once they go to a tiered system we will have some momentum and it will put a lot more power in court for the judge. This is important as they will not prejudice as much as we see currently see, because there hands were tied. The other thing is a misdemeanor OFFENSE OF ANY KIND should have NEVER HAD ANY RESTRICTIONS weather it be sexual or not! Will the tier 3 ever see relief that is hard to say I think they still want to have a SEX OFFENDER LABEL so law enforcement can say see there is real bad guys out there, instead of rehabilitation and education.
Wow interesting dilemma for both the organization and an objective registrant. I love the horse track, but I hate gambling on my life! I recall recently the conference call with Oregon in what seems to be a same situation. Thier situation was different, while they dont have a registry as such that everyone follows, or maybe as I recall it’s not online; yet their decision would place many online to release a few. Not the same here, but your point hit home with me:
” Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.”
Personally, I feel depending on how certain things are interpreted in my life would be the difference between 20 years or life. I feel it unconstitutional that I be stuck with this choice ex-post facto–These laws didn’t exist when I made a deal with the government!
So in response, one naturally wants to go by way of an opportunity or hope, where there is little now! But as you point out the consequence of that bet could be punishing.
On the other hand, passing the tiered system is at least a positive step for many and I gather the cause would still continue for the rest, until all registries and ex-post facto has been removed.
I guess I’d vote for the step in the positive direction.
Support the Tiers based on Risk! 70,000 peoples lives depend on it.
If 10,000 are NO-risk and 60,000 are a slight-risk how can reasonable or compassionate people even think about making them continue to bear the burden of being an RSO for the approximate 23,000 disgruntled RSO’s who fall into the high-risk group?
For true reform you can NOT take the attitude of ” All or Nothing”.
Small steps forward that benefit some are better than no steps forward so everyone continues to suffer.
In the end some of your “supporters” and maybe even some board members could be in the lifetime- bucket and if they can’t be happy for those who are removed while they remain then they weren’t ever interested in reform they were just in it for themselves.
We should be happy when small groups of RSO’s have successes even if we aren’t included.
True advocates are selfless, not selfish.
Help those 70,000 NOW and work on the remaining 23,000 down the line but don’t take your ball and go home because some folks aren’t included in this first accomplishment.
Under this proposal, I would be categorized as a tier I and off the registry in three years. But I still have some problems with this draft bill. Here are my concerns:
Petitioning
The requirement that one must petition for removal is ridiculous especially when it can still be denied. If the person has been offense free throughout their duration of registration, why not just fall off the registry?
Expungements
There is a lot of talk about categorizing tiers based on the criminal codes, but what of those who have had their records expunged? We no longer have a criminal code attached to our names, but we’re still required to register. A 1203.4 is granted because the petitioner is deemed to have successfully completed all probation requirements, assessed as very low risk, and is not a threat to public safety. Why then, should we have to file yet another petition under this proposal? That work has already been done. Those with an expunged record should automatically be relieved of the duty to register once this bill (or a new version of this bill) is enacted.
Female RCs
I am a female registered citizen. I never took any Static-99 because there isn’t one for women. Instead, we are given a general analysis about our likelihood to re-offend for any crime. I was tested at less than 1%. My therapist at Sharper Future stated numerous times that from her experience and interactions with female clients, women just don’t reoffend. Furthermore, women are the backbone of the family. To have her on the registry is to deny her children the maternal bond and the strong sense of security she provides. Schools primarily confer with mothers about their children’s education. If Senator Leyva has her way, she is denying mothers their involvement in their children’s lives. Yes, I understand fathers are already going through this, but to place that burden on mothers is far more egregious.
Go with the actual effectiveness of the registry or lack thereof to be fair to all registered citizens and support the Constitution. That is what every real American must do. I realize you are dealing with a hostage situation, where both the Bill of Rights and registrants are detained by criminal regimes and feel responsible to act in the greater good under present circumstances over which you have little control. I don’t envy the choice you are making and wish you wisdom.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sophie%27s%20choice
The choice is between two unbearable options, and it’s essentially a no-win situation.
Sophie has just arrived with her ten-year old son and her seven-year old daughter and a sadistic doctor, presumably Doctor Mengele, tells her that she can only bring one of her children; one will be allowed to live while the other is to be killed.
Take the tired registry at least it will save some people’s life and their family.
The greatest love you can show is to give your life for your friends.
If we say no to this and nothing will improve. If we say yes to this then some life will be improved.
I think the other choices we have is a lawsuit and remove the registry
Some things I noticed in the bill are the explicit prohibitions against use of registry inclusion for many purposes for which is used now, that in effect exclude registered citizens inclusion in wider society and including specific monetary damages to the offending entity for such exclusion. Also mechanisms for tier three registrants to be down graded to lower tiers and mechanisms for correcting/altering static scores.
Overall this seem to be well thought out, ultimately offering a way out. This doesn’t exist for anyone in California now. It’s NOT a some or none… It’s all, but not necessarily right now and not without some review.
I don’t see this as a Sophie’s choice at all.
Sorry to say, but this bill stinks. So I gotta disagree with it. For one: let’s be real. It isn’t really as simple as… POOF… 60,000 registrants ‘ultimately’ freed from registration. After the Brock Turner case, judges will be hesitant in granting these “petitions.” They know that it will only take one registrant given relief to commit something heinous and they are out of their ELECTED office. So that can really mess things up in the future. This bill also gives the prosecutor the right to make a case against me ‘petitioning’ off the registry so it’s going to be expensive, the outcome uncertain, and ONLY THE LAWYERS will get rich from this bill. Secondly, what’s so special about 1987? Why have a lifetime tier at all? It should be a 30 yr rolling max applied to EVERYONE! Seems unfair. But, in my opinion, this bill seems so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to begin with. I was really excited about this tier. But after reading the actual draft three times now, I am sorely disappointed.
Proposing a tiered registry is admitting to the law makers that they were right all along in saying that a registry for sex offenders is justified. It is not! Especially since other groups of offenders don’t have to experience the humiliation, fear and injustice that sex offenders AND their families endure. A constant threat of incarceration for failure to register, knowing all the laws in all the states, counties and cities all over the country, having Halloween restrictions, presence and residence restrictions, etc. All that because they are on a registry that needs to be outlawed. That is a fight I want to fight. Some say that we should not be selfish and be happy for those who would get a chance to get off the registry. We would be happy, IF the rest would not be subject to more severe punishment. If all registrants’ status stayed the same or got better, I would be all for it. But having to go backwards is just not fair. Not even those who will benefit can honestly say that a step back for the rest is worth for this Bill to be introduced. We need to fight to have the registry abolished. By agreeing to a tiered registry, we will not be able to move forward with this goal for a long time. Even 10 years on the registry is too long. Heck, that is a decade. In ten years, many things can change, hopefully for the better. I oppose the tiered registry, and I don’t trust those who want to implement it. They can, at any time, make changes and decisions that will be retroactively applied yet again.
I say were all in this together.
I’m a single father of two. My daughter (11) is high functioning autistic, and my teenage son was born with the umbilical cord around his neck and suffers delayed motor skills. I’ve done everything I can to protect them from the cruel realities of the registry.
I will Never let the term “Sex Offender” define who I am.
Against impossible odds, we break our backs to hold the weight of the world and put food on the table.
My children have a future. Our children have a future. And I will never compromise for that.
At this point, I want to add that if a Tiered Bill is to move forward, that at the very least ANYONE currently registered shall be exempt from Tier level manipulation (no bumping up) and Also, Teir 3 should be given an opportunity to drop down to the second tier at some point because we all know the DOJ makes mistakes and to set that in stone for someone is just terrible.
And like I said before, the “petition” for 1 and 2 tier is ridiculous. Just one more way to eff with peoples….Families lives.
Our decisions effect everyone we love, and So do Their Decisions…
I agree….while I would be placed in a tier twoand immediately have my current address removed and would be able to get off the public registry in two years o still can not support this bill..this bill will open a Pandoras box of new laws aimed at registrants…even though it would be great to not have my current address listed it isn’t worth our life’s I fear will get worse not better just for that one issue and for relief for a handful of people and a slight chance for some others by a 1-2-3-thousand dollar petition that will most likely be denied unless you are an absolutely perfect fir according to a judges standards…we need to take the current registration scheme down and force them to repeal or replace it with only those that the Court can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard are a threat to public safety…that is the only way registration can even have any resemblance to a constitutional law…their going to do whatever they want with this but we need to push for more reform and amendments especially to make it automatic deregistration not based upon a courts discretion and the requirement to register only after the government can prove you are a threat….we cant settle for anything less….apparently they are on the retreat and realize the entire scheme is going to come down unless they do something to prolong it’s life and make it appear as though it’s more fair and just….guess what people the justification for these laws are and always have been based on lies and deception and that justification needs to be challenged in this bill and in the courts….
I see a whole new wave of laws coming this bill passes, new residency restrictions,presence restrictions,Internet restrictions, all based on the fact that the registry will be more narrowly tailored and unlike all the wins we have had on these issues it will be extreemly hard to stop any of those types of bills from passing right thru the legislative process and even upheld by the courts….we have made exactly three steps forward only to leap ten steps backwards if this bill passes….floriduh here we come….
If a tiered registry is passed, CA will simply do what NY has done, increase the registration time for the lower tiers until ultimately everyone has to register for life.
Each election year will bring about competition to close loopholes like Former Citizen Detainees “escaping” from the registry.
Passing a tiered registry bill might seem like it will do some good, but be warned, those who get off the registry will be put back on the registry when election year politics gets involved.
also how is it that somewhere along the lines of all this registration bs that we are responsible and have had the burdeen of proving we are not dangerous and that we are innocent of any future offenses when the burden of proof has always been on the government to prove we are dangerous and are guilty of some crime, perceived or actual…think long and hard every state with tiered registration are the ones with residency restrictions presence and Internet restrictions….that alone should scare us all and make any ca organizations to vehemently oppose this bill….the only ones that will really profit from this bill are the handful of people who were convicted long ago and the legislators, lawyers, all the organizations profiting off the registry,county and municipal districts and their counsel members because they will be able to implement all these restrictions with impunity ect. and ect….think long and hard everyone and look to who realistically benefits from this bill and what other states who have such a system are like…not pretty…
First I must say it is about time they introduced a tiered registry. With that being said I honestly only thought of me and my family until now. Can You BLAME ME ? I have being living under a rock in a cave for 25 years. I am ecstatic of the thought of some closure and feel as though my life will begin anew. Now after knowing my cynical motivation and desire, I must now try to be impartial for all fairness to this question in front of me.
Honestly there are some who probably need to be monitored FOREVER if not incarcerated, yes I said it. I was selfish in my actions and regret my actions. There are some who do not regret and are looking for another opportunity. I am no expert or psychologist just a realist and been there done that kind of person.
While one broad stroke for labeling is not fair. I believe one broad stroke for removal from the requirements to be a very similar dilemma. I would feel sad/angry if anyone who was removed from the registry would re-offend. I could not imagine the weight of this decision that the board of directors must make.
I personally think we should allow all registrants to be allowed to petition removal from the Megan’s Laws after a certain amount of time granted you meet the requirements.
So my thoughts are we proceed forward with the suggested tiered registry but also allow the Lifetime registrants to petition for removal after 25 years if they have only been convicted of one crime in which they are required to register and were not convicted after the new Bill comes into effect in 2017. This way if you commit a crime that requires registration after the new Bill comes into play you will live by the new rules set forth.
I feel that I am being impartial, fair and realistic.
Thank you for asking our opinion and I hope this has been some help.
Wow, this is difficult. I understand the dilemma you’re in, Janice.
Before I give you all my answer I’ll start with explaining my own situation. I’m a registered citizen. In January of 2014 I was convicted to 261.5(c). Even though it doesn’t require mandatory registration, the court decided to discretionarily require it. I didn’t even know until later that that penal code didn’t require it. Public pretender.
I did 1 year state prison for this (2 with half). I got out on PRCS and completed it in one year.
My static 99r is a 2. And yeah it’s a joke system.
I am not listed publicly on Megan’s Law (police only). By all accounts I would guess that puts me on Tier 1.
Having said all that, I can’t support this bil. It’s a slam dunk for me, so why not? First, it throws many under the bus. Those who didn’t have it as bad now have it worse. They now can be singled out and focused on. That’s unfair.
The whole petition for removal is a joke! This is the most hilarious part. So with current system I have the Certificate of Rehabilitation, in ten years. This bill, I apply for relief… In ten years. What’s the difference??
This bill does far more harm than good. At the end of the day I care about everyone in this fight.
I am opposed to this bill. It bumps my husband up to a Tier III. Why must you, CARSOL, advocate for laws that help many… but also hurt others. You could have advocated for a system other than a 3 level system that does not throw quite a few under the bus. I thought this organization was about helping the few, not just the many. There was a better way to go about this. When the time comes, I, as well as my family, will be sure to write and call all necessary politicians to let them know about some of the flaws to this bill, as well as how our family will be worsened by my husband being placed in Tier 3. – Amy
You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.
Get rid of the registry for those who have 1) done their time/paid their debt to society and 2) are not locked up and therefore have been determined to not be a threat to society.
Total freedom or Total imprisonment nothing else will do IMO!