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
If the new bill gets me off the registry I will like it better than if it doesn’t. Anyone who is honest will likely say the same. If it keeps me on, I will like it much less and will have to fight resentment. But I won’t begrudge those who get off the registry. Good for them.Think of it as getting out of jail. We might prefer we were the one getting out, but we wouldn’t want whoever is getting out to stay locked up just because we feel bad. No one would ever get out.
Now I have to read it and that might change my mind.
Thanks.
I made the PDF searchable so readers can focus on on their own situation easier. How can I get it to you?
Thanks.
I’ll be getting off the registry because I’m one of the 10 thousand but I’ll make a deal.
I don’t believe the registry does anything to keep former offenders in line so here’s my proposal: Cut everyone loose from the registry and if there are any significant negative behaviors from their freedom to rebuild their lives I’ll agree to spend the rest of my life admitting I was wrong every time I muster in to go through the booking process and try to explain to my family why we must continue to be shammed and shunned by our community because I’M STILL REGISTERED.
Just show me the contract and where to sign and as I’ve said before either put up or shut up!
I’m just having a hard time throwing so many under the bus to save those who will be relieved. The penalties & punishments for those still registered remain & some become even more punitive. Plus, all the power still remains with the DA. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us in a regulated system? This is politically motivated. Criminal Law reform was big in the elections and this is part of their reform to say we’re gonna stop punishing this group of people but only some & for the ones we keep punishing we’ll make it worse. Reform would be taking this disgustingly expensive registry that puts a huge burden on taxpayers & does nothing to protect the public & displaces almost a million Americans & eliminate the whole thing. That would free up millions of taxpayer dollars & put hundreds of thousands of taxpayers back to work. Instead we avoid real reform; dress up some proposal to make it look like we’re truly moving forward when it’s really just a dog & pony show for the pubic. Police already have your information & they are the only ones legally able to use that info anyway. It’s redundant & expensive for them to record that information twice or more. & since the public isn’t allowed to use that information for any action against you it serves no purpose besides creating hysteria. It’s been stated that this is a way to divide us. It will certainly remove the solidarity of many granted relief to the numbers still affected. The ONLY registry I would even consider standing behind is one that is placed on you as a parole or probation condition & only for that duration; accessible only to law enforcement for supervising & enforcement purposes only.
Our ability, either as marginalized individuals or as members of a group representing the interests of a despised minority to influence our lawmakers is, I think everyone would agree, pretty limited. I don’t know to what extent our buy-in on this particular scheme will enhance its ultimate success but I would guess that it would not be an overwhelming concern in Sacramento or amongst the public. Not to be terribly cynical but it could be that, if they see us as enthusiastic for the prospect of this bill then its chances of becoming law may be greatly diminished.
Certainly, ACSOL’s influence will be needed to lobby for changes in the final draft of the bill and I have no doubt that Janice will be there doing just that. If the question is “Would sponsors of the bill be looking for Registrant stakeholders’ acquiescence on the general concept of the proposed bill to move it forward?” and the answer seems to be yes then our response should be very much a provisional endorsement. If our concerns are being sought or even if they’re not, the details of the finalized bill need to be clear and their effects knowable in order for us, either as individuals or as a group, to extend our support.
A great many concerns have been raised here over the last several days as our members try to wrap their heads around the deliberately obtuse arcana of legislative bill-craft and to imagine the logical consequences that it would have in their, very real lives.
The Static-99R has been revealed to be a wholly inappropriate and extraordinarily blunt instrument of prognostication which is, nevertheless, a critical component in the proposed mechanism for gaining relief from the horrors of registration.
A single additional metric would make it far less objectionable (although we would still find much in the Static-99R to object to) as it would be applied in this proposed law: a formula for further reducing that score through the passage of time, crime-free in the community.
Another would be the Tier-3 life sentence which is clearly at odds with what the best statistics are saying about the influence of aging on recidivism.
My point is that ACSOL’s wholehearted support for this bill should be conditioned upon its final form and that any compromised and inferior relief that it represents should be met with an endorsement proportional to its capacity to deliver justice to its membership.
My hat’s off to you Janice and good luck moving forward!
There is no reason to take a for or against stand on the complete proposal. Heck, civil organizations take a yes/no position all the time with legislation. Affirm the good parts, oppose the bad parts. From whatever they say, it is not set in stone until the final vote. The key is to look at the details and not support something that will come back to haunt you (us). You represent all registrants, by your bylaws. That is what you are bound to. Your constituents spoke of a lot of concerns, represent them all of them.
Personally, I don’t see them putting much value on our opinions. We haven’t really organized the base of 80,000 to make much of a difference. They are going to listen mainly to the law enforcement personnel. If you threaten a lawsuit because of INCREASED penalties for some, they would probably take notice. It is way out of anything Constitutional to enhance a negative condition for one convicted person to benefit another. On the other hand, how can an organization that helps people say no to 10,000 getting off the registry right away? Answer: They are calling the shots. You (we) call the shots. Try to unite us.
I also do not see this as a Sophie’s Choice…even if the numbers are half of what Ms. Bellucci forecasts, 5,000/30,000…this is a boat that must be taken.
I have suffered under the Registration Regime, but for God’s sake, let my people go…this is a fantastic first step that none of us could even have prayed for a month ago…and now it is close to becoming an actuality!
Let us run with this…yet secretly saying, This is only a first step.
Let me note where I sense people are falling into mistaken thinking:
“The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.”
This is a false choice, for people starving, Eat half the cake presented and then get back into the kitchen…(smile).
I have agonized over writing anything on this…but, sitting here with a sigh…there really is no choice.
Take this and run with it with a smile.
Best Wishes, James
I support a tiered registry, but it has to be the right one. The final bill’s details really matter. I don’t believe that the registration will ever be completely abolished.
My feelings are about this is pretty simple.
I used to believe in a tiered system but have since come to the realization we cannot and should not ever have a registry of those who have completed their sentences. I don’t support the registry but if the only hope we have to remove some people off the registry is to go to a tiered system, then I will just have to accept it.
I still stand strong on the notion that the registry ultimately needs to come down completely.
As written, the proposed tiered registry offers many of us no hope. Even though it speaks of risk assessment the assignment of tiers is still very much based on conviction, especially tier three. Each case is different and should be looked at on a one on one basis. Any legislation that proposes a ‘one size fits all’ law is not a good one. We already have that. I have two separate convictions which would put me into tier three, yet I have not had a criminal offense for over thirty years. The fact that I am a registered citizen does not dictate my life, however it sure does hamper it. It would be best to see a law that offers all of us a chance to be free from this stigma.
Peace
Be pragmatic. Take what is given, then push the bar even further. There is nothing that says you can have one and not the other.
The board here has the ability to provide with details, analysis and truth what should and could be done by the powers that be in an entire new bill proposed that can and will accomplish everything that people want done. As the public, RCs and their representatives have the ability to do that, present and work to get it implemented. During the time, you will see then what the elected officials are really like, what and are willing to do to get their way. Rational and irrational thinking will take place with emotion and lack of factual thinking. Be prepared.
Based upon what is provided here today alone, there are enough smart people who have commented with great detail the shortcomings of the bill as is and where improvements are needed. I hope the board will take them and use them to better the bill or provide a new one altogether. CA has the ability to lead the nation here in this area, as they have with others, and stay away from any US Government enticement of being in compliance with what they feel is best (including $).
I do find it interesting this bill is provided just after election day has come and gone. I don’t believe that is coincidence, but strategically planned.
A tiered system is not something that should be strived for.
I’ve been calling this a Sophie’s Choice for a very long time now. i’m glad ACSOL is at least offering to let us voice our opinion before dissenting opinions are ignored, because I already know Janice is married to her incrementalist strategy. But since I have this last chance to point out the flaws of this strategy, I may as well do just that. This is why I say 3 jeers to 3 tiers:
1. Few will actually benefit from the 3 tiered system: First off, I doubt this will be applied retroactively and thousands of registrants will drop off immediately. (It seems the more likely scenario is they would create some form of petition to get off the list process rather than simply cut folks off.) There will be a Trump-storm if that is even sniffed by the media. Seriously, I doubt they’d cut 10,000 immediately. Oregon is transitioning to a 3 tiered system from lifetime registration and they’ve had to extend their time frame for implementation another 2 years to 2019. They have about a third of the registrants as Cali so I imagine that any potential relief will be delayed for years to come. Also, there’s the potential for moving the goalpost, as NY state had done once to level 1 registrants, whose registration period increased from 10 to 20 years, and now there’s a second push to increase that further. And how will folks be classified? I see a push to keep as many folks on the list as possible.
It validates the registry: If anyone’s endgame is the abolition of the registry, then this strategy is repugnant because in order to advocate for three tiers, you have to proclaim the need for a registry in the first place. You are allowing the opposition to line up on our side of the field in doing so.
It will make things worse for those on the highest level: There isn’t really a great way to pigeonhole folks into neat little levels. Ohio has been doing this for 20 years and they got it wrong even under the older, more superior risk assessment system. Just look at MY classification as an example. I’ve lived with the label of “sexual predator” for 11 years now, and I get it far worse than the average registrant. I could ramble on all day about the many ways it sucks more for me than for other registrants, but I think many of you get the idea already.
It will actually make fighting the registry harder in the future: It will be harder to use some of our go-to arguments (particularly the examples of teens landing on the list) under a tier system because folks will believe that we are successfully separating petty offenders from the “real threats” out there. Of course, I know that even risk assessment programs get it wrong because I’ve lived it. There is still a human factor involved in the risk assessments (in my case, judicial discretion, aka bias), and many judges or whoever is in charge of classifying registrants will err on the side of caution.
What I believe will ultimately happen is a very narrow pathway may open up for a very small number of registrants to get off the list (nowhere near 10,000) and the system will merely give many the false hope of getting off, but the procedure that will be installed will create standards so high, very few will truly get a reprieve. It might help a few but at the expense of many.
Janice believes in incrementalism but I don’t. To me, that’s like saying lets not abolish slavery because it is never going away, but instead, we just devise a system to free some slaves but allow some slavery to remain.
I don’t care if I piss some of you off but they asked for an opinion, so i’m giving it to them.
I disagree with this legislation. The way I see it, it’s like taking equity out of your home or maxing out your credit card. It feels good at first; but later on, it’s something you’ll come to regret. Why?
First, while it is great that about 10,000 will get off, the price to pay is a plethora of endless qualifications for the other “about 60,000 registrants” who may or may not “ultimately” stop registering. Not every one’s cases are clear. A lot of people might very well depend on having to petition the Court. And who knows if judges (who are elected) are really apt to grant such petitions. So this law might have the sick feature of making people pay a lot of attorneys fees to get disappointed in the end. So giving this much power to an elected judge to deny/grant a petition is really troubling. I can see why the attorneys on ACSOL’s board would push for this bill. But then, maybe I’m being paranoid. Right?
Second, what about the OVER 30,000 registrants who are classified as Tier 3? So non contacts and non violents can be lumped into that category IF they just happen to score high on the static? The static is no sure predictor. What about if a Tier 3 hasn’t reoffended in 20 years or more? Lifetime does not seem fair. Why is there an arbitrary 1987 date? What’s so magical about 1987? Also, what’s the point of posting addresses for Tier 3?
Third, why is this organization so adamant about pushing for a three-level tier? It seems awfully coincidental that Adam Walsh Act is also a three-level tier. After reading the draft and looking at other tiered states, I have a gut feeling that this law is a terrible long-term strategic option because all it’s going to do is set California up to be one bill away from joining the Adam Walsh states. Tier 2 subject to 6 month registration requirement, Tier 3 to having to register every 90 days? No thanks!! But you know the politicians will pass AWA because of its perceived increase in public safety and federal funding. Be careful ACSOL!
IF this organization makes the mistake of classifying offenders into three groups, California will be only one piece of legislation away from becoming an AWA state. This powerful organization might just be setting up its very own registrants for a future of more draconian laws. Look at other states who extend their tier levels or give the Level 2 and Level 3 registrants more restrictions. You are sacrificing a few who will end up getting more scrutinized (30,000), just to “free” another few (10,000)… while giving the majority 60,000 a reward that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT come provided a judge is willing to risk her/his political career.
Another thing. California has the incentive to become an AWA state because of increased federal funding. The fact the District Attorneys support this farce bill is one sign that should trouble us. The DA’s support is certainly not something to boast about. The fact CASOMB supports this bill is also something that should trouble us. They’ve thought this through. They know that becoming an AWA state will increase federal funding. And this is exactly what labeling and classifying registrants into three groups will do. It might very well set California up to be an AWA state. The incentive being more federal funding.
Think before you do this. While there might be some great short-term benefits, this is probably (in the long-term) a big mistake. I trust this organization will do the right thing:
1. Either work to HEAVILY revise this draft so that it is much more logical; or
2. Oppose it.
I too oppose this bill. I believe that we should all stand together and work toward totally abolishing the registry.
Whatever happened to “We’re All In This Together?” When I attend those meetings the podium often has that handwritten note. But I guess it means nothing now? This bill is a dupe. I’ve been reading it over the last day. What it does is it forces the 10,000 to sellout for the greater good of the other 30K and probably many of the 60K who will just end up disappointed. The way the bill is written and setup, AM I JUST CRAZY IN SEEING THAT WE ARE VERY CLEARLY BEING SET-UP TO GET SCREWED? Are the attorneys not seeing this?
This is like trading one side of hell for another.
I think it’s time all child safety advocates should be labeled as a hate group. They are the ones the Lawmakers have to coddle and appease in order to stay in office.
The dehumanization and subjugation will continue until the registry is no longer normalized as routine.
You people are not fighting mad enough. Reminds me of the Jews reaction when they felt the box car doors slamming shut on their faces. Only difference is they were forced to make peace with their fates.
I’m confused. Are those proposing this really that stupid?
If they put an arbitrary “registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry” in the bill, then go ahead and let it pass.
After it passes and some are removed from the registry, challenge it in court for everyone convicted after 1987 to also get off the registry under “Equal Protection” clause of the constitution.
Equal Protection
Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
What am I missing here?
What ever happened to the 17 year idea? If even ‘high risk’ offenders who remain offense-free in the community for at least 17 years are not likely to reoffend than anyone else, then what is the point of 20 year or even lifetime registration? Also, we are failing to note that there is no evidence to show that registries reduce crime. In fact, most studies show registries perversely creating crime because registrants’ risk factors are upped and are not able to integrate into communities and move on from the past. Even CASOMB awknowledged this in their reports. But I guess CASOMB is so dishonest to recognize its own findings and instead create and push a highly divisive bill that will put over 30,000 people in a WORSE position than everyone else. Again, I join the few others who OPPOSE this bill. It is unfair and lumps many in the Tier III who do not deserve to be. Thank you.
PLEASE do NOT back this bill!
I and many other registrants who were formerly excluded from the ML site will be made public if this bill goes through. This would ruin my life and the life of my family.
The decision to support, or not support, should be dynamic.
In its current form, the law seems reasonable when compared to what currently exists. That being said, this is only a draft bill. What is actually introduced, and what actually becomes law, can be a complete 180 from where the draft stands. After everyone has had their chance to amend the bill, what ends up landing on the Governor’s desk (if it gets that far) could wind up being a nightmare.
My opinion is to support now, contingent on what the bill evolves into.
So Iv’e read all of the comments on this post so far and there are obviously two points of view 1) Do not accept the tiered registry but abolish the registry altogether 2) accept the tiered registry (at least for now) and push forward later to try to change it or make it better. Any of you that believe/think that the registry will EVER be abolished are dreaming! At least a tiered registry represents SOME sort of positive change because if not, we are all destine to die while still on the registry
I’m with LS, accept the tiered registry for now. I’ve been on this registry for 28 years and want off !
I already voiced my opinion earlier, and I just wanted to emphasize my concerns again. Some already mentioned this and I wanted to summarize three points again:
1. 10,000 will fall off the registry right away. If they are deemed not a threat all of a sudden, why did they have to stay on the registry for this long in the first place? They were not able to get a COR for what reason? Now, everything is different and they are fully rehabilitated? Actually, I am sure they are, like so many others whose offense happened after 1987. They, too deserve to fall off immediately.
2. Per AWA Wikipedia: A study conducted in Ohio found that retroactive AWA re-classification increased the number of offenders and altered their placement in management categories. Prior to implementation of AWA in Ohio 76% of adult and 88% of juvenile offenders were designated on the least restrictive category or did not have to register at all, while only 20% of adults and 5% of juveniles were classified as “sexual predators”, the most restrictive category. Following re-classification this basic pattern was reversed, with 13% of adults and 22% of juveniles placed in Tier 1, 31% of adults and 32% of juveniles placed in Tier 2, and 55% of adults and 46% of juveniles placed in the highest and most restrictive Tier 3. 41% of adults and 43% of juveniles previously in lowest category and 59% of adults and 45% of juveniles who were not previously registered at all were assigned to Tier 3.[13]
So, the numbers of registrants who will end up on Tier III will have been excluded from the Internet all these years and are now considered SVP? How did this save the public all these years who were not aware of all these horrible people? The public is being fooled by the lawmakers, what a shame. Obviously, all this hysteria will get worse. If the people who were formerly not on the public site did not cause any concern, they should not cause concern now. The lawmakers can;t have it both ways. People were not on the public site for a reason, and the public deserves not to be mislead again.
3. Some mentioned that having some fall off the registry is better than what we have now. I disagree. A lady compared it to being in jail and being happy for those who get released. Right, but if the remaining people in jail now have to endure beatings and abuse that they previously not get, this does not constitute a fair ending.
What happens to those of us who were never assigned a risk level? My offense was 25 years ago in California and I was never assigned a risk level.