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
I don’t live in California and this bill would not affect anyone that I personally know. But just based on the experiences that I’m aware of in Texas, I’d be a little hesitant to throw support behind this bill. In Texas, there is a deregistration process that, while completely different on its face, shares many similarities on a practical level and for all intents and purposes, deregistration in Texas is a complete sham. Here it operates as such that first the individual must hurdle all the “exceptions” as to why they cannot apply. (These would be similar to the tier II and III proposals in the California bill). If those hurdles are passed and the person meets the narrow definition of who can apply, then he must have completed a state approved sex offender treatment program for (I believe) a minimum of two years. However, in-prison SOTP does not count, and unless the individual has been through an official program on the outside, his weekly/monthly $$ therapy sessions don’t count either. There are also individuals who were released from prison before the State started all the in and/or out treatment programs and mandatory requirements. So someone who went on the list retroactively and has been crime free for 20 years would still have to attend a very expensive treatment program. So, first, there’s that expense. The therapist must also sign off that the individual is rehabilitated, which can be a hurdle in and of itself. Then there’s the expense of hireing a lawyer. Once all of that has been completed, just as with the California bill, the individual has to go before a judge in the county in which he was convicted and the DA can (and nearly always does) oppose deregistration. The entire decision is entirely in the hands of the judge. And after two years and thousands of dollars, if the judge has no interest in signing off on it, everything that has come before is completely wasted. Most individuals who meet the qualifications and jump through all the hoops are then opposed by the DA and denied by the judge. So, from my perspective, and from having no skin in the game, I look at this bill and think that while it looks good on paper, in any practical sense the only people who MIGHT benefit are those who were convicted prior to 1987 and are SUPPOSEDLY meant to be automatically removed (if/whenever that actually does happen). But for everyone else, it’s arbitrary at best, and mostly just false hope. For some people, hope is enough.
The other angle, though, which should be considered is that getting something like this on the law books is pretty damn difficult. However, once it is there, there is always the possiblity that changes can be made and wording tweaked. That is what the advocates in Texas are trying to accomplish now–get the bill that already exists tweaked to make the deregistration program more substantial. It’s kind of like, say, the ease with which someone might spend $1 here and $2 there and end up frittering away $100 without really noticing vs. being hit with a $100 purchase. It’s easy to say yes to the small things but MUCH harder to overcome the bigger sticker shock. Without a bill like this already on the books, incremental changes are impossible. There’s no guarantee that incremental changes would come quickly or even that they’d come at all, but at least the possibility of incremental changes exists. Without a bill like this on the books, no change at all is possible especially because the sticker shock of abolishing the registry all at once is so severe it will never happen. It’s true also that incremental changes could go the other direction, however in my humble opinion, the states where this has happened tend to be those in which there’s no lobbying or advocacy group available to constantly challenge them, or there are only a few very overworked advocates and volunteers without the backing of lawyers or financial resources.
So… is this a good bill? No, it’s horrible, really, as it offers the idea or pretense of hope that will be absolutely meaningless in practicality. It will also, through the shuffling of tiers and risk factors, make life more difficult for quite a number of people.
However, it is also being put forth by one of the few organizations that politicians might listen to and for whom it could POSSIBLY be possible to muster the political will to vote through. And unless SOMETHING, as abhorent as it is, is voted through, then theres’s nothing there to work with to start chipping away.
On the flips side to that, those who drafted this bill did not do it because they are friendly to registrants. They did it because even they can see the bloat and waste that the registry has become, and they can see that the current system it is not good public policy and is counter to the mission they have been handed, which is to find pollicies to increase public safety. With that in mind, and understanding that it’s going to be a hard sell to get this thing passed to begin with, it’s possible that ASCOL opposition MAY cause the bill drafters to consider the issues at play and POSSIBLY give them enough reason to at least CONSIDER altering the wording on SOME of the processes. It would depend, I suppose, on how strongly they want to get the bill passed, and how highly they value ASCOL support.
Do not see this as a Sophie’s choice. Improve the lives of 10k immediately and 60k in the future and continue to work to better the lives of those who would stay. Just because you can’t get everything you want doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take some improvements and this is clearly an improvement.
In general, I support the bill but I can think of several improvements. First, the registry is unAmerican and immoral and should be eliminated. Second, the bill requires RSOs to file a petition to get off the registry. That implies hiring a lawyer which will make the process inaccessible to thousands of RSOs who just cannot afford an attorney. I suppose it is conceivable that the public defender could help, but those offices are generally overworked. I would have gone with something much simpler: misdemeanors get 10 years; felonies 20 years; recidivists 30 years. You can go to court to change your tier for extenuating circumstances. Of course, there is an even simpler solution–to get rid of the registry, but we are not there yet.
I printed this bill out and read it over the weekend a few times. I also made some notes and highlights. Nonetheless, here are the things that trouble me about this bill; they are as follows:
(1) Current unpublished offenders will be published if they fall into the Tier 2 or Tier 3 category.
(2) Registration relief through the Certificate of Rehabilitation is removed.
(3) Superseding reliance on the Static-99R. (The Static should be limited to periods while on parole or probation. BUT the Static-99R should NOT be used to determine tier level! Using the Static for any other reason than parole/probation begins to resemble ‘The Minority Report.’ But IF it has to be used, restrict it to only 10-years offense-free in the community. After the 10-year offense-free period, and according to its own ‘developers,’ the Static is NOT designed for use.)
(4) Also troubling is that this bill puts equal registration penalty to offenses under 667.5 and 1192.7. Tier 2 should be limited only to the violent offenses under 667.5.
(5) And finally, this bill does not distinguish between contact and non-contact offenses. So it is entirely possible for ‘non-contact’ offenders — even a first-time offender who has remained offense-free — to fall into the lifetime Tier 3 classification. (Of course, this would be dependent on whether they score “6” or higher on the Static. But the scoring system is ‘dubious’ at best… especially after over 5-years offense-free.)
Thank you.
How does this Bill affect those with federal registration requirements? My conviction was for possession of child pornography. After 15 years the federal government no longer will require me to register. Since California has lifetime registration for everyone right now what does that mean if this Bill were to become law? All the state based assessments do not apply in my case or a vast majority of federal cases.
I support this bill. I support anything that can remove registration from even some people. I view this as a first step and not a be-all and end-all in this fight. It’s not as if this bill will be passed, and then roll credits and that’s all folks. Let’s take this first step, and then let’s continue to fight!
YES, all registries should be abolished. Let’s start by abolishing registration for some, and then, eventually (God willing) for all.
Count me in as a supporter of this bill!
I am out on the east coast. I’ve been to one Texas Voices conference and one National RSOL conference. I’ve met Janice, Frank, and a whole number of great people. I am gravely concerned with this piece of legislation. I will be succinct in my reply.
1) pushing more people into Tier III is a horrible idea.
2) I agree with many that the DA has extensive power. I do not expect people to be released easily, and it is EXPENSIVE to go that route. How many registrants have the funds to do this? Realistically, this makes it legal while making it extremely difficult to attain. This is by design.
3) removing the ability to get a CoR? It is called “let us make this process more difficult”
4) 1987 dating: In case you haven’t done the math, they are willing to drop the people who have been on for a very long time and aren’t a problem. Yet they never have to admit that the registry is flawed. It’s called reducing the registry by aging out. It’s not for our benefit in the long term.
5). I remember discussing the Romeo and Juliet cases five plus years ago. How many R&J supporters left as soon as they started being successful? I am not talking specifically in CA, but across the USA. This is a divide and conquer strategy.
6) I am a cynic by nature and trust government very little. To me, this is a victory for some at the expense of others. I see the main reason for the bill is that Janice is doing an amazing job and being a pain in the ass to those in power. They want us to fight amongst ourselves. They want to dilute our effectiveness. Long term, this will weaken us. A hollow victory because they want us to go away.
I am a lifetime registrant with zero hope where I live. Personally, I want to move to Portland, OR with my fiancée. I’ve been on the registry for 12+ years. Thank you.
I can understand the position of those who support, as I too would likely benefit from its passage. I also understand the concerns and criticisms of those who would not benefit from its passage. Personally, I’m skeptical of any proposed “improvements” to the registry as I am about aerosol sprays that make feces vanish.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that abolishment will ever come from within any particular state, but rather that decision will almost definitely come from the US Supreme Court. Abolishment of the registry & the CASOMB draft bill are not the same issue.
Whether we individually support or oppose this bill, it seems obvious that we are united here in our wish to see the registry completely abolished.
I give up. This now seems to me to be a supreme waste of time. The CASOMB said this is set in stone, meaning we are not going to make them change anything in this bill. Sounds like they have gone through a lot of arguing amongst themselves to hammer out this proposal and if you wish to change anything, it will have to be in writing letters to your legislators who may modify this bill. As for the incremental change hoped for in being in favor of this bill, I hope you guys are correct. To me this is just another example of the failed appeasement strategy of the Clinton democrats. You vote for this bill, you are stuck with it and will have to answer for it later, like they did for NAFTA or the crime bill. If that doesn’t bother you like it bothers me then fine put your stamp on it.
What we should be doing here nonetheless is confronting those in favor of the registry, at the places were the lies are spread, online and in the face to face conversations. That is how incremental change is really going to happen, when more and more people start seeing the sham this registry is and will start to feel some conseqences for believing in it. People for example don’t smoke less now because of government decree, but because they see the damage to their lungs. It is not as easy as putting your name on a ready made bill, or arguing about it in this safe space. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me confronting the pitch fork mobs, but I can’t see a way to avoid it.
Janice ,,seems the census is absolutely no on this bill…the government is flanking us with air filled tanks and fake troops all the while why they are making precision strikes taking out our best weapons,ie frank Lindsay and the like,, so they can attack head on with virtual impunity….the fact is that Megan’s law is one suit away from being repealed and replaced with a registry only for those who the government can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard to be a threat to the public….we have had multiple courts saying enough is enough and with the right suit,,on the real issues and theright plantiffs, would indeed be successful..at least try before you help throw us all to the wolfs…
Wow, Janice look at how many RC’s and others including Family Members responded, the most I’ve seen all year.
Hope they see that you and the Board has the best interest in all RC’s in mind and achieving this long term goal and can be changed for third tier folks in the future for possible amendments.
It is quite an achievement and probably stops the mostly foolish Law Firms mailer sending us false hope for thousands of dollars for nothing but to look at your case (RC individ).
This, even though I may know a few that would be a third tier would make life possible for a larger majority than NOW.
I also noted that the State Of Cali DOJ would take this and not meet their self goal of identifying Calif RC/s Original DATE OF CONV> and save them money by taking so many off possibly to save adding dates to thousands of Calif RC’s on the ML Site for AG’s site.
Winning the tier system when you step back and overview may be a larger winner stepping FORWARD, not backward. And after reading EVERY Response to the 21st from your post, sadly majority doesn’t like it.
Get Ira’s response too beside Catherine’s. This is a SERIOUS Step for a long life goal for so many here, may NOT affect Nationally, but other State’s may take note. THIS IS WAY BETTER THAN CURRENTLY for the VAST MAJORITY and makes common sense to move up and not backwards. Thank YOU and the Board for your Service. Period.
WOW, almost 200 by time of this writ.
104,369 to the CASOMB, changing daily…this could lighten their workload as well as LE Agencies. TIERED.
follow the money people…look who realistically will make a lot of money and others who will continue to feed off the teet of the registry…the only way this bill could be rectified is (1)if it didn’t raise the level or requirements of anyone currently on or off the registry,(2) if it was automatic removal based on time and the offense ,and if you are a repeat offender or violent based on individualized risk assessments (3)that there would be some kind of guarantee that there would be no legislation in the future targeting individuals that are on or off the registry…even then it still isn’t constitutional on either the federal or state side…after all they are on the retreat I don’t care what anyone says they are..no one has challenged smith or Connecticut in any meaningful way…those who have challenged it on the periphery have all been pretty much successful lately you even have the courts themselves stating that they only addressed one issue out of a plethora of others that can and should be challenged…helll the California case on residency restrictions is a great resource to show how non effective these laws are and how the legislators are out of control by enacting laws with absolutely no rational basis…I can’t even find hardly any case where the courts ruled that a law had no rational basis let alone a unanimous decision on it..use what leverage and momentum that we have and challenge the justification and the constitutionality of these laws on the real issues and come at them from a place of strength and demand all our amendments be included in the bill or we oppose the bill and we’ll see you in court….
also I suggest that you notify these civil servants on the record that if they pass this bill and continue to pass any more unconstitutional laws against its citizens that they are do not have personal or proffessional immunity against a suit both criminally or civil monetarily for violations of constitutional rights under color of law…stop playing nice guy and acting from a place of weakness when the ball is in our court…we’re in the last quarter with seconds on the clock, we’re down two and need that three pointer to either win or lose,make the shot..
I would just like to say one more thing & then I’ll rest my case. So I hope I can get my point across with as few words as possible. If this was something that would benefit the few without FURTHER punishing those left behind no matter where I fall into that category it would have my full backing & support. I’m an older registrant now with a family to consider. However, and pay very close attention to this statement, EVERYONE has a family who deals with the registry and all the issues that come with it. Even if we, as registered citizens, do not deserve peace from our pasts then our sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are innocent and have done nothing wrong certainly do deserve peace from our past. And to further punish us is to punish our families as well. I’m out!
I think the following statement is very misleading and and does not reflect the recent decisions in the courts or the possibility that that 60000 would get relief which is very questionable if the Da and Judges have anything to say about it…Your stating that there is no other option and that we ahve to accept ths deal or suffer for ever the unconstitutional regime thats currently in place..
“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.”..
Those are not in fact our only choices as there are many many others if we can find the will and the resources to fight this, as shown in recent court decisions….
No wonder we cant get any real action if all our warriors have already conceded to defeat….
I would conclude as follows:
I’m becoming almost immune to life changers, so I’m not going to argue my view any longer. In fact, there was a lot of argument I made against this just off other’s posts without reading more thoroughly than a scan. Now that I’ve read it more thoroughly I place myself at a tier 2 with 15 years registration logged.
I honestly dont understand how to conclusively score issues on 99, so I figure that’s the only potential snag for me.
i was arguing against this, so now after reading it through I have learned I probably benefit from it. I’d be a hypocrite to change my argument, so I have to end my lobby with pretty much as I’ve argued for: pass with modification, I think a lot of us fall into this camp!
i also think carsol; could meet their objectives in some way doing so.
one more thing…where is the rational basis or connection between the public notification or registration requirements to online offenders??? other than the Internet indetifier requirements that doesn’t apply retroactively there is absolutely no nexus between registration and public safety…these laws have zero effect on public safety as they are proclaimed to give people notice of who are living in their communities…althouth the entire registration scheme has zero effect on public safety it really has no rationalty when applied to online offenders…I am really disturbed that we were told that we either choose this bill or condone ourselves to a lifetime on the registry….this is NOT our only choice if someone is willing and able to fight and doesn’t just give in to defeat without even putting up a real fight …..very disturbing that that is exactly the position of this organization and others….of course non of them have anything to lose right….I’ll never concede defeat and will continue to fight for my god giving rights…even though all ohr forefathers and generstions have fought for your rights i guess if your not willing to fight for your rights you must not deserve them….
correct me if I’m wrong but is it to much to ask or expect that any legislation is based on facts and empirical evidence and be reasonable and be reasonably connected to a effective policy..is it to much to ask that a registry,if you must have it, should be reasonable, based on empirical evidence and facts and puts the burden of proof on the government to show that an individual poses a significant risk for re offense and that public safety will be increased if the individual is placed on some kind of registry???I think it is very reasonable….
I know that Janice values everyone’s opinion, if that wasn’t true Janice would have decided on her own on what she wanted to do regarding this bill.
There are issues with the bill, everyone can agree with that, but we also have to look at how many people we can also help with the passing of a teired bill.
IF ACSOL can tweak the current bill to address a lot of the concerns of the current version, would you all be in support of the bill?
Janice,
Can you please clarify whether a misdemeanor 647.6(a), with an applied for and granted exclusion from the site, will be published under this bill?
Regardless I do not support this bill, however ANY clarification would help immensely.
Thank you.
I just had a thought, I’ve been wondering, what the year 1987 in the draft means. Maybe the ca.doj can’t go back any further than 1987, that would make them noncompliant with the law suit Janice filed to bring everyone’s information up to date. I didn’t think CASMOB would do this out of the goodness of there heart, there has to be another reason!
Janice,
If there is a chance to make the amendments that people have mentioned here, then it makes sense to oppose the current bill, as it will harm more families than it will help. Although this bill seems like a blessing, it may setup a precedent to make it very hard to pass future challenges to this bill. It’s basically like the state saying “See, you were fine with the tiered bill, so now you can’t complain about it”. I would suggest more push back to the state. If the static 99 wasn’t designed for use beyond 5-10 years, then it shouldn’t be used as the prominent tool to determine risk here. It seems like your team should really look at this bill and see if a potentially better solution could be proposed. If there is any chance that a better solution can be reached, then this bill shouldn’t be approved, just for short term gains. However, if this bill will make it easier to propose challenges to the laws in the future, then it should be passed.
10 years, 20 years, lifetime. Why these numbers? They are arbitrary and not supported by data. Every year on the registry costs the state money and delays a registrant’s return to full community membership. How about: 5 years for tier 1, 10 years for tier 2, 15 years for tier 3. Fifteen years without recidivism is a clear indication of new behaviors, a new way of life.
Regardless, the registry itself had not been shown to reduce crime.