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
Nicholas Maietta I believe a member here stated they changed the classification of 288a to 288(a)
a violent act.What a bunch of lying pieces of shit,I don’t see you in tier 2 but tier 3
with the violent sex offenders,that means you register every 90 days.As another member here said
and I believe hes correct,they will make laws that will effect tier 3 offenders,real bad ones.
I don’t know how many people will move into the tier 3,if its say 30,000, it will get the attention of the dirty politicians,your life will hell,those that have families, it most likely will destroy them.
Some people will leave the state,some can’t it will be a recipe for heavy violence.
My self I only had one count of 288a in 1982,got 10 months jail time county,5 years probation,in theory if this bill became law,I would get kicked off,I may be wrong as the 288a charge may prevent me from getting kicked off,I may go into the 3 tier along with you.The bill needs to be clear its
intent,I find it totally written in lawyer bullshit.I don’t support this bill until all its bad effects are clarified and what category those that have a single charge of 288a go in.
I would like to note that this is maybe the first time anyone has asked any of us…what we might think.
This being the case, reactions are strong, years of built up venting is occurring, as might be expected…but Ms. Bulicci must do what she and the board things is best overall. I trust them to think this through, I trust Ms. Bellucci to do what is best.
Further, I sense that we will soon be entering a period of more Law and Order kind of politics….so, I’d like to get something in place before this kind of bad wave crests against us.
Yes, it seems imperative that even Tier III be given a hearing to get off the Registry…but you can’t kill the baby because it isn’t pretty enough.
Lastly, all I’ve ever wanted is for an honest chance to petition on my facts, (which certainly were bad enough…though I may still not see them as either unnatural or terrible…a crime to be sure, but not the end of the world either), and if there is an independent review…even by a DA and Judge….at least I get someone to look at it.
We have never had this opportunity!
I thank Janice for at least a partially open window to maybe change my life, and the lives of many others.
Good luck to all.
Best Wishes, James
PS. Do try to get some relief for Tier III individuals, or, suggest a Tier IV…truly SVP’s…that is maybe the correct answer.
I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?
The two prevailing laws seem to be:
From the new draft bill:
(4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).
And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:
Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.
The draft bill says Tier 1 must register for 10 years. The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years? I can’t find anything in the law specifying this. It would seem contrary to the logic of the new bill to require me to start a new 10 year registration period.
I certainly don’t want to call anyone’s attention to this apparent oversight in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon’s lenient law — with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.
Oooo, wow, is it getting steamy in here?
Friends, I wouldn’t get too worked up about any of this. We are not going to decide this issue. And Janice isn’t going to decide it either. The legislature is. And they really don’t want to hear from us. According to the civics books, everyone’s voice will be heard in the legislature before a bill is passed. I don’t think that applies to us. They are either going to pass it or not and what is good for public safety has almost nothing to do with it. Whether or not it is good for us has absolutely nothing to do with it. What matters is the politics of it. If conservatives get worked up, they will kill it. I’m not very optimistic, but I suppose I will start to get hopeful once we have an author and it has passed out of a committee. Until then, situation normal.
I have a hard question for you level 1 and 2 RCs:
If you were to get off the registry, would you leave us level 3 RCs to fight for rights by ourselves? Or would you still be a part of the fight until the registry is someday abolished?
To be honest, I’m afraid to hear your answers, but I am hoping for the best.
happy turkey day people…
I have a question that pertains to those of us convicted in Federal court. How does the proposed Tier system work for us?
For example, I was convicted in Federal court of Possession of Material Involving The Sexual Exploitation Of Minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B).
I remain on Supervised Release and my SARATSO risk level is LOW.
Given the above information on my personal circumstance, does the proposed legislation put me in Tier 1 or Tier 2?
Another question to the many intelligent people on this forum: Given my personal circumstances, where should I move within the United States to minimize the effect of registration?
I myself will continue with my motion no matter what if only to pass it on to someone willing to use it…it appears I’ll be a level two so this isn’t going to effect how I proceed in court it simply means I’ll have to modify my arguments slightly..I’m not even doing it for myself mostly since the registry hasn’t had extensive repercussions like it has on others.. I really want to help others who are really suffering….when I win it will open the door for thousands of others….
Too early to say, as this is only a draft, but I will preface this as a promising introduction for those who are lumped-in with people who are potentially very dangerous.
I do sympathize with the arguments surrounding the Static-99 component of the bill. As I never was assigned a score per se, this wouldn’t affect me as maybe it will someone else. To be classified as dangerous, remain offensive-free for ten-plus years, and have the system lock you in based on that criteria alone is both damning and frustrating I can imagine.
However, I can’t fathom why most individuals on this site expect a young man at 21-years-old, who had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, for whom was four months away from her 18th birthday must be classified with individuals who molested and annoyed a child. Doesn’t make sense to me. All I can rectify is these individuals know damn well they have a tough road ahead of them, and I offer my full blessings to you all. If you’re doing what needs to be done to make yourselves better people, great! If you’re one of the ones who are crying and generally being social cancers, good luck to you all, as the registry isn’t going away no matter how much you pout and get angry.
I didn’t make the laws that put me on the registry but I did break one. I take responsibility for what I’ve done and continue to do so. If the laws are changing to where I may get some level of relief, fantastic! I’m not running a crusade to abolish the registry; it’s not happening, and I fully understand as there are some bad apples out there. I know I’m gonna get some hate back on this one but I’ve read enough of the divisive comments on this site to finally speak up.
Barring the elimination of the Certificate of Rehabilitation component, I support this legislation. I have no other responsibility to anyone else other than myself and my family. To think I need to keep myself up at night worrying about the guy down the street who violated a child is none of my concern. If this upsets anyone, I get it, as I would probably hate too.
I’m for the tier registry. Its not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. As of right now we are stuck on the registry for life, at least with the tier registry there is hope for some to be able to get off. There are definite improvements that can be done, but it’s better to have tier registry in place and afterwards fight for more improvements. The process to get yourself off the registry after 10 or 20 years should be a simple and quick process, like just submitting a form and sending it in, and any reason for rejection should have valid reason and just “this person might commit another crime”. Tier 3 people should be able to move down tiers as well.
We just have to remember it takes time for change to happen.
I know a lot of you have been talking about CoR but how many people have really gotten a CoR?
As many of you probably know, it is now possible for some sentenced under the Three Strikes law to petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. That involves a hearing that the petition in the draft bill may be modeled on. We don’t don’t know the details of the burden of proof. Here are the basics worth talking about. This is from capcentral.org.
Case Name: People v. Garcia , District: 6 DCA , Case #: H040765
Opinion Date: 1/26/2016 , DAR #: 918
Case Holding:
The fact that qualified defendants who seek Proposition 36 resentencing are subjected to a risk assessment hearing, while defendants sentenced post-Proposition 36 are not, does not deny equal protection. In 2002, Garcia pled guilty to grand theft, and admitted prior strikes and prior prison terms, in exchange for dismissal of a robbery count and prior serious felony enhancements. He was given a life Three Strikes sentence. In 2013, he petitioned for Proposition 36 resentencing, supporting his request with expert testimony that he did not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if released. Based on the court’s review of Garcia’s criminal history, commitment offense, and poor conduct in prison, it found he remained a public safety risk and denied the petition. Garcia appealed. Held: Affirmed. Proposition 36 amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1170.12 to preclude the imposition of a life Three Strikes sentence unless the current crime is serious or violent, or the prosecution pleads and proves certain factors. It also created a mechanism whereby qualified defendants serving a Three Strikes term may seek resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Garcia claimed that defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36 are similarly situated to defendants sentenced after its passage, and it therefore violates equal protection to subject only the former group of defendants to a risk assessment hearing to qualify for resentencing. A statutory distinction between two groups regarding length of imprisonment is subject to a rational basis review test. With respect to Proposition 36, voters could have concluded that differences between the two groups of defendants warranted a distinction in punishment. There is no equal protection violation (agreeing with People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161).
Section 1170.126 does not create a presumption that a qualified Three Strikes defendant will be resentenced, nor does the Sixth Amendment apply to Propostion 36 resentencing petitions. Garcia also argued that section 1170.126 creates a strong presumption that an eligible petitioner will be resentenced and that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying him a jury trial. The appellate court disagreed. In People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that section 1170.126 does not create a presumption in favor of resentencing. Instead, the “unreasonable risk of danger” determination is a hurtle a defendant must overcome to be eligible for sentence reduction. Thus, for defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36, a Three Strikes life term remained the statutory maximum for Sixth Amendment purposes. The Court of Appeal here agreed with Kaulick. Penal Code section 1170.126’s emphasis on the court’s duty to evaluate whether resentencing would pose a danger to public safety reflects that a determination on that issue is a prerequisite to resentencing rather than an issue that may constitute a possible rebuttal of a presumption in favor of resentencing.
The trial court properly imposed the burden of proof on the prosecutor at the risk assessment hearing. Garcia focused on a statement made by the trial court to the effect that Garcia had not done anything to prove to the court that he was not a danger, claiming the court improperly saddled him with the burden of proving the absence of unreasonable risk of danger. However, the totality of the trial court’s comments reflect it appropriately recognized that the prosecution had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any type of contested issue of fact that might be relevant to the question of risk of unreasonable danger.
It turns out this can be very complicated and unsettled.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-the-relationship-between-proposition-36-proposition-47.html
The inclusion of the controversial STATIC “tool” should be enough reason alone to reject this bill. It sets a potentially troubling precedence. Just how is a “high” STATIC-99R score alone adequate reason to place a person as Tier III? It is simply amazing how many “experts” think the static is a validated instrument. Most of the “validation” was done in questionable, limited scope studies with Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, or one of the other STATIC creators. The fact is that the STATIC is sometimes right at the “high risk” label (often in what seems to be mere chance); but it is mostly wrong, especially after 5 yrs. By the way, there are also many recidivists that score “low risk” on the STATIC. But we never see the state or Hanson honestly examine why. Probably because they will verge into the realm of having to admit the STATIC is not all that different from old time pseudoscience. The people at the SARATSO Committee are politically motivated and intellectually dishonest for selling the STATIC hoax.
I say “Do a Trump”-
“Ask for Everything, the whole enchilada, then negotiate down and get what you really need.”
If left as is, Tier III people are viewed as “irredeemable”. People do change, incarceration changes people, counseling and treatment changes people. No one’s life, past, present or future should be based on the 10 question Static, and that’s what the Static does, ” portends to predict” what one “might” do in the future. If everyone’s past was a future indicator of their future behavior, I’d venture to say we would all be in a bit of trouble.
If left as is, a Tiered Registry Bill such as this III tiered bill gives some people “No Chance” at a normal life despite any changes they may have made over the years. And when all hope is taken away from individuals, they feel they have nothing to lose and then consequences are always tragic.
I suggest taking Tier III off the table completely.
With Tiers I and II, people at least have some hope of getting off the registry.
If you re-offend on Tier II, well, then you’ll probably end up back in prison or jail and your whole cycle of initial registration should start over again when you get out. Essentially, you loose the time you’ve already been on the registry and have to start all over. This would keep chronic offenders “chronically” on the registry.
As far as public safety, the public is no safer no matter what tier someone is on. Tiers are just “labels” just like “sex offender registry” is just a label. No one is “safer” because of it.
Janice, ask for what will benefit all, if we only ask for some, that’s all we’ll ever get. And to get things changed once a bill is enacted, well, we see how hard that is.
Go for it, your work is much appreciated.
I strongly suggest that the new proposed tiered system also have a feature that Tier 1 registrants NOT be included on the public registry. This is the case in New York and elsewhere. Can this important feature be included in the new legislation? Anyone share my opinion on this matter?
I suggest that we use the same tactic the legislators have used so successfully: Incrementalism. Meaning, if you take on the entire registry at once, it’s almost certain to fail. (I have my doubts about the tiered registry proposal, given what Californians just did with the death penalty vote.) If we chip away at it, bit by bit, we are more likely to positively affect more lives. One thing I noticed that is particularly troubling: Several pages in, the proposal says that registrants who have completed the time period for their tier may petition law enforcement and the courts to be removed from the registry. The presiding law enforcement agency can put up a fight, if they wish, and demonstrate to the court their belief that a registrant must be compelled to stay on the registry for reasons of “public safety”. Meaning, it’s NOT automatic. You have to ask to be released, and the DA can argue against that release. This is a fatal flaw. I don’t know whether it should change how Janice and company should or should not support the bill as written. But it’s important that people realize this is not an automatic thing. In my county, the DA will oppose every single attempt at relief. And they may be moderately successful in those attempts.
Oh my Lord no! I am a currently low risk (static99R = 1) 288(a) offender, convicted 2004, no prior anything, no post anything, got 5 years probation, did no prison time, but I my address is listed. I have no residence restrictions. Trying to make it as a performer is hard enough with people looking me up on the internet. Looking at this, I would be put into a Tier 3 ?!?!?! High risk 90-day reregistration, FLYERS(!!!), etc. etc. Life in my neighborhood would likely become impossible, and where would I go?
This makes it all much worse for me. Am I missing something? I can’t even…
I was curious, does having a victim who is a stranger count for or against you in this sceme? It is listed as a criteria for placing certain former offenders in either tier II or III.
In regards to the Internet listing of Megan’s Site. What does this new tiered bill have to say on that. Will all three tiers have their information disclosed or just tiered 3. Considering one at the moment is excluded from the site based on a none violant index office well over 20yrs ago which will more than likely fall in tiere 1 be placed on the website? I guess I could of easily just ask what tiers will be listed. Thanks for all your comments
I just hope they take away the Static-99R from Tier 3. The Static shouldn’t be used as a sole determinant in deciding registration terms AFTER parole or probation.
Sure, the Static could be used during the first 5 years after release in parole or probation in ONLY determining supervision level. But using it for any period after 5 years and/or using it to determine 10, 20, or lifetime registration duration is completely unacceptable.
The Static-99R “tool” is/was not designed for the purpose that it is being used in this proposed bill.
The registration clock does not start at the end of probation. The draft is pretty clear that it begins on the date of release from custody. Big difference.
Since ASCOL now represents registered citizens in all states, most of which have tiered registries, I am wondering how its support of this version with its requirement to have DA approval to exit the registry and also the heavy reliance on the Static 99 may look to registrants in other states? Maybe this is what makes it a Sopie’s Choice now, when a couple of years ago CARSOL was 100% behind lobbying for a tiered registry in California. This may not be just about getting some people in California off the registry, but how ASCOL is going to represent the interests of all registrants.
Does anyone know or understand what will happen if you have a certificate of rehabilitation prior to this tier registry going into place?
I’ve read through this a couple of times and it seems like the act of getting a CoR will change but it doesn’t nessasrily mention if you already have one.
For example if you have registered for 15 years and are a tier 2 but have a cor will you automatically get removed or does the cor do nothing for you ?
Just how can the 10 questions of the Static scam predict future “risk?” Seems a lot like a scam to me.