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
A bunch of obscene phone calls can put one onto tier 3.
Janice,
Does the proposed bill call for Tier 1 RCs to be off the public website such as New York state? If not, can we push for that provision? What are the chances such a provision can be incorporated into the new law?
Question. If someone was convicted of crimes that the new registration would put them into tier 3- but it was one victim-family member- And their static score was low- would that mean they would be a level 3 ? In other words,is it both the static score And the offense- or one or the other- or is their discretion- like having been off parole for a good number of years?
I think everybody needs to take a very deep breath here folks. Many of the questions on this forum seem to be, “what does this do for me?” (As in, “it’s all about me.”) Janice has asked for input because she is trying to figure out whether to support this bill, or not, as a whole. For the ENTIRE group of people she is representing. We have a potential move towards the positive here. Maybe not for all, but for many. The real question is, does this bill move the majority of the entire group in a more positive direction, or not? I don’t know the answer. And I have read the bill several times. I have concerns about this bill as written. But it’s definitely a step in the right direction; for a huge amount of registrants. That said, it feels like it might be an attempt by law enforcement at “divide and conquer.” Again, I’m not sure. But everybody should try to take themselves out a step or two and look at what best for the whole group…..not just themselves. And By the way, I would qualify for Tier 1, and be able to apply for release in February of 2018. I’m still not sure this is the right move for the whole group.
pgm111:
As to being listed on the Internet website, the new draft bill says in 290.45 (a) (1) that it will be based on “information concerning that specific person’s current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but not limited to the person’s static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools.” So, it sounds like a determination will be made for each individual, and that the Static-99R test will be the guide, more than Tier level. Comments? Janice, any idea?
Tier 3 is so broad I believe a great majority could end up there. Their risk level could be low but the crime accused would put them on tier 3.. We must continue the fight for freedom and constitutional rights restored. Everyone has a right to a life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights” which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.
We have all fallen and come short weather we are willing to admit or not. Individuals need to be able to serve their time and move on with their life.
Please ASCOL and all advocate groups do not stand behind this bill.
not in favor
It seems like most of us don’t really understand this bill and its potential harm. Some say we are technically all Tier III since we are on lifetime registration but I will strongly have to disagree. About 25,000 registrants are currently not disclosed on the public website. That will change if they were to be classified as Tier III and II and possibly even Tier I. Going back to what would benefit the majority, now we are looking at about 10 000 who might benefit and 25000 who would initially suffer a bigger punishment than they anticipated before they might benefit in 10 or 20 years from now. I say might as laws as we know change for the worse and are applied retroactively. So there will be thousands of formerly excluded refgistrants who will now suffer unemployment , harassment, embarrassment etc when they have lived a more or less quiet life until now? The public will now see them as dangerous people where they were never deemed such before. It just does not look like it will benefit anyone let alone the majority.
It is possible no one can understand this bill well enough yet to be 100% for or against it. It is too necessary to make assumptions.
Steve ~ I understand that most of us want the bill to pass or be rejected based on what it will mean to each of us individually. Sure, there were pre-internet people who all of a sudden appeared on the public website when Megan’s Law came into effect. It sounds like you are saying that if these people had to go through it, then it is ok for others to endure the same shame if this bill passes. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We want to move forward and not backwards. It will be a step backwards for more than twice of the people compared to those who will benefit from it. I can understand that most of us are in it for ourselves, it is human nature and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I won’t judge anyone based on what side they are on. If the bill can be amended to not affect a person’s current standing, I would vote for it. If the bill will make it worse for a great majority, I will vote against it. Pretty simple. Those who are not publicly displayed need to remain undisclosed. Those who are displayed should have a chance to petition to be removed eventually. The Static 99R is ridiculous. How can someone who has been crime free for 20 years still score the same because the static questions stay the same? That makes absolutely no sense at all and is actually very embarrassing. Lots of things to be considered!
After reading the Ohio’s proposal–I personally believe most here would be amenable to the legislation,if, and Ohio appears to put risk in the hands of the judge, they did that for us here. I think with this current legislation everyone has issue with static 99 and statutory placement, without a day in the court.
As with Ohio make falling off the registry automatic at time intervals, provided no new sex offense; allow a person to appear before a judge to express his/her feelings as to why they are not a threat, the DA can still appear to represent the people. The purpose of the appearance would be for the removal prior to the tier expiration date, down grading of tier. no reliance on static 99, totally an impartial juror’s discretion.
I know I’d sign up for that!
no no no ..it should be the government’s burden to prove, with clear and convincing evidence standard that someone is a danger to the public….that is the onky way a registry can pass constitutional scrutiny..
we are not professional lawyers or public speakers and I am sure a large number of people would be nervous and unable to articulate their case especially in court room setting..court rooms are very intimidating and like i said the burden of proof should be on the government who are trained public debaters..
the entire judicial system is mired in enequality because the prosecution has way more experience than any public defenders and have and use their endless resources to win their cases..this is also something that someone needs to bring suit and challenge the Courts on this subject..
I know you did I just wanted to point out that a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own little less to be able to successfully debate or prove that you meet all the requirements and don’t pose a significant risk to the public…that’s all I’m saying…I can pretty safely hypothesis that very very few will ever get relief under this petitioning the court standard outlined in this bill…this can in no way be construed to satisfy the procedural due process that each and every one of us deserve….not saying you stated against anything I just posted I’m just pointing out those factors.
man why does everyone have to be so condescending and relatively rude in their comments at least towards me..
“Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see.”
Is it just me or is that statement uncivil and rude..makes me feel like you’re insulting my intellect by inferring that I can not read or comprehend what was said..i don’t know maybe it’s just me but I don’t think so..
never mind.. this has been a very productive and civil comments section so forget what I said and continue to focus on the topic before this turns into a bash mike r onslaught…lmfao
Here is my unsolicited advice for the board: You should stay neutral. The role of the organization should be to provide as much detailed information about the bill as possible, such as the key dates, the key players, etc. To take a position in favor of the bill implies that you are leaving behind a significant number of registrants. The registry is useless and punitive and supporting a bill the keeps someone on is something of a betrayal to them. On the other hand, the idea of giving 70,000 registrants an offramp is quite alluring. In the end, the strength of the organization is the ability to speak as one. So we cannot just ignore the suffering of any registrant. Additionally, I question the value of our support of a bill. Which legislature will be swayed by our endorsement? I think the board should stay out of the lobbying business and stay in the information business.
Compassion!
While I feel for those that may not get off the list, here is my short story.
My last offence was in 86, in Calif. Since then I have been clean, I have never been in a court for my own doings since then. Since then I have graduated from two Bible Schools, earned a Ph.D, Had my own Bible school. I have been living in same home for 22 years,(out of state) married to the same lady for 32 years, Get this, Pastoring a Church for 22 years. The State I live in has a tiered system and I am not even on it, I called the Police Dept. and they told me that I am not a risk but I have to reg. because it followed me from CA. Thank You Janice and Chance for all you are doing, keep up the good work.
Mike R is right about “a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own… ”
Not only that, but even if you get a good attorney, the likelihood of a sex offender getting good representation is low, and the publicly elected judge granting it is even lower. These people have friends and family that won’t look kindly on them supporting a sex offender when they can’t be 100% certain they won’t re-offend and the judges have to get re-elected.
The only way legislation will help get people off the registry is if it is automatic at a particular time or after particular events. Period. Sure, a few minor cases will miraculously get approval to be removed, but the majority will not. Quit kidding yourself that a “day in court” is all you need to show what a great person you have become because it won’t matter. I’ve seen it first hand in Texas. It doesn’t work.
Until the right lawyers with the right clients get a good case in front of appointed lifetime judges like SCOTUS the relief to registered citizens won’t come.
This bill is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think many here are very astute to have pointed out the Static 99R’s use in classifying Tier III’s. This is really what this bill is about. A “risk” based registry. In theory “risk” based sounds great. But when it relies on junk science like the Static scams, then I’m afraid it ain’t no better than offense based registries. In fact I think this bill is a lot worse than what we have now. As of now, this bill seems completely intended to divide the movement against the registry. CA SOMB manipulation at its best!!
Hope you people don’t fall for it. But it seems many have already taken the bait.
I see a lot of push back on this from the people that it won’t likely help. It is not perfect, but 10,000 people dropping off instantly, and 60,000 people eventually sounds pretty good to me. Of course I hope that the vast majority of people remaining that don’t deserve to, and society is not helped by them being in the registry, shouldn’t have to register. I know I’ll get slayed by this, but there is no doubt that some people, a small fraction, the worst of the worst who do deserve, and society is helped, by them being on the registry.
So i see a tier 3 288 (a) as a “lifetime” if a person is a repeat offender (BUT) 288 (B ) is the same as ( a ) but by the means of force violence menace or fear, so what if the person had 1 conviction of 288 ( A ) and has already been on registry for 22 years? (since 97) and had no other sex related issues and never been to prison? i ask because i see that tier 3 also has that –forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14– *288 (B)—- so heres where im confused?? how can a person have 1 single conviction 288 (A) only time in trouble but tier 3 is also putting * (a) and (B) as 1 sentence?? 288 (A) is the intent to *NOW* 288 ( B ) is by means of force,, and court records show there was no force? -from california-
*Janice please*
yeah abolish these people just don’t get it…you or I or anyone else for that matter can pound our fist and beat this horse to death and they still wont get it…Hey that fourth circuit ruling though…look out man because its coming….Just like you and I and a few others have stated where is the justification fr these laws???show us the empirical evidence and prove that we pose a significant enough risk to justify the registry, we have more overwhelming evidence that the registry is actually counterproductive then the government can bring in favor of its registry….Ive been right about every issue thats came up about all this crap and I hate to say it but Im telling you IML law suit the way it is and was argued will not prevail, this tiered bill is going to pass and does absolutely nothing for the remaining people except create the real possibility of becoming even bigger targets for these vindictive legislators, but the good news is is that there will be a challenge for the government to prove their case and support it with evidence and not just suppositions..Its coming….
according to saratso their is supposed to be at least 5 or 6 tiers so there is really no telling what kind of pseudo junk tool they’re going to use….and what the heck they cant even find a study or statistical data from the US they are importing this junk pseudo science and statistics from Canada….so they just troll the world to find stats or prediction tools and pick one that fits their needs….not only is this so called tool pseudo science it doesn’t even reflect or take into account anything about the US’s research, findings, or stats.our experts,especially our statisticts and data here in this country paint a very different picture than Canada’s..they relied upon very limited studies that were mostly done years ago and were biased to boost these authors and creators credibility of this junk science…their recidivism rates were dramatically higher in their limited studies then all of our multitudes of studies by independent and even governmental agencies..it seems we should be using our own data and conclusions instead of trolling other countries throwing what they say or have on the proverbial wall here in the US to see of it sticks…
I oppose this bill. If ACSOL decides to support this bill, I will no longer support ACSOL. Period. This organization could decide to look after ALL registrants. Sure, this bill will help 10,000. But it’s at the expense of the rights of 30,000 people who will be singled out as Tier III! As a civil rights group, you people should not be doing this! Even though CA is a lifetime state, it still is a lot better than most other states. This tiered system will make it worse for a lot of people. And this bill is a lot worse than the lifetime law we have now. The mere fact that ACSOL seems set in leisurely throwing a bunch of arbitrarily defined Tier IIIs under the bus really has me troubled about the direction of this organization. The fact that corrupt police and law enforcement want a tiered registry should have us estimating what monster a tiered system may eventually evolve to. Since when have the police and sheriff been on our side? Cops don’t care about the Constitution. They are not anyone’s friends.
So I was browsing the web and encountered this link:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/mar/31/lifetime-registration-low-level-sex-offenders-found-excessive-unconstitutional-new-hampshire/
Although it founded low level registrants excessive (hey, why can’t we use this for California???), but it did comment on Tiers II and Tiers III in its ruling:
”
Specifically, the Court held that requiring “all tier II and tier III offenders be registered for life without regard to whether they pose a current risk to the public” was excessive. As such, the statute had a punitive effect on Doe. It was this provision alone that led the Court to its conclusion that a risk assessment hearing was required.
”
I didn’t know NH called registration punitive? The article was published March 31st, 2016.
On another note, I found this article:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/oct/31/ninth-circuit-finds-arizonas-sex-offender-registration-law-not-ex-post-facto-violation/
The more courts differ in outcomes, the better the chances the SCOTUS will be forced to re-visit this issue.
How can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on here somewhere that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.