The Board of Directors for the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) has determined its initial positions on the Tiered Registry Bill. The determinations were made during the board’s meeting on December 8.
“After careful consideration of input from registrants, family members and supporters, the ACSOL board of directors has decided that the organization supports the concept of a tiered registry based upon empirical evidence,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci.
“The board of directors also decided to oppose the Tiered Registry Bill in its current form because it is not based upon empirical evidence such as the results of research conducted by Dr. Karl Hanson.”
“The ACSOL Board of Directors would support a modified Tiered Registry Bill that included revisions such as the termination of registration requirements for individuals placed on Tier 3 and limitations on a district attorney’s discretion to oppose individuals’ termination of registration requirements,” stated Bellucci.
ACSOL will express its views on the Tiered Registry Bill and other pending legislation such as Senate Bill 26, which would prohibit all registrants from all school campuses, when it leads a lobbying effort in the State Capitol on January 30 and 31. Training will be provided to individuals who have not lobbied before on January 30 at 9:30 a.m. at 1215 K Street, 17th Floor. Additional details regarding training and lobbying will be provided at a later date.
Related
Janice’s Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice”
CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases Video
This decision on the part of the ACSOL board seems very reasoned. And I believe they have heard the major concerns of our members. It hits the main points of contention and takes a stand on behalf of those who would be most adversely affected by a tiered registry that does not take into consideration empirical evidence that should remove people from the registry. In the meantime we can continue to fight the registry as a whole for what it is.
Fully supporting ACSOL’s decision on this and looking forward to the day I no longer have to register. Starting my birthday weekend off today with a trip down to the local PD for my yearly “non-punitive” registration. Oh wait, had to take the day off from work with no pay to accomplish this, so can somebody remind me how this is “non-punitive”??
Thank you Janice! Please let me know if you need any help in Sacramento. Great job. The Tiered System is a great idea! I plead to a Battery 20 (Sexual) 20 years back with (243.4a) Summary Probation. Reduced to a misdemeanor and later expunged. No issues prior or after. According to the website, 10 years timeframe makes md ineligible for Static 99 etc. so, what do they do with me? I concur that something needs to be addressed with how people fall of the registration requirement. Some DA’s might treat this like a COR. The process should be black and white. Thanks
This is a sensible and prudent position for the ACSOL board to take at this stage of the process. The bill has not yet been introduced and may be amended at a later time, and ACSOL’s proposed revisions are plausible and would serve the interests of all registrants. Thanks to Janice and the board for the good work they are doing on this important matter.
I understand but am disappointed at the same time (offense 311.11a and static score of 1 so tier 1). I pray Janice is able to influence this law for the better prior to its being implemented. Thank you
What about the issue of the Static 99 being flawed? Or what about the fact that a “high risk” sex offender is not likely to repeat than anyone else after 17 yrs offense free in the community?
Mike,
Go onto the new Megan’s Law Website. There is a section on risk etc. It mentions Static 99 etc and risk. As noted, an offender who has been offense free for 10 years or more in the community may not be eligible for Static 99 scoring, unless they commit another offense. So, the big question is, how will they determine your risk level? Furthermore, what if your offense has been expunged, but your still required to register? What tier are you? Good luck!
Bravo! But expected nothing less.
This is good, Janice; and many thx to you and the Board!
If a revised version of this bill does go into effect…
I assume, even if you fall off of California’s registry automatically, you still can’t travel freely worldwide? Correct? The Feds will still treat you like you are a piece of sh*t. “Angel Watch, IML”
If currently out of state, will you still need to move back to Calif and live there for five years consecutively, on the list, before having the chance to be removed?
Law enforcement is seeing the need to whittle down the registry, that’s quite obvious, with this bill and the accompanying video. If law enforcement is for that, so will the lawmakers. That is why the 1987 rule. Instant whittling. No DA is really going to object to letting tier 1 or 2’s off who have convictions that long ago. Now, if they don’t do something about the unchecked discretion of the DA’s (many of whom campaign to be harsh on sex offenders) in blocking eligible post 1987 registants from exiting the registry, then they are going to see the registry just ballon again. Same thing with defining tiers by politics (offense or myth/feeling of disgust driven) instead of empirically/correction driven. You are just going to get more people registered for longer periods, and the list will balloon again. These are I think good angles to lobby the legislators from.
Thanks to Janice and the board for their well-thought-out decision on this difficult issue.
You can count on my support!
I’m annoyed that you would all throw some of us members under the bus because you can’t get your way . This position is selfish and doesn’t help those that have a more unfair situation. Keeping us non-child related misdemeanants on the registry next to you felons is unfair. Why cant we take a one-step-at-a-time approach?
This position is self defeating…the main argument most of us make is that we aren’t all the same…this tiered registry is a perfect step in the right direction that will allow further argument down the road once the public starts realizing that we ARE no the same…..
Janice, that is great news about not having to be a resident of CA for any length of time, and that the IML only applies to those who are registered. What a wonderful improvement that would be in so many lives! Further to this point, does time spent on the registry in another state count toward the number of years required? “Tier 1 offenders must register for 10 years,” for example. What if you have been registered in another state for more than 10 years and then move to CA? I don’t believe that is exactly specified in the draft bill. Maybe it’s best not to question this issue since the legislature may realize that it’s an invitation to offenders from states where the laws are much less reasonable (lifetime for all registrants, for example).
with regard to (IML) if the person(s) last offense was in 97 and is considered a tier 2 and eligible to get off registration (California) would the person still need to notify visiting country? first time and only offence “20 year”
Not familiar with Static 99 so I google it. Is the static 99 test the 10 question questionnaire?
How about take away the Static 99R away as well? It looks like the writers of this bill seem intent in villainizing a whole new group altogether: “high risk sex offenders.” A new monster to create because the government’s old monster has run dry. But then, the “high risk” label is based off of what — the Static 99R?
There are 58 district attorneys in CA (one in each country). I’m envisioning that different DAs will start to develop reputations about being hard or easy on registrant’s petitions. The language of the bill states that even for a Tier 1, the DA’s office could either agree to removal or object based upon a belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration.” That seems to be a conclusion based on very personal opinions (“belief”). Also, this will be true of the Superior Court judges, although there is some factual “guidance” for judges. A database of where to move based on how many petitions have been agreed to could be formulated. This law will also require the guidance of a large number of lawyers with registration experience (Janice, Chance, many more in different districts) to help with the technicalities of filing petitions and following through on them.
So, what tier would I be in? I plead to a 243.4 (a) Sexual Battery with Summary Probation. Reduced to a misdemeanor 17 (b) and expunged. I’ve had no legal issues prior/after. According to Megan’s Law, those released into the community aren’t really Static 99 testable? So, if you legally don’t have a conviction and 20 years have passed since your plea?
I had my hopes up for a tiered registry. But after reading the draft proposal, I actually think the law that we have now (even though it’s lifetime) is better. Better than what’s being proposed and a hell lot better than other states. With a tiered registry, a lot of new, bad and unintended consequences can happen. The state is creating the tiered monster because their current monster is being exposed as weak. It is not smart to support a tiered registry because it isn’t simply helping people, but it is also hurting and throwing a whole lotta people “under the bus” too.
I still think that the Tiered Registry is a mistake. The registry needs to be abolished. I was reading on another forum that in New York and maybe Texsas, too, that the length of registration for Tier I was extended after it was determined to be a certain amount of years. New laws are being introduced all the time, with no regard to apply them retroactively to registrants. Who can really promise a relief from registration with this new tiered registry? Will it be carved in stone, signed? I doubt it. It will change as they please.
yep a tiered registry will open the door for a a panoply of new legislation against those who are considered level two and three offenders…what needs to happen is janice or other attorneys need to notify those legislators who created sponsored or voted on all these laws that they have a set reasonable time line to repeal and replace the current registration scheme with one that only includes those that the government can prove through clear and convincing evidence are enough of a threat to merit such a registry..notify them if they don’t comply then they will be subjected to lawsuits for monetary damages of thousands of registrants because they were and are acting with reckless disregard for the truth and not on facts but on emotional malicious intent in deriliction of their official duties and deprivation of our constitutional rights without any reasonable justification under color of law….off subject here are we at war with Russia or China??? I sure hear a lot of officials swearing and stating that these leaders are our enemies…last i checked our enemies are people we are at war with..
Wow,
You guys don’t sound grateful. A few years back, we where banned from parks, beaches and libraries! A tiered system will allow people a chance. Presently, you don’t have a chance. If you meet the criteria, a judge will have no choice but to grant the motion of the guidelines are written clearly. I would imagine most individuals against the tiered system (we presently don’t have a way out) must be repeat offenders or ? The registration system isn’t going away
usa im actually a first time non contact non-violent ex-offender and think it would be great to get my address removed from the public registry but I myself am worried about exactly what you said that is the progress Janice’s team has made here in cali will be all in vain if the legislators open up a new wave of bills aimed at those who are either tier two or three ex-offenders..once this bill passes there is nothing preventing the legislators from re introducing residency restrictions, presence restrictions or amending the Internet indetifier statue to be retroactively applied ect.ect. and being able to pass these bills with ease since they will be targeting a more narrowly defined group of people…this is my and I believe others real concerns over this bill as well as the discretion giving to judges and DAs for relief….the legislative body is backed into a corner right now knowing if the properly argued suit comes up in court that the entire registration scheme is going to get struck down and when this bill passes we will lose our advantage by losing our main players by them dropping off the registry and our advantage that the registry isn’t narrowly tailored enough and doesnt provide any way for relief…all of which is appearance only aspects that the courts have found unconstitutional when in reality all these issues will just appear to be addressed but really aren’t in any realistic or meaningful way…these are my opinions and I’m a low level ex-offender…there’s also the fact that this will send a clear message that the main organizations that are supposed to be representing us is condoning and endorsing the registration scheme…and you’re wrong saying that the registration scheme isn’t going away…if all the people in the past thought like that we would still have slavery, no gay or womens rights and so on so on …