Bill Would Eliminate Exclusions from Megan’s Law Website (AB 558)

A bill was introduced in the California Assembly on Feb. 14 that would eliminate most exclusions from registrants’ information being posted on the Megan’s Law website. The author of that bill, Assembly Bill 558 (AB 558), is Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva, a Democrat from Orange County.

If the bill is passed, information regarding some registrants whose victims were 16 years and older, successfully completed probation or were convicted of incest and others would be added to the Megan’s Law website regardless of when the offense occurred or whether the registrant re-offended.

“Assembly Bill 558 is similar to another bill introduced in the state legislature last year that hurt families and failed to protect victims,” stated ACSOL executive director Janice Bellucci. “That bill was defeated and we must stop this bill too.”

The similar bill was Assembly Bill 2569, which was introduced in 2016 by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez, a Republican from Riverside County.

Assembly Bill 558

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is about as dumb as it gets! Truly an ignorant lawmaker! California is almost the only State where registrants (even with misdemeanors and expunged offenses) register for life! Dumb! Go check out Colorado’s registration guidelines. We are supposed to rehabilitate people and be compassionate. Continuing to hammer people who have long ago paid their debt to society should be provided a 2nd chance!

Is there any definitive word yet on whether this would be retroactive?

“Our results instead suggest that notification… may, in fact, increase recidivism among registered offenders by reducing the relative attractiveness of a crime-free life. This finding is consistent with work by criminologists showing that notification imposes social and financial costs on registered sex offenders, perhaps offsetting the relative benefits of forgoing criminal activity. We regard this latter finding as important, given that the purpose of notification is to reduce recidivism.”
This is a quote from the abstract: Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1, February 2011
Columbia Business School Research Paper
So this Quirk-Silva wishes to maybe increase crime with her bill to push some feel good law?