ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

Action ItemsCalifornia

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

Join the discussion

  1. AB

    Thank you for posting this.
    This is a terrifying bill that only serves to hurt thousands of people and their families.

  2. Aero1

    What if the register citizen moves out of the state of California does he or she still have to register for life

    • Nicholas Maietta

      When i moved to Nebraska, the reason i was to be kept on the registry in Nebraska is because I came from California, which has a lifetime registry requirement. If this tiered system changes, then I would be off the registry if I moved to several states.

      Before moving again to another State, I will be changing my name as my current name has been destroyed by online extortionists who are bullying me. The name I have chosen is one that is virtually impossible to Google with any good results.

      I suggest people consider changing their name before moving to another state after such a change would occur. Just be sure to understand what may be required before changing your name, such as how long you take up residence in the state before requesting the change.

      Also be careful of which states are AWA compliant.

      • cool CA RC

        You can’t change your name as along as you have to reg as a 290 here.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          Since when did that happen?

          Form NC130: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/nc130.pdf does in fact provide a checkbox for finding of 290 status but that doesn’t seem to indicate that it prevents a name change.

          I have been waiting patiently to pass the time frame required to complete the name change.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          Confidential Name Change Law
          California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1275 – 1279.6

          1279.5.
          Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e), nothing in this title shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change his or her name.
          Notwithstanding any other law, no person imprisoned in the state prison and under the jurisdiction of the Director of Corrections shall be allowed to file a petition for change of name pursuant to Section 1276, except as permitted at the discretion of the Director of Corrections.
          A court shall deny a petition for a name change pursuant to Section 1276 made by a person who is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, unless that person’s parole agent or probation officer grants prior written approval. Before granting that approval, the parole agent or probation officer shall determine that the name change will not pose a security risk to the community.
          Notwithstanding any other law, a court shall deny a petition for a name change pursuant to Section 1276 made by a person who is required to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of justice to grant the petition and that doing so will not adversely affect the public safety. If a petition for a name change is granted for an individual required to register as a sex offender, the individual shall, within five working days, notify the chief of police of the city in which he or she is domiciled, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is domiciled in an unincorporated area, and additionally with the chief of police of a campus of a University of California or California State University if he or she is domiciled upon the campus or in any of its facilities.
          For the purpose of this section, the court shall use the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) to determine whether or not an applicant for a name change is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections or is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code. Each person applying for a name change shall declare under penalty of perjury that he or she is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections or is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code. If a court is not equipped with CLETS or CJIS, the clerk of the court shall contact an appropriate local law enforcement agency, which shall determine whether or not the petitioner is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections or is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code.

    • Jim

      That depends on each state has there own laws.

    • Michael

      That would actually depend upon the state, or more importantly, the state courts. Treating the new resident from CA differently than a person who was convicted of the same or similar enumerated offense violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. So, if a person who had to register for life in CA moved to WA, and the registration requirement for his offense in WA was 10 years had he been convicted there, then forcing him to register for life violates the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, each state should be giving credit for time on another registry. Not doing so violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

      ….

  3. j

    another revolving door implementation of more ex post facto punishment brought to you by more
    “lawmakers” ignorant of the constitution and completely ambivalent to the research done by cdr
    and the work done by casomb. can someone inject these “lawmakers” with facts and constitutional
    knowledge and adherence?

  4. J

    What a trouble maker. People free and clear added to the registry? This is a bi- partisan war we are fighting. Democrats and Republicans vying to see who can be the Most Ignorant when it comes to punishing ex-offenders. Right now it’s a tie with Quirky trying to put the Democrats up by 1. What a joke of a woman. I pray you fail!

  5. CS

    God here we go, they’re always inventing new ways to ruin our life’s even more. Let it go already, we’re all just trying to move on

  6. David

    Aero1, no, I don’t believe so – I believe you’d then only be required to follow the registration laws of your new state of residence (after notifying California that you have moved.) I suspect your information would then be removed from the California website.

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      It depends on the State. Some States require you follow whatever the rules are in the State you came from. It’s a way to keep people from moving into their State just because they have better registration rules.

    • Tired of this

      This is correct. I left CA for a neighboring state early last summer and I’ve disappeared from the Megan’s Law site.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        If I moved to Oregon, this would also potentially be the case for me.

        I live in an RV and am only 20 miles away from Oregon border. This is very tempting.

        • Tired of this

          I think it’s worth it. You’ll be glad you did, at least for the peace of mind not being on a public government hit list will bring you, and the resultant reduction in negative Google searches of your name. I found that within a few months of leaving CA, Homefacts also removed my listing (so they apparently do refresh their lists periodically).

          Bear in mind though, Oregon does have lifetime registration, regardless of tier level. So I guess it comes down to a decision between lifetime AND public shaming in CA (as of now), or lifetime and most likely tier 1 status in OR.

          As an aside, the idea of living in an RV is quite appealing to me. How do you register, though? As transient, or do you rent a space? Which then begs the question I’ve had for some time now: what if one wanted to be a perpetual traveler (RV or otherwise, or being a long-haul trucker living in his rig), not staying anywhere long enough to trigger registration? I don’t think there’s any legal way to, which is another example of how non-free we really are, as supposedly free citizens.

      • EddieV

        What state if I may ask

  7. Someone who cares

    It just never ends does it? The tiered registry will place many in Tier 1, a lot in Tier 2 and a lot in Tier 3 and now they will include those who were formerly excluded? So they will drop 10000 just to add others? This again has to be a joke. Who do we need to contact now?

  8. curiouser

    Melendez tried this last year. It died in committee. The same valid arguments exist this time around. Remember when each year, some new politician tried presence restrictions, a session after someone else tried and failed? Same thing here.

    If anything, these cretins keep us vigilant. There will always be wolves at the door. We’re low hanging fruit, an easy target, a guaranteed win-win for them. I’m not going to sit in fear and dread of the next attack. Bring it.

  9. G4Change

    Will someone please tell this psycho that these exclusions were implemented to PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF VICTIMS OF INCEST!!!!!!!!! Another nut job from Orange County.

    • Matt

      She could not possibly care less about victims. Political operatives care about themselves. And, they rely on the absolute fact that the average voter is both uninformed and stupid. These types of bills are exclusively to assist in reelection efforts. They have nothing to do with protecting victims, or even punishing offenders. Politicians care about themselves, exclusively. “Tough on crime” laws that they can get passed create votes. It’s just that simple.

  10. Robert Curtis

    How to fight this is to resite the low recidivism rates and ask where is the justification? I will go to the author’s district office and discuss this matter directly.

    • Timmr

      Thank you, Robert, I stated just that thought to her through her website, but don’t know for sure if she’s seen it. I also asked her specifically why she wants to expose people to harrassment. I would be grateful if you come back here and report her answer to that one.

  11. Tuna

    Isn’t the language of this in complete conflict with the language of the Tiered bill, which states that Tier 1’s will be excluded? Or am I missing something.

    • Curiouser

      Wait. Did you just voice the belief that one crazied, wild-eyed politician bent on the oppression of the rights of a class of citizens should actually take the time to fully research an issue and make a determination to stay their hand based upon pending legislation by another group, which actually conflicts with their own, personal agenda, and therefore run the risk of minimizing their self-grandizing actions (or, pissing on their parade)? That’s so funny!

    • Timmr

      Sounds like she is trying to subvert the tiered bill, before it even gets discussed. That is a good suggestion someone here had of making them (demanding them to) wait on any registry related bills until a decision is made on the tired bill. That would just be good lawmaking to do that.

    • Lake County

      No real conflict; Senate Bill 695 will make exclusions available based on risk and AB-558 will remove exclusions based on offense.

  12. mch

    Hmmm…on one hand a tiered registry bill is introduced, then this dipstick comes along and introduced a “tough S**t” bill to all those who may qualify for removal. Sacramento truly is trying to make life difficult for those who work very hard at living right, doing right, play by the rules and try to be successful. This state is a terrible joke.

  13. a mom

    Janice,
    Can we write to any of our politicians not to vote for this bill? and who should we write to?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Although AB 558 has not been formally assigned to a committee, we know that it will assigned to the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. We will provide the list of committee members, their contact information and a point paper on this website soon.

  14. CS

    One step forward, two steps back

  15. T

    This sounds like exploitation, because all these politicians want is to pass such laws that will require mandatory exposure of all registered citizens claiming this keeps communities and children safe and aware, and to make a registrant’s life miserable, they can’t have friends and family for help because they are consider a “risk”, can’t find work, and a place to live, and travel for vacation because of these crazy mandatory notifications making it punishable by imprisonment or worse for “failure to register”. Lastly, living in a world of delusion of “once an SO, aways an SO”, and not only that, but passing such laws like this one and also the IML, in claiming that the crime rate has been reduced by these laws.

  16. T

    These legislators that want tough laws to pass are driven by emotion and hysteria and don’t care to realize that this will do more harm than good and this could be a human rights issue.

  17. mike r

    I dont know if people are interested but here is what I believe is a great example letter to include with any correspondence with any and every one that we have contact with on these issues..Simply change the beginning to reflect your own experiences or situations..

    To whom it may concern…

    I am emailing or posting this in hopes that it will be passed around so that I might bring to light facts and concerns surrounding a serious issue. There is an epidemic of bad policy coming from the government that is causing great harm to millions of people in this country and needs to be made public and which must be addressed.

    I am labeled a sex offender. I am one of those people who most people consider as monsters lurking in the bushes or stalking parks and schools searching for future victims. I was convicted for talking to an underage girl over the Internet with whom I never had any physical contact with almost 15 years ago. I am not attempting to minimize my culpability or to down play the seriousness of my offense but am simply trying to educate people about the facts surrounding this issue.

    I haven’t re-offended or ever considered re-offending. I did my time, finished extensive parole without any incidents, payed off my $15000 child support, and am in my sixth semester of college. I am a father and grandfather, an uncle and brother, engaged to be married, and all these people love me from the bottom of their hearts…Does this sound like a monster that needs to be ostracized for life or shot or locked up forever like a lot of people suggest? If anyone says yes then you have absolutely no interest in facts and have absolutely no humanity left in your cold dead hearts…

    The fact is none of these failed policies have achieved any positive results and have absolutely nothing to do with why I haven’t re-offended. If I wanted to re-offend I would care less about any of these laws and not one of them would prevent me from doing so…That’s a fact …These laws only affect those individuals who want to be law abiding citizens and have no effect on the monsters people claim they are all concerned about…Zero effect…

    I do agree with those of you that feel that people who attack and rape children or adults should be locked up for an appropriate amount of time and subjected to intensive treatment before ever having a chance to be released,(which they are already, and the worst of the worst usually never get out), and if they re-offend lock them up and throw away the key…But do you really want our limited law enforcement resources wasted on a guy like me or would you rather have that money put into monitoring the high risk offenders and into programs that actually help prevent sexual abuse before it happens?

    These laws are absolutely useless, are a waste of tax payer dollars, and are a misplaced use of valuable law enforcement and governmental agency resources.

    Here are some facts from the leading authorities on this subject which indicate that there is no need or justification for these laws.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of non-effectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483

    These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.

    CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870. When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3%. This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    More state studies;

    CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
    Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012

    DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5%. Rearrests should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
    Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’s recidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA table 4 0.3% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
    RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released.

    The full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf.

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    Once again, these are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    Then we have those that are attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry which is another myth and misrepresentation of the facts. This type of misinformation that is based hearsay and not on facts or evidence is also being used to justify these laws in order to create harsher penalties or further punishments.

    These laws only effect people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. Once again I want to emphasize that these laws only effect innocent family members and those individuals who most just want a second chance to become a respectable, productive and law abiding citizen and have absolutely zero effect on anyone who’s interested and intent on committing a crime.

    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one study showing examples of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA, which many states refused to do. This list doesn’t include the cost to maintain the entire registration processes for the plethora of official state and federal agencies that is a product of these laws.

    From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf.

    None of these failed policies have not achieved any positive results in the US and are in fact destroying the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent children and their families because one of their parents or family members are on such a registry.

    There has not been a single incidence in which a person was apprehended or prevented from committing a crime anywhere or anytime in this country because of any of these laws.

    Please take the time to research all the real facts and evidence on this subject and all the collateral damages to individuals and thier family members that are being caused by these laws.

    You don’t have to take my word for it, just watch what the experts say….

    https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg

    Thank you for your time.

    • John Coffey

      Wow, Mike r. You”ve done your research! Best of all, you have your backup with the Links. Including the DOJ for their NIJ. Thank YOU for hour time!

  18. 1

    I really can’t see the justification in this except for more punishing. I can’t speak for anyone else but I’ve never been listed on the website and have never re-offended in the 20 years since my conviction. (Or before, for that matter) To put me on now would basically ruin the life I’ve rebuilt and there’s no justification for it. I’m obviously not a threat considering I have a single misdemeanor offense in my life, 20 years ago.

    Question for someone who might know how these bills work. If this passes and the tiered bill passes, would this bill still be able to eliminate exclusions? It would counter what the tiered bill specifies.

  19. USA

    I’m a little confused. This bill will basically affect everyone or just incest offenders? This is getting dumb

  20. New Person

    2 points I’d like to share

    Point 1.
    We really need to re-emphasize that 1203.4 was supposed to restore us back to where we were before the offense, hence the “he or she be released from all penalties and disabilities”. Also, no where under 1203.4 does it state specifically that one need to continue to register as it falls under be released from all penalties and disabilities form the offense.

    Again, I highlight that in 1203.4, it states specifically the exceptions of what you are not released from by the following words, “and as noted below.” Nothing is noted below specifically. As a layman, the judges need to abide by the law it contracted to the “T”. If they wanted registrants to continue to register, then they should have written it under 1203.4 where 1203.4 specifically worded the exceptions to exist.

    1203.4 states you are rehabilitated. Welp, this bill says you’re never rehabilitated and are no different from any other tiered registrant. 1203.4 would simply be a farce of a paper.

    We seriously need someone to push back for 1203.4 and what it’s supposed to represent, especially the fact that no where under 1203.4 does it state one must continue to register. Make the government follow the law it presented to the “T”.

    Point 2.
    This bill is an increase in penalty. Michigan courts have already won its case that an increase in penalty is an increase in punishment.

    Also, there is no research based findings that actually would support this action as CASOMB has its recidivism rates under 1%. This bill would in fact make all registrants just one big group and tiers do not matter. Which then makes it more plausible for bill of attainder b/c it now, on law books, admits to segregating registrants from certain jobs and housing and other opportunities.

    • NPS

      While what you say is definitely true about 1203.4, this PC is what keeps us registering:

      Penal Code § 290.007
      Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

      • New Person

        it is not stated as an exception as specifically worded under 1203.4.

        That is my contention. I didn’t write the law, but I am interpreting it as I read it as a layman.

        There are exceptions listed under 1203.4, but nothing within states I must continue to register. If the law can succinctly negate certain offenses not eligible for 1203.4, then it can state that registrants must continue to register within 1203.4. It does not. 1203.4 states it will relieve all penalties and disabilities stemming from the offense unless of the exceptions listed below in 1203.4. That is the contextual test.

        Again, the courts must favor the layman as the law is written. 1203.4 is very binding and explicitly states what are the exceptions to the relief of penalties and disabilities. Sure, there’s conflict between the two statutes, but that’s not my problem as I am adhering to the rule of law explicitly written in 1203.4.

        • Lake County

          I think you’re right about the conflict in law. However this is just one of many issues we have to take to court. This will likely be an expensive and time consuming issue. We all have our own agendas and priorities for which laws we want to contest. Janice nor any other advocate can have the resources to fight all these issues on their own and in a time frame to make us all happy. What we need is more great attorneys, willing plaintiffs and money to fight all these issues in court. I cannot qualify for a COR only because I cant provide the type of documents the court wants in order to show rehabilitation. I can only show them I’m offense free since my only 1 conviction in life.

    • Drummer

      New Person.., thank you much for pointing that out regarding 1203.4! I don’t understand why this is over looked. It’s the law and yet it’s not being exercised. Many thanks to Janice and her team but it’s points like this that should also be considered to be addressed bc many I’m sure have been granted a 1203.4. I know now that anyone can freely obtain the paper work (17b, 1203.4) and submit it to the courts at no charge, however I paid a lawyer to do this for me having no idea I could of done it myself. Fortunately it was granted with the understanding according to the law that I would be released from all penalties and disabilities. I don’t get it. Thanks to all for your comments and the support.

      • Timmr

        I think the Supreme court in 2003 said registration is not a disability. Remember their reasons, we are just embarrassed by the triggering crime, it is like a Price Club membership, etc. Therefore, you can be put back on the registry at any time. It is not a disability, not a jeopardy to life and limb, and if your plea deal says one thing, like I can get my offense expunged after ten years, and then Harris says no, they can take away that option from me by legislation, what are you going to do until that Supreme court decision is updated to reflect reality?

        • Lake County

          I never had a Price Club membership, but I had a Gemco membership. Since Gemco went out of business many years ago, can I stop registering now? You young folks can Google Gemco if you don’t know about that K-Mart like store.

        • Harry

          Hello Lake, I have a Costco membership because I choose too. I did not choose be a member the SOR club. If, I choose to ignore my Costco membership, I will not be allowed to buy there, however, if I choose to ignore my SOR membership I go to jail.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          Just like Price Club evolved to be Costco, I hope that registration will evolve to be recognized as a form of punishment.

        • New Person

          “Not a jeopardy to life and limb”…

          I recall the SCOTUS calling that conjecture. ha ha ha But now there’s ample proof to the contrary. Frank Lindsey is living proof that is is a jeopardy to life and limb. An innocent bystandard was kill b/c he was mistaken as a registrant. That’s just mortality we’re talking about, not the jeopardy of being banished from living locations, presence locations, free speech, travel, and employment, to name a few.

          re: Taylor took away residency restrictions if you’re on parole (though not in writing this applies to registrants after parole – as my local PD gave me a paperwork that specifically said so on my annual). So there’s that black mark that proves a disability existed. So are presence restrictions.

          See, no one believes that involuntary servitude exists. That’s why John Roberts was able to say, “it’s just a membership.” That’s a false logic. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. There’s nothing in that one simple statement that says it has to be punishment. Layman’s translation: you’re forced into membership.

          Roberts says it’s not punishment to get around punishment values. But gosh darn it, it’s still forced service after the completion of your time. You’re still forced to serve the state AFTER you’re a free person.

          The SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves to be that oblivious to make INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE legal via registration.

          Four classical categories for involuntary servitude:
          1. Contract (Registration was assigned due to an offense; not a contract signed by a free person)
          2. Compensation (there is no compensation aside from not going to jail)
          3. Term of contract (in California, it’s a lifetime term. THAT ALONE IS A RED FLAG FOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE)
          4. Domination (You will be hunted down, punished, and returned to service afterwards. You are compelled to do the state’s bidding b/c of legal domination)

          Because the SCOTUS utilized false information to come to their conclusion and construct the registration, they used that and fear to bypass the punishment value. In doing so, they actually ventured into involuntary servitude… (without pay… this is actually a form of slavery).

  21. mike r

    I dont see why they are even bringing this bill up as soon as the tiered bill passes this bill is moot as its intent will be automatically a reality in the language of the tiered bill….

    • New Person

      Mike,

      maybe it’s a designed process. tier bill gets passed. those are the new laws. then the no more exclusion bill gets passed. that supersedes the tiered bill statues and now everyone is on ML. So all the registrants get shafted through and through.

      fortunately, we can now cite the Snyder case for increased penalty is an increase in punishment.

      • Timmr

        It might be a reaction to the tiered bill possibly passing, but it is contrary to CASOMB’s findings that the public registry is counter productive. I wonder if CASOMB would comment against this bill.

      • Lake County

        As we know in government, the left hand often doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. All our state Legislators are trying to make a name for themselves and are trying to submit their individual Bills before the deadlines. It’s certainly not rare for contradictory Bills to be submitted at the same time. I doubt that they tell each other of every bill they’re writing prior to being submitted. Especially since many bills are not finished being written until the last minute.

  22. New Person

    Oddly enough, this bill can be batted down so fast as well as can be sued if it does pass.

    Doe v Smith says it only shows what’s on record with respect to online registration, thus the conviction of the offense. That is one of the scope of the regulatory scheme.

    Anyone who earned the 1203.4 has had their conviction dismissed. Because there is NO CONVICTION then there is NO RECORD.

    So this bill undermines 1203.4’s value such that the case is dismissed. This bill also goes above and beyond what is stated in Doe v Smith, as it now puts up records that no longer exist to the public.
    .
    .
    .
    Now, we can actually extrapolate a lot from this bill that can actually help make the case for 1203.4 stronger. In the Michigan PDF brief to the SCOTUS, they state to view the “registration” as a whole “regulatory scheme”, not piecemeal.

    Using that parallel, if 1203.4 negates me from being regulated because my conviction was dismissed, then why am I still under any kind of regulation? I am regulated to not live within a certain paramenter (banishment), limited on travel (cannot travel unmolested, especially now with the IML), and my employment has been limited as well (bill of attainder). These constraints are similar to being on probation/parole. Also, I still have compliance check as well as check-in in person, like I did when I was on probation.

    1203.4 for a registrant does not share the liberties of any other ex-convict in employment opportunities, living opportunities, or travel opportunities. In fact, there is no difference between a convicted registrant and an ex-convicted registrant save not being on the online registry.

    Well, the registry was sold as a “regulatory scheme”, not a one-off piece of legislation for each individual part. So if one of the component doesn’t hold true, then the rest should not hold true either. 1203.4 removes you from public record of ever being convicted. If you’re not part of a factor of the whole scheme, then you’re not a factor at all for that whole scheme. If you’re no longer convicted of the offense, then how does a penalty exist that reflects you were convicted of that offense remain?

    This is the point I’ve been trying to express. We’re clearly not emphasizing what 1203.4 does and SHOULD DO. We’re clearly not using Doe vs Smith to our advantage as Michigan is doing now.

    If the California Courts are using Doe vs Smith to say there is no disability, then use the fact that one of its factors is stating that if you have no record, then you are not part of the regulatory scheme. This is implied because the SCOTUS said all this regulatory scheme is doing is showing off public record.

    Well, 1203.4 takes you off that public record. But the effects remain as if you were still on public record as you are still limited on where you live, work, or travel as well as how long you can travel and you must register in every state pertaining to their statute.

    Again, Doe vs Smith as sold as a whole “regulatory scheme” package. I have no conviction record, but the penalties exists as if I still possess the conviction record to all when I apply for living situations, job situations, or travel situations.

    The contrarian results should not exist, but they do to skirt several laws – including the original whole “regulatory scheme” package. If I am no longer convicted, then I possess no record. If I possess no record, then am no longer subject to any regulatory scheme. Removing me from a website via 1203.4 proves that I should not be part of the regulatory scheme. 1203.4 states I no longer have a conviction record. Then why am I still affected by my conviction. Doe v Smith implies that everyone has access to public records, which implies no one has access to public records that do no exist. That conviction is what permeates the rest of the penalties of the whole “regulatory scheme” package. Without that conviction, you’re no longer part of the whole “regulatory scheme” package.

    The state of California is exercising that your conviction is dismissed and no one should have access to your records as implied by SCOTUS’ smith 2003 ruling, but your conviction still stands to apply for future employers, housing prospects, and travel arrangements.

    It can’t be both. I’m either convicted or my conviction doesn’t exist. SCOTUS says anyone should have access to my records as a convict. Then this implies its inverse statement: SCOTUS says no one should have access to my records as an ex-convict. If those records prevent me from the same opportunities as any other free person for jobs, living, or travel, then the California courts are not abiding by SCOTUS’ rule of law.

    Again, the devil is in the details and use their own ruling against them. Just like 1203.4 states specifically all the exceptions of release from all penalties and disabilities are “as noted below”. No where under 1203.4 does it state specifically that registrants need to continue to register, yet it states which registrants cannot apply for 1203.4. So why isn’t continued registration listed under 1203.4? Again, that’s not my problem as it is not my mistake for leaving it out on a very specific language written into law “and as noted below” to represent the exceptions to 1203.4.

    Let’s use the law to win. That’s what Michigan has done. That’s what Maryland has done as well. Use the law against the registry.

    • Drummer

      New Person, regarding 1203.4, well said! I’ve earned mine and yet I feel it’s not being treated for what it is. I will loose so much that I worked for very hard over the years if I end up on the website…. uuuugh

  23. CA

    Retroactive?
    a bill must state that it is retroactive, in order to be retroactive.

    • AB

      Are you sure about that?
      The way it’s stated on the main post says “regardless of when the offense occurred” which indicates a retroactive application.
      Can we get a definitive answer on this?

  24. AB

    Please don’t forget about AB 558! The attention this horrible amendment is being overshadowed by the Tiered Registry Bill but PLEASE do not overlook this!
    Whom can we send letters and phonecalls to, Janice?

  25. AB

    So if AB 558 is not scheduled for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 14th is there any idea the when the next committee meeting is?

  26. USA

    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!

  27. AB

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

  28. ,Timmr

    “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?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.