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.
Thank you for posting this.
This is a terrifying bill that only serves to hurt thousands of people and their families.
What if the register citizen moves out of the state of California does he or she still have to register for life
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?
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!
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Janice,
Can we write to any of our politicians not to vote for this bill? and who should we write to?
One step forward, two steps back
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m a little confused. This bill will basically affect everyone or just incest offenders? This is getting dumb
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.
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….
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.
Retroactive?
a bill must state that it is retroactive, in order to be retroactive.
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?
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?