General Comments February 2017

I’m thinking about moving to los angeles from new York. Can anyone tell me what are the restriction are. Where I am now they only come once a year and I can live where I want.

Great to hear. I believe the identifier on the passport was only for child related offenses? I also had no idea (I went on the Ca Megan’s site) I’m supposed to contact someone if I travel? I also had no idea I was banned from schools? That’s nuts

I guess I’m pretty lucky as I haven’t never had any kind of compliance checks since being off parole in 2011 and the registering officers both at my college and at my annuals have all been very polite and respectful…I live in Sacramento and I don’t know about others but they leave me alone..knock on wood….

Has anybody read AB1912 ??? Very interesting arguments with real facts :

There are about 98,000 registered sex offenders on
California’s registry. About 76,000 live in California
communities and the other 22,000 are currently in custody. Of

AB 1912

Page N

these offenders, 80% are posted on the state’s Megan’s Law web
site with their full address or ZIP Code and other
information, depending upon the offense they committed. About
20% are not posted or are excluded from posting on the web
site by law, again depending on the conviction offense.
Posting on the web site does not take into account years in
the community without reoffending, the offender’s risk level
for committing a new sexual or violent crime, or successful
completion of treatment. About one-third of registered
offenders are considered “moderate to high risk” while the
remaining two-thirds are “moderate to low risk” or “low risk.”
Local police departments and sheriff’s offices are charged
with managing the registration process. Registered sex
offenders must re-register annually on their birthdays as well
as every time they have a change of address. Transient sex
offenders re-register every 30 days and sexually violent
predators every 90 days. Registration information collected by
law enforcement is sent to the California Department of
Justice (DOJ) and stored in the California Sex and Arson
Registry. If an offender’s information is posted online and
he fails to register or re-register on time, he will be shown
as “in violation” on the Megan’s Law web site. When proof is
provided by local law enforcement to DOJ of a registrant’s
death, he or she is removed from the registry. Every ten
years since the Registry was first established has been marked
by a dramatic increase in the number of registrants.

As noted above, the original goal of registration was to
assist law enforcement in tracking and monitoring sex
offenders. Over time, registration was expanded to include
community notification and also began to encompass a wider
variety of crimes and behaviors. Due to these changes,
research has focused on exploring the changes in sex 4 CASOMB
“Tiering Background Paper” offender registration laws and this
has resulted in a constantly growing body of research that has
altered the perspective on sex offender registration. This
research has made it clear that:

The sexual recidivism rate of identified sex offenders is lower than the recidivism rate of
individuals who have committed any other type of crime
except for murder.

Not all sex offenders are at equal risk to reoffend.
Low risk offenders reoffend at low rates, high risk
offenders at much higher rates.

It is possible to use well-researched actuarial risk
assessment instruments to assign offenders to groups
according to risk level. (i.e. Low, Medium, High.)

Risk of a new sex offense drops each year the
offender remains offense-free in the community.
Eventually, for many offenders, the risk becomes so low
as to be meaningless and the identification of these
individuals through a registry becomes unhelpful due to
the sheer numbers on the registry. Research has
identified differing time frames of decreased risk for
the various categories of offenders (i.e. low, medium,
high).

Research on both general and sexual offenders has
consistently indicated that focusing on higher risk
offenders delivers the greatest return on efforts to
reduce reoffending.

Completing a properly designed and delivered
specialized sex offender treatment program delivered
within the context of effective supervision reduces
recidivism risk even further. In California, all
registered sex offenders on parole or probation are now
required by state law to enter and complete such a
program.

This bill would add more low-risk sex (misdemeanor) offenders
to the registry, making the monitoring of the existing
high-risk sex offenders even more difficult than it already
is.

This is a copy/paste from a CCAP case. Anyone have any experience with this section?

Penal Code section 17(b)(3) “provides that a ‘wobbler’ offense is a misdemeanor when the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation” or at a later time on application of the defendant, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.

Another police officer gets a slap on the wrist for sex with underage teen and gets $15,000 as part of resignation deal.

No registration for him and I got lifetime registration for having four picture files of a sixteen year old on my computer.

This stinks

Here is an incredible link provided by Derek Logue from Once Fallen that totally blows the Karl Hanson statistics that are always being referred to right out of the water…

https://www.eff.org/document/declaration-r-karl-hanson

With all due respect to the work of Karl Hanson, I’d like to point out that the Hanson studies are of Canadian “sex offenders,” and Canada does not cast their nets nearly as wide as their American counterparts. The studies on my Recidivism chart are all American studies, which all show consistently low re-offense rates. But since Senator Lindstrom insists on quoting Karl Hanson, I’d like to present some of Dr. Hanson’s own quotes from his written testimony in California’s Doe v. Harris case

“Contrary to the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. Offenders whose are classified as low-risk by Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 10-14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. After 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense, high risk offenders pose no more risk of committing a new sex offense than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crime. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend that rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high-risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.” [p.1-2].
“Research has long shown that the longer an ex-offender remains free of arrests or convictions the lower the chance he will re-offend. In fact, most detected recidivism occurs within three years of a previous arrest and almost always within five year.”[p.5]

I just had to share that here…..Powerful documentary evidence………..This guy’s reports have been the keystone arguments in many cases and is totally rebuked by his own testimony in the supreme court………

So, here is the million dollar question. I plead to a Felony Battery 21 years ago/wobbler/County Time/Summary Probation. Reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 (B) and eventually expunged pursuant to PC 1203.4! I’m presently not on the website.

I’m trying to call and make an appointment for my Price Club renewal here in LA, but all calls to my local cop shop are being re-routed to 311. I found another number with an automated message, “Due to the problem with calls being routed to 311, please call the following number: 877…” Naturally, that number routes to 311, too. What a flippen joke, this governmemt.

Can anyone offer another number for the Van Nuys registration people?

Otherwise I might attempt a walk-in registration. Fun, fun.

Thanks!