It has happened at last! A tiered registry bill has been introduced in the state legislature.
Before looking at the substance of the bill (Senate Bill 695), it is important to look at those who are offering and supporting it. The bill’s authors are two powerful members of the state Senate — Senator Ricardo Lara, who chairs the Appropriations Committee and Holly Mitchell, who chairs the Budget Committee. The bill’s sponsor is the most powerful district attorney in California, Jackie Lacey of Los Angeles. And the initial supporters of the bill are law enforcement organizations who wield significant power in the state capital.
It is important to note that the sources of this strong level of political support have not always been our allies in the past. For example, we remember clearly when Senator Lara voted in favor of a bill we opposed (Senate Bill 267). We also remember that law enforcement led the charge to defeat two previous tiered registry bills.
Therefore, it was with a sense of skepticism and concern that we analyzed the tiered registry bill that was introduced yesterday. Could a bill with such a pedigree actually help those on the registry today? The answer is a resounding yes.
While not perfect, this tiered registry bill could provide relief for more than 90 percent of those on the registry today. The bill would automatically terminate the requirement to register for more than 10,000 individuals convicted prior to 1987. In addition, the bill would make more than 90 percent of today’s registrants eligible to petition for removal from the tiered registry after 10 or 20 years provided they don’t re-offend.
The imperfections in the tiered registry bill must be addressed. For example, the bill requires Tier 3 registrants to remain on the registry for a lifetime. This requirement is not supported by empirical evidence which clearly establishes that a registrant in the community who has not re-offended in 17 years is very unlikely to re-offend.
In addition, we believe the bill provides district attorneys with too much discretion when they object to a petition. The bill also treats those who offend as juveniles the same as those who offend as adults. Further, the bill increases the tier level of an individual based solely upon risk factors that adversely impact young gay men and others.
We will address these and other imperfections as an advocacy organization, however, we need your help to obtain a tiered registry that helps as many registrants as possible. Please send letters now to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
by Janice Bellucci – Read all of Janice’s Journals
A list of Senate Public Safety Committee members (.doc) and Talking Points (.doc) to address in your letter are available below:
[ezcol_1third]SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4038
Fax: 916.651.4938
Senator Steven Bradford
State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Fax: (916) 651-4935
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4019
Senator Holly J. Mitchell – Co-Author
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4030
Fax: (916) 651-4930
Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 651-4928
Senator Scott D. Wiener
State Capitol, Room 4066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011
REASONS TO SUPPORT A TIERED REGISTRY
- Tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695) introduced on Feb. 17
- Senators Ricardo Lara and Holly Mitchell authors
- Bill supported by CA Sex Offender Management Board
- Current registry provides public with “False Sense of Security”
- More than 90 percent of those who assault a child are family members, teachers, coaches, clergy and are NOT on sex offender registry
- Less than 1 percent of sex offenders on parole commit another sex offense – CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders commit another sex offense – U.S. DOJ
- Tiered registry for sex offenders would increase public safety and save $115 million annually for state and local governments
- The registry includes many individuals who pose little threat to society such as those convicted of the non-violent crimes of “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex.
- The registry also includes individuals who pose significant threat to society such as those convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children and adults.
- Tiered registries exist in 46 of the nation’s 50 states and successfully protect the citizens of those states
- California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida.
- Tiered registry would end a life-time sentence for registrants who do NOT pose current harm to society
- Registrants often lose their jobs and/or housing solely because they are registrants. Section 8 housing not available to individuals listed on a lifetime registry (like California).
- Some registrants are physically harmed, even murdered, by vigilantes.
- All individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 would remain on the registry for at least 10 years
- Those convicted of low level offenses could leave registry in 10 years
- Those convicted of moderate level offenses could leave registry in 20 years
- A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society
Ugh…I can’t stand Scott Weiner. He was our (San Francisco) county supervisor and he successfully criminalized acts that were once legal; now they’re registrable offenses. He may be a Gay Liberal San Franciscan, but don’t let that fool you. He is anti-RC.
Thank you for all that you are doing Ms. Bellucci.
The “risk factors” that affect young gay men also adversely affect first-time/non-contact offenders, who also receive an extra one point under the Static-99R scam. Non-contact offenders receive a one point penalty that violent and/or contact offenders perversely do not incur.
The tiered registry integrates, by giving more credibility to, “the static risk assessment instrument forsex [sic] offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” See Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(3) of the draft bill.
Note how CASOMB expertly phrased the above excerpt by specifically avoiding the phrase “Static-99R.” The draft bill gives CASOMB and SARATSO — the latter of which which includes unknown representatives from CDCR and the California Attorney General’s Office — wide discretion in selecting a replacement for the Static-99R when it is eventually discredited. Maybe in 10 years, Karl Hanson will come out with the Static-100. By then, how many rights have been violated by the Static-99R? In sum, this tiered bill would permit SARATSO to come out and use any type of future “static” test, without legislative approval.
By demanding a registry predicated on “empirical evidence,” I propose that ACSOL oppose any integration of an actuarial instrument — such as the Static-99R — that lumps all types of offenders (violent/non-violent and first-time/recidivist) together. If ACSOL allows the Static-99R to be used, it is — indirectly — advocating, though covertly, for a registry that would still lump all types of “sex” offenders together.
Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which CASOMB intends to do):
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf
In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R:
– http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf
In a published opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R:
– http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm
Yet CASOMB and SARATSO still peddles the Static-99R scam, often referencing to Karl Hanson’s very own work to “validate” his very own “accuracy.” (Do you see what’s wrong with this?)
It should be pretty obvious to anyone (at least anyone with some basic common sense) that 10 questions can’t predict human behavior… especially more than five-years into the future.
(California has only evaluated the Static-99R for a five-year interval. The Static-99R is only designed to be used up to a 10 year period after release. Yet CASOMB wants the Static-99R to determine whether one should be required to register for life!)
Life is not “static.” And very few things are definitively “set in stone.”
“Resounding yes?” It COULD help. But this bill COULD also easily hurt. I am just wondering where Acsol got its data that this bill “could help more than 90 percent of registrants.” As much as I have supported Acsol & Janice in the past, I think this tiered registration bill is a risky and dishonest piece of legislation. So I will be writing to oppose. It should also be concerning that the DAs want this bill.
With all this at what point in time is one deemed not a SO–seems to me they can always call you back via legislation.. It’s as if one is in this perpetual condition
so if this bill passed will we not see effects until july 2019 or will the changes take effect as soon as the bill passes????
“Could.” Until they do like NY state does and move the goalposts. The moment the first person is eligible for registry removal, expect a media shitstorm. HJanice thinks this is bridging the gap between us and our enemies, I see this bridge as built over the river Kwai. And I hear the train coming.
Just what I thought! Great job, Janice.
I see this as a foot in the door. Once we can start getting RCs off the Registry and all the Chicken Little politicians’ sky doesn’t fall, that will be a great success. Let’s continue following a two-track approach: hammer away at & weaken these bogus Registries, while at the same time pursuing legal battles to ultimately having the Registries declared unconstitutional. By battling on several fronts simultaneously – and with increased media coverage of costly & ineffective Registries – eventually members of the general public will start asking themselves, “Hey, what’s all this about Registries being costly, ineffective & unconstitutional? I want to learn more about this issue.”
Like the battle for marriage equality, this needs to be pursued on several fronts at once…..including individual personal outreach.
Many thanks to Janice, Chance, and ACSOL first helping to move this forward.
Thanks to Janice and friends, this is the first real hope in ending the gut wrenching feeling I’ve had every day for the last 24 years. I faithfully completed therapy, received a 1203.4, and obtained exclusion from the website. I still get compliance checks, I still get the stink eye at my annual registration, and I was refused entry to Mexico in 2015. My forgiving family has suffered right alongside me, in spite of my best efforts to shield them. This is the best news yet! Thank you Janice and team for your unwavering tenacity to be instrumements of change and uphold the U.S. and California constitutions!
Even though I would like to see the whole registry abolished, I did write to all the senators above in support of the bill. I think we have to start somewhere and that somewhere is with Janice, her crew and their efforts combined. Lara’s info wasn’t there but I wrote to him also thanking him for introducing the bill. God help us all!
So will the procedure be…apply…get denied…then a court hearing?
You’ll still have to live with the AWA Hanging over your head like a dark Cloud.
I’m curious. Does anyone know of a case where someone had a very mild charge requiring registration and was given a lifetime registration sentence and they challenged the constitutionality as applied to them? I’d be interested to see a case where someone challenged the constitutionality of registration based on the way it was applied. Example. In my case I was charged with a misdemeanor, no jail time, no requirement to have a psychiatric evaluation, no statement at any point in the record that I might be a danger to society, 2 years of court probation (not even formal probation with an actual probation officer), no mandatory therapy, no restrictions stated other than the normal don’t break the law and yet – lifetime registration. I’m not listed on the public site, but of course there are two things that primarily affect me now after serving my 2 years of probation successfully. 1) stuck in my current job. If I get fired I would lose my house because I could not possibly pass a background check. And 2) cant travel internationally now due to IML. I actually tried to travel to Mexico a couple years ago with my girlfriend and was put right back on the next plane back to the US. At that time I had no idea that Mexico would deny my entry. Anyhow, curious to know if anyone has challenged the constitutionality of a lifetime sentence as applied to them or if anyone has tried to file for expungement “in the interests of Justice.”
I think this is the best news i ever heard in my life I’ve been a RC since I was 17 I pray it passes
For me, this bill would increase my punishment from what I’ve read of it. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted anything but this is how I have read it. I have a 243.4(a), reduced via 17(b) and got my 1203.4. My First and only trouble with the law. It has been 7 years since my release from county jail and I had 3 years probation successfully completed and completed my required “Counseling”. I currently qualify for exclusion from the ML website. As the law is now after 10 years I can submit for my COR. With this new tiered registry coming into effect 1-1-19 if it passes, I would no longer qualify for exclusion from the ML website and would be put on it until the 10 year mark from my release, so another 18 months on the ML website despite me being deemed previously to not be a danger enough to need to be listed. I will then have to refile the paperwork for exclusion to be removed again. They wont be in any rush to remove me after the 10 year time period so it will most likely be longer. What changed? Nothing, just the law. I didn’t commit any new offenses, no new victims. As I said before, with the current law I can file for my COR after 10 years, with the new law it will be 20 years. So I will not be supportive of this new law because it INCREASES my punishment. I can only assume there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of others in the same situation as I am in. Unless and until this is addressed I will not be supportive of this law. In my opinion, if we were deemed not dangerous enough to be listed on the ML website before this law we should continue to be allowed not to be listed. Make it only for new Registrants only. I hope also to be kept to the previous 10 year until COR, but I doubt either of these will happen. I have worked hard and made tremendous strides in my life and am hand making items for some of the most well known companies in the world and this bill would likely destroy all of my efforts and I don’t know if I have the strength to start all over again. Thanks for reading and I look for forward to any responses.
To those wary of this bill, I say: It’s a step in the right direction.
It’s not the end of the fight by any means, but it will be for many. And I say this as a person who believes they will more than likely end up on the third tier.
Is anyone else disturbed w/ how this post just cavalierly threw 10% of registrants under the bus? Sure only 10% will be made to suffer being elevated to Tier 3; but that’s still about 10,000 of our brothers and sisters. I don’t know how Janice and team can just leisurely sweep these people’s rights under the rug and ignore the fact that this bill, with all its egregious flaws and imperfections, is still at the expense of other people’s rights. Seems a bit contradictory to call acsol a ‘civil rights’ organization. What ever happened to “We’re all in this together?” I guess that was all for show.
A lot of people are not going to like
this comment but I don’t care all the people who know they’re going to be labeled a tier 3 registered citizen if this Bill were to pass your the type of registered citizens I’m trying to keep from being labeled with no offense but tier 3 registrant are the ones that make it hard for everybody else with there multiple convictions and God knows what else I’m a father and I have three kids and I wouldn’t feel safe with them not being publicly displayed Megan’s Law website and if and eighteen-year-old guy hooks up with a fifteen-year-old girlfriend in high school I don’t think he should be on there for the rest of his life maybe 10 20 years okay for Life that’s insane
The registry scheme under this bill is unfounded, expensive, inhumane. 20 years for a non-contact offence, one without a flesh and blood victim? Amnesty for those convicted prior to 1987, no matter their crimes? The lengths of time should be halved. No one should live without hope of removal from the registry.
Janice if passed will it take until July 2019 before these changes are implemented??????????????
Thank you…….
Would anyone who has written letters to the members of the public safety committee be willing to share them as examples for the use of others?
So from what I see if you have 288a( C )you are going to be tier 3? Can anyone help me on this?
ACSOL’s belief system is clearly stated:
We Believe
>No sexual abuse is ever acceptable.
>Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.
>Current laws and policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are counter- productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm.
>Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars.
>The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.
>Money spent on purely punitive measures would be better used for prevention, healing, and rehabilitation.
>We do not now nor have we ever had a relationship with the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
While I hold tight to the position that the registry is to be abolished… is ACSOL and others who “support” RC’s want to acquiesce to a bill that still goes against or core belief… then, at the very least if no one is willing to abolish the registry, then put every law breaker… no matter the crime… no matter the age… no matter the person… including law makers and law enforcement… on a publicly accessible website… Equal Protection – right?
I am deeply concerned about our (ACSOL and other RC supporters) credibility when we essentially give up and say “It’s not perfect, but it’s something.” How does this look? How will this work when we agree to such bills then later argue against it? This will be thrown right back in our face!
Granted, I am no politician, but even as this bill is being submitted, others are be drafted and proposed that will harm RC’s and their families…
I say NO! No to this bill! Anything sort of abolishment of the registry should be unacceptable for all RC’s and their supporters. However, I do understand that baby steps must be taken to eradicate the cancer that is “registration”. That being said, If we must have a registry, and since no viable legitimate proof has been provide since the inception of the “publicly accessible” registry that it has done what its supports claim it does for the protection of the public, then at the very least our (all RC’s) position should be the complete and total removal of all registrant information from public access. The only access for such “registration information” should be for “authorized” law enforcement personnel only.
Having such information, which was original for law enforcement purposes, avaiable has reated essentially a vigilante atmosphere… Despite providing for “punishment” for “abusing” registry information, it still is being used against law abiding RC’s and their families.
Again… I say no! Equal protect for all… or protection for none! Either no registration… or regjister everyone! If registration is to be an absolute in our society, then at the very least, it should not be made so easily available to the public.
One final note, as for IML, the United states fails to protect its own citizens by provided information about its citizens to foreign countries, and essentially keeps locked up within our own boards.
If this bill passes and signed in 2017, why we not able to benefit from it beginning January 1, 2018?