ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

California

CA Sex Offender Management Board Issues Annual Report

Adopting a tiered registration policy and changing California laws is the “highest priority” of the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), according to its newly released annual report. In order to achieve that result, CASOMB has engaged in an “evidence-based public education campaign”.

CASOMB views the current system of registering all sex offenders for a lifetime as “hugely burdensome and ineffective” and recognizes that “not all offenders are the same.” The board believes that a tiered registry would remove “sex offenders who pose a negligible to no risk of reoffending” from the state’s current lifetime registry. In addition, CASOMB has concluded that “tiering is in the public’s interest.”

The annual report also focuses upon residency restrictions, which “increase the risk of reoffending and do not make communities safer.” The board also reported that blanket residency restrictions are “counterproductive to effective sex offender management.” For those reasons, CASOMB “recommends against all current and future use of blanket residency restrictions by local jurisdictions.” The CASOMB report noted that at the time the report was written, residency restrictions in 13 cities had been challenged in court. (As of this date, residency restrictions have been challenged in a total of 21 cities.)

The annual report also focused upon a recent study by the California Department of Justice that concluded that registrants on probation “recidivate at a higher rate than those supervised by State Parole.” The report suggests that the higher recidivism rate may be due to a “lack of resources”, such as the Containment Model, for many registrants under supervision of County Probation Departments.

According to the annual report, CASOMB wants to expand its scope in order to include juvenile registrants. The report states that in 2016 there were 1,645 juveniles on the state’s registry. This number is believed to represent only a small percentage of the total number of juveniles who have sexually offended and does not include those who are under probation supervision in the communities. In order to include juvenile registrants in its purview, state legislation is required.

CASOMB’s future plans also include reviews of the state’s civil commitment process. According to the report, there are currently 910 men who have been committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) due to that process. That number represents “less than 7 out of every 1,000” sex offenders reviewed by DSH. Of that total, only 48 percent of the men have met probable cause. The report also notes that the number of detained, but not committed, registrants has “increased significantly” over the past 10 years and that “it is not uncommon for the duration of detainee status to exceed 10 years.” The in-patient cost for each registrant in civil commitment is about $200,000 per year.

http://www.casomb.org/docs/2016_CASOMB_Annual_Report-FINAL.PDF

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

This should be mentioned to the Public Safety Committee at the April 18 SB 558 hearing. Can we do that?

Now that senetor Ricardo pulled the tiered bill what happens, to it could senetor Mitchell become the Artour alone??

Man, today is raining good news. I win against a defamation lawsuit against a mugshot extortionist (because i’m on the registry) and now this. Things are starting to look up!

Oooo…do tell! What state did you sue in and what statute did you use? A few more cases against those trolls may help shut them down. I think we’re all out there, or will be once their bots scour all the ML sites.

–AJ

Charles Rodrick and Brent Oesterblad sued me and a number of others for defamation and other things. The case was dismissed. They run the websites offendex, sorarchives, sexoffenderrecord, courtkey and others.

Even though I am a California resident, they added me. They should not have been able to, and are not in a very bad legal position as a result of their frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.offendextortion.com/2017/04/rodrick-vs-galvez-in-washington-state.html

https://www.commnetivity.com/pdf/2017-04-12-Rodrick_vs_Galvez-Dismissal.pdf

Yea, spill the beans, man.

what do you mean Nicholas. tell us more about yor defamation suit as I’m on there as well.

thanks

CASOMB supposedly wants to promote using empirical evidence, but their tier proposal runs contrary to their research work:

Tier1 : 10 years
Tier 2: 20 Years
Tier 3: lifetime

In their research, they denote 17 years max for high level risk offenders of no offense that they wouldn’t offense highly after those 17 years. So why isn’t the tiered proposal have a max of 17 years and then work backwards in reduced years, all based upon research work?

This is what I don’t comprehend. The 10, 20, and lifetime years are not constructed from empirical evidence.

You are right, New Person. Lets go to round numbers and with a little extra safety measure. 20 years should the tops, No lifetime thing.

Because politicians would never go for it. Simple

The way things are going, Steve, many of these same politicians will see their loved ones on the registry. Locally, there is father that was hard core SO hater and he WAS very obvious until his son was arrested for sex crime. Now, no one sees him or hear from him.

Many here keep mentioning the difference between 20 years and 17 years. To me the difference of the 3 years is a very minor issue. The 17 years is just the average, not an exact statistic that applies to everyone. The 3 extra years should be considered just a precaution plus people do like their round numbers. The difference between 17 or 20 should not be the big reason not to support a tiered registry.

was your suit against mugshot.com, what were the circumstances, and what was the outcome??????????

From what Nicholas wrote, he was the defendant in the defamation case, not the plaintiff: “Charles Rodrick and Brent Oesterblad sued me….”

Nicely done, Nicholas, especially doing it pro se.

–AJ

Wonderful article! Makes total sense. The management board is a government entity made up of professionals, a DA and a multitude of carefully selected professionals. Yet, the State of Ca lawmakers chose to not accept or chose to ignore recommendations that make sense and in the long run reduce the cost basis of an already poorly put together set of laws? What’s it going to take? Each and everyday, I can only imagine how many people in this state are put on the registry? Wake up California!

Hmmm, casomb talking highly about “tiered registry,” but at the same time they stick w/ phony Static 99 “science.” Something wrong w/ this picture.

Rick

I would imagine if you have numerous convictions or multiple legal issues, you might be considered a higher risk than those with a one time offense. Furthermore, as noted multiple times, those individuals who have been released into the community for more than 10 year (without legal issues) are no longer considered candidates for the Static 99 testing per the Megans Law Website

18
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.