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)

California

Senate Committee Passes Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421)

The Senate Public Safety Committee passed the Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) in a hearing during which three members of the Committee agreed to co-author the bill.  The bill is now co-authored by Committee Chair Sen. Nancy Skinner as well as Committee Members Holly Mitchell and Joel Anderson.

During the hearing, a total of 47 people spoke in favor the Tiered Registry Bill including representatives from the ACLU, Equality California, Root & Rebound and the Friends Committee.

“Today’s victory is based in large part upon the registrants and family members who spoke today in support of the Tiered Registry Bill,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

Prior to the vote, Sen. Scott Wiener noted that a “broad coalition of law enforcement enthusiastically support a tiered registry.”  He also added that the state’s sex offender registry has had “a huge negative impact on the LGBT community.”

Sen. Mitchell noted during the hearing that no individual or organization had spoken in opposition to the Tiered Registry Bill prior to the hearing despite the fact that the language of the bill has been available since February.  She added that “now is the time for a tiered registry bill” to be passed.

Also during the hearing, the Committee Chair revealed that she is the survivor of sexual abuse.  Sen. Skinner added that the Tiered Registry Bill provides a type of reform that is “greatly needed.”

Two people spoke in opposition to the bill — Mark Klaas and Mika Moulton — by arguing that the Tiered Registry Bill would help registrants, but harm victims.  Both Klaas and Moulton are parents of young children who were murdered.

Alameda District Nancy O’Malley, who also chairs the CA Sex Offender Management Board, testified in favor SB 421.  She spoke of an 80-year-old man who exposed himself when he was 19 years old and has never re-offended.  “He asked me to help him get off the registry, but I had to tell him that although I am the District Attorney, I could not help him because state law currently requires him to register for the rest of his life.”

Five of the Committee members voted in favor of SB 421 — Skinner, Wiener, Mitchell, Jackson and Bradford.  Sen. Jeff Stone was the only committee member to vote in opposition of the bill while Sen. Joel Anderson was absent when the vote was taken.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to consider SB 421 next month.

Bill / Hearing Info

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421

http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4440

Related Media

http://www.kesq.com/news/new-sex-offender-registration-bill-passes-committee/463017795

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=72553

https://all4consolaws.org/2015/02/tier-it-up/

Join the discussion

  1. BSL

    This is great news! Not only should we give thanks those who stood up there today, and Janice B. But those who cast their vote, for they have done a great thing to start change from this oppressive registry. I too, like the 80 year old mentioned, got the same charge one time in my 20’s and now almost 30 years later I still have to register! I have lived a healthy life with my wife and kids and have never been in any other trouble. My driving record is perfect too! Why have I been subjected to this humiliation for so long. 🙁

    • Mark

      We are all in this together whether we are believers or non-believers, optimists or pessimists, disgruntled or hopeful. So grateful that I found it within myself to participate today. Want everyone to understand that we are not alone in our struggles and the time to pass SB 421 has come. So many agencies, organizations and associations agree that the registry is broken and needs to be addressed. That is our first victory, we shall remain vigilant to oppose any language in this bill which may adversely affect one’s ability to successfully return to our communities and families. Hopefully the website where you can watch today’s proceedings will be posted soon. A heartfelt thanks to the dedicated souls who helped make this possible.

  2. KM

    Now is the time to start writing letters to your district’s legislatures and more urgently, the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Chair of Appropriations is the tiered registry’s original author, Sen. Lara, and the current author, Sen. Wiener, is also on this committee.

    Senator Ricardo Lara (Chair)
    STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 5050
    SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
    PHONE: (916) 651-4033
    FAX: (916) 651-4933

    Senator Patricia Bates (Vice Chair)
    State Capitol, Room 305
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: 916.651.4036
    Fax: 916.651.4936

    Senator Jim Beall
    State Capitol, Room 5066
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4015
    Fax: (916) 651-4915

    Senator Steven Bradford
    State Capitol, Room 4085
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4035
    Fax: (916) 651-4935

    Senator Jerry Hill
    State Capitol, Room 5035
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4013
    Fax: (916) 651-4913

    Senator Jim Nielsen
    State Capitol, Room 2068
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: 916.651.4004
    Fax: 916.651.4904

    Senator Scott Wiener
    STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 4066
    SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4900
    PHONE: (916) 651-4011

    • Lake County

      The Senate Appropriations Committee is only there to determine the cost of this Law to the State. Bills that don’t need additional State funding will usually get approved. There could be an initial unreimbursed cost to counties for any required investigations, background checks or contested court hearings. But I imagine that any of these added costs will not be reimbursed by the state, so their should be no objection by the Senate Appropriations Committee on that basis. Removing people from the registry should result in a savings to both State and Local agencies over time by the reduction of paperwork, data updates and compliance checks. Therefore I don’t see how the Senate Appropriations Committee could object to this Bill. However I don’t think anything should be taken for granted, so we should still continue to encourage this committee to support this Bill.

      • anon

        The purpose behind SB421 is to save money. The resources soaked up to just keep up with 100,000 registrants is getting out of control. For the Appropriations Committee to kill the bill because it costs too much money would make no sense. However, it was killed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee by Chairman Mike Gatto four years ago. So while this seems like a slam dunk, it is not.

        • Thisguy

          Gatto is a tool and the current chair is the original author of the bill so that seems likely to make a big difference. Ive been dealing with the office of Jim Beall to support a tiered registry with absolutely no success. Some people just dont care what evidence is out there or whether its a waste of money so I agree we should not get out hopes up too much.

      • Rich fox

        Lifetime anything is foolish,once a registrant has finished probation that name should be removed from the list the bad ones to watch out for never get off probation

    • Karen

      If these aren’t my legislators, my letter still counts, yes? Sorry. Newbie to helping in this process.

      • Lake County

        When writing letters to committee members that are not in your district, it is very important to address the letter to that legislator with the name of the committee in the address. In most cases, legislators do not read or count opinions from those not in their district except when it is directed to the committee they are in. In both State Legislators and U.S. Congress, it is customary to not even open letters from those that are not from their constituency. Usually their staff will just forward it to your actual representatives office. That is why both Federal and State websites ask for your address and do not accept emails from people not in their district. No, this doesn’t seem fair as all politicians should be representing all affected citizens, however this is how they do it. Although, I usually send letters to everyone, I know that I have only received responses from politicians that directly represent me based on my address. Some people have used fake addresses to get letters and emails through, however I do not know how successful this is.

      • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

        Karen all your letters most assuredly Count and those of each of your family & relatives of what ever age they may be Count.

        In addition your calls to all the Staff of each Committees Member Counts.

        Further more a Cordial Visit in person or family group to each office of each Committee Member, I argue Counts 10 Fold and will leave a Mark or Impression upon the Member & Staff.

        All the California Committees serve the People of California at Large.

        I speak a True Song

        As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  3. Nondescript

    Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen today. I think California is soon going to join the rest of the country and can only hope those other lifetime States follow suit.

    A little odd that the bills co- author senator Stone back peddled. Thankfully his cognitive dissonance didn’t have much of an impact. An online news article quoted him as saying ,

    “”I regret that I have trouble with this bill, especially the retroactive provisions of this bill that would allow a large percentage of tier one and tier two registrants to be taken off the registry as soon as 2018,” he said.”

    Yeah, well Mr Stone, we aren’t too fond of retroactive bills either. Seems retroactivity is only good when it oppresses, not enhances liberty.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      I concur Nondescript,

      The discrepancy between the Aggregate and the Individual perspectives also exist in the mind of the Public Officials, including Stone. This Clear Irrefutable Discrepancy seems to call for a resolution, A Prayer For Relief.

      It is Odd & A Twisting of True Justice to endorse a treatment in every case and reject reject it in general, or Vise Versa. The Point Being both Paths could not be Righteous. One Path leads to Calamity & One Path leads to BethLehem¹ where bread is the Subject.

      A part of Good science that is to say ‘Knowledge” is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever Said.

      The difference between Being very smart and very foolish is often very small.

      In Life many problems occur when people fail to Be obedient when they are supposed to Be obedient and fail to Be Creative when they are supposed to Be Creative.

      It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place.

      Let us have a clear Idea of how people in their Human Minds misperceive randomness. A example is people do not understand that random sequences seem to have patterns in them; The Human mind has a incredible ability to see Meaning in these patterns where none exist.

      ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem
      Archaeological confirmation of Bethlehem as a city in the Kingdom of Judah was uncovered in 2012 at the archaeological dig at the City of David in the form of a bulla (seal impression in dried clay) in ancient Hebrew script that reads “From the town of Bethlehem to the King,” indicating that it was used to seal the string closing a shipment of grain, wine, or other goods sent as a tax payment in the 8th or 7th century BCE.

      Biblical scholars believe Bethlehem, located in the “hill country” of Judah, may be the same as the Biblical Ephrath, which means “fertile”, as there is a reference to it in the Book of Micah as Bethlehem Ephratah. The Bible also calls it Beth-Lehem Judah, and the New Testament describes it as the “City of David”. It is first mentioned in the Tanakh and the Bible as the place where the matriarch Rachel died and was buried “by the wayside” (Gen. 48:7). Rachel’s Tomb, the traditional grave site, stands at the entrance to Bethlehem. According to the Book of Ruth, the valley to the east is where Ruth of Moab gleaned the fields and returned to town with Naomi. It was the home of Jesse, father of King David of Israel, and the site of David’s anointment by the prophet Samuel. It was from the well of Bethlehem that three of his warriors brought him water when he was hiding in the cave of Adullam.

      Writing in the 4th century, the Pilgrim of Bordeaux reported that the sepulchers of David, Ezekiel, Asaph, Job, Jesse, and Solomon were located near Bethlehem. There has been no corroboration of this.

      I speak a True Song

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Ca

      Very well put Nondescript!
      That’s exactly how it is, retroactivity works good for them when they need it but flip the coin and there not comfortable with retroactivity! Typical

  4. David

    I’m confused. An article posted on this website yesterday stated this in its first sentence: “Support for the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) is growing both in the form of letters of support as well as a new co-author, Republican Senator Jeff Stone of San Diego.” And yet today, this article mentions that Senator Stone voted against the bill. Anyone able to explain what’s up with Senator Stone? Did he in fact co-author SB421?

    • Amol

      Not sure why he (Stone) went back on his support. Needless to say, he voted no and also verbally opposed the bill with fear-based rhetoric. Good news is that 3 other members offered to be Co-Authors (Nancy Skinner -Chair, Holly Mitchell, and Joel Anderson). So, we lost 1 but gained 3 co-authors/supporters. I’ll take that anyday.

      Having said that, being there and speaking in support of the bill was such a great experience. I was in awe when the 3 other Senators offered to be Co-Authors, completely impressed with their courage and ability to see past the fear-rhetoric and emotion, to see the FACTS of a broken system. Also seeing all the other organizations and individuals that came and spoke in support, was encouraging.

      Needless to say we must still be vigilante for amendments and even some languaging in the bill. But overall, I gained hope from hearing the Senators who supported the notion of reforming a broken “one-size-fits-all” system. Thanks to all who came out, and to Sen. Scott Weiner and and the other 3 Senators for their support.

  5. Mark

    Perhaps the best way to try and understand what happened with Senator Stone, is to accept the fact that our logic is not perfect. In fact, there were those who warned us not to trust Senator Stone on the website. A person, or in this case Senator Stone, had given the impression that he was in favor of this bill. The fact that he changed his mind is something we must always take into consideration…the unknown factor. His reasoning given was predicated on the testimony of a person testifying in opposition on behalf of a loved one who was a victim of murder. While hearing testimony from a family member of a victim testifying in opposition to any relief proposed for those on the registry is always gut-wrenching and painful, after awhile, such as in the case of Marc Klass spewing repetitious vitriolic sentiments lacking in truth, becomes predictable, rhetorical, boring and loses its impact. Now what we may never really know is Senator Stone’s true intentions. Perhaps there was some nefarious reason we will come to know later. This is just my opinion. So look on the bright side where four others came forward to support and co-author this bill.

  6. Harry

    Fact is that the class of offender that KILLED Mark Klaas and Mika Moulton children are not same people that are on the registry. Yet, they keep on USING their dead kids for something that have no relationship.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Indeed, it boggles the mind how a parent or anyone for that matter can exploit the name of a dead child to justify the torture of others with a life long punishment of people who had NOTHING to do with their personal tragedy.

      It is really to protect other children or rather to be vengeful and happy about the misery they are causing to families (including children) they have never met with these evil punishments.

      I am sure that we all feel empathy for them and their lose…BUT…is causing pain to strangers who had NOTHING to DO with it bringing them back OR even good karma?

      How can hate and negativity toward strangers make them happy? Sounds like they are bitter and evil and spreading their hate using the name of dead children.

  7. Dave A.

    I was impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of the speakers at the debate: it renewed my faith in government and the legal process. I was moved by the statements of Chairwoman Skinner, who takes a lot of risk in not only supporting this bill, but also in revealing that she was the victim of sexual abuse. As Skinner stated, this issue has two sides: a logical side and an emotional side. Typically, the emotional reaction is to punish offenders as much as possible. Skinner made a very moving speech that the current system does not protect children–in fact, it obfuscates the real issues.

    As supporters of the bill, I think that our best strategy is not to focus on ourselves but rather families–particularly children. It’s clear that the top priority is to prevent sexual abuse of children at any cost, as it should be. What advocates of the bill stated is that the current system does not help children; rather, it makes it more difficult to catch real predators and threats to children’s welfare and safety. You can bet that the support from law enforcement and public defenders comes from the heart: they want to do a better job protecting children, and this law will make it possible to do that better.

    The bottom line is that if you want to protect children, you will support this bill. If you oppose it, it may make you feel good in the short run, but it will harm children in the long run. The question we need to ask ourselves is what is best for children, not for ourselves.

    -Dave

    • Harry

      Chairwoman Skinner is a powerful supporter and deflates the hysteria pounders causes. The registry and most SO laws are not supported by most victims. The extreme harshness of these laws actually pushes child sex abuse in silences. Most victims prefer treatment over punishment.

    • Hmmm...

      “It’s clear that the top priority is to prevent sexual abuse of children at any cost, as it should be.”

      At any cost? That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. The evidence on balance does not suggest that any type of public registry helps prevent recidivism. Thus, how will either our current system or a tiered registry protect children?

      Top priority should be ensuring the constitutionality of any law that replaces existing law. I don’t know how 20 year and lifetime terms can be supported for those who do not re-offend during that time. Then on top of it all: the requirement to petition? We live in a nation in which the Constitution is controlling of all laws. Until registration is properly classified as a form of punishment, I consider this whole tiered registry a false prophet. Just my opinion.

  8. I spoke up

    Do any others feel that after further amendments, we could easily end up with a “tiered” registry that we regret? I think the people that want this bill should be careful to watch what more is put into the bill and how crimes will be elevated to higher tiers. I don’t want to seem like a Debbie Downer, but as I was driving back home last night it started to hit me to whether ACSOL’s resources would have been best battling existing law in the courts, rather than “lobbying” elected politicians and teaming up with law enforcement (Can we REALLY trust them to be fair?) to enact a balanced replacement to our current system. Something doesn’t sit right with me.

    • Nondescript

      You are wise in your observation. I personally think they are being pushed to adopt a tiered registry to be SORNA compliant. In order for the Federal Government to have complete control over this boondoggle, all States will need to be in uniformity.

      I am concerned about amendments as well, including changing the frequency of in person registration, as well as other things. That O’Mally lady, I do not trust. She boasts of the static99, which is an unchanging and fixed representation of a person at the lowest point in their life and keeps them there. It is already a farce but what is to prevent them from adding even more assessment criteria questions to it in the future to make the tiers porous. Socio- economic, mental health, and a history substance addiction factors could come into play at some point.

      I don’t however see it that we are teaming up with Law enforcement. Their reasons for supporting a tiered registry are certainly not our reasons. We should not forget that.

      • Lake County

        I strongly disagree that CA (and most States) is trying to be SORNA compliant. It’s just not worth the few Federal dollars that is being offered. SORNA costs more to comply with than it’s worth to any large State. CA has a long history of not being compliant with Federal laws. Just look at how CA is not even close to being compliant with the Federal “REAL ID Act”, Trumps new immigration policies or Federal Marijuana laws to name a few. California with it’s large population and it’s 53 House of Representative members knows that our state holds a lot of power. CA rarely does anything only because of pressure from Washington.

    • Lake County

      We will NEVER get a Bill that is perfect for everyone in it’s first draft with the first committee. Almost all Bills are amended as they move through each committee. If you agree with the basic concept of a Bill, then it must be supported until it is in it’s final draft in front of the entire Assembly and Senate. Also remember that each committee usually (as this committee did) reserve the right to bring the Bill back and change their vote based on what changes are made by future committees. We should not be objecting to any bill that might improve our situation until it is in it’s final form. When you write letters to committees, please try and focus your comments on issues related to that committees purpose.

    • Jack

      Yes. Exactly. People always find a way to give us the shaft in the end don’t they?

  9. New Person


    Alameda District Nancy O’Malley, who also chairs the CA Sex Offender Management Board, testified in favor SB 421. She spoke of an 80-year-old man who exposed himself when he was 19 years old and has never re-offended. “He asked me to help him get off the registry, but I had to tell him that although I am the District Attorney, I could not help him because state law currently requires him to register for the rest of his life.”

    It is this concrete statement is why there should be a civil suit b/c it negates the right to pursue and obtain privacy as it is an inalienable California Constitutional right. There is no way to regain privacy as the law stands, which is contrary to what a California citizen’s has rights to have.

    All registration is is the exploitation of one’s privacy. But being on the registry now encompasses several conditions, punishments, disabilities, prohibitions, and banishment restrictions. This DA says there is no way off the registry b/c you are registered for life.

    This is the exact argument against any lifetime registration in this tiered proposal as well. Or do we not follow the rule of law any more in California nor does its own Constitution mean any thing, considering it’s the first statute in the California Constitution?

  10. CA

    This is for Janice: I think it is important that the appropriations committee understands the
    cost of keeping Megans Law up and running around $25,000,000 annually, or over $100,000,000 every
    four years!! These numbers were from the 2014 CASOMB report.

    • Hmmm...

      http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/sex/sex-offenders-per-capita-per-state/

      Someone posted the above. Note that per capita, tiered registries actually register MORE people. Tiered registry will not guarantee a reduction in budget. If I’m not mistaken, money will be needed to staff the DAs office to fight the petitions they decide to challenge. Same with law enforcement: the bill requires LE to respond to petitions in a manner according to the bill. That will also require increased staffing.

      • TM

        It’s certainly true that there will be initial costs involved here. However, the savings come as there will be zero ongoing costs for those removed from the registry. I should think this would significantly outweigh the short term costs of responding to applicants.

      • Harry

        “…money will be needed to staff the DAs office to fight the petitions they decide to challenge. Same with law enforcement: the bill requires LE to respond to petitions…” First of all, I believe, there are not going much fighting from the DA’s office that will add to their workload. As for LE responding to the petitions they have this information on file and they will be sending a check off form to the judge, which will result in about 10-15 minutes of work per petition. I do not see much extra cost beyond designing the petition form and publication of the format, which, is something Government does everyday.

      • Hmmm...

        Of course we are all guessing. How are you so sure “there are not going much fighting from the DA’s office that will add to their workload?” How are you so sure tiered registry will be cheaper? We are all guessing.

        One thing is for sure. The facts speak for themselves: Tiered registry does not reduce the number of registrants as measured per capita. The two states with most sex offenders per capita, Alaska and Idaho, are both (ironically) tiered states.

        http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/sex/sex-offenders-per-capita-per-state/

        Again, I got this link from someone else who posted it on this board.

        • Lake County

          But why are you using low population states for your statistics? If you want to look at possible negatives, at least use statistics from states with similar populations. I don’t believe statistics from these small states are really relevant enough to doom the tiered registry system. Just look at the statistic from an even smaller population, the North Pole, one in every 35 people is a registered sex offender. California has the highest number of RSO’s because we are all on for life. The law enforcement people that are pushing this new law have clearly stated that the registry is too large and broken. I do believe that these people want to lower our numbers so that the registry will get back to it’s original purpose and become more manageable and less costly. With the current system, this state will go broke just to watch low risk offenders.

          And also, these statistics come from a non conventional micro media source (some guy in his basement). The link they quoted for their statistics go to a non existent page (404 error). So I’m not even sure if these statistics are even true. It’s probably one of those news sources that Trump uses for his alternative facts. Even their contact information link goes to a non existent page. Before quoting statistics to try and kill support for a Law that might help many get off the registry and recover their lives, at least always double check the source of where your information comes from.

        • Timmr

          I originally posted that link, and true, the sources can not be verified, sorry, I also got an error on the link. I put that out there because everyone simply believed tiered states mean lower number of registrants ‘a priori.’ Still, if you look on the map produced by The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (supposedly legit?), it is still not clear that tiered states generally have a lower number of registrants than lifetime states, per 100,000 population. I don’t see what density has to do with it, and I wasn’t commenting on how much money is spent in lifetime vs. tiered states on registries, that is a different issue, maybe connected, maybe not. If you want to compare population dense states, Michigan, an urban tiered state, has about 50% per capita more registrants than California (431 to 267). Point is, I can’t find any evidence that tiered states produce lower numbers of registrants. It sounds intuitive, just as saying sex offenders have a high rate of reoffense, it just feels right, but human intuition is fallable as we have often seen in sex offender policy. We should not jump at whatever sounds or feels right.

        • Lake County

          I actually don’t believe we can use any national statistics on anything related to how things will work in California. We are a unique State that often stands out from the rest of the country. And surprisingly enough, even though most of the Nation thinks we are a bunch of nuts, California’s laws and social norms are eventually often followed by the rest of the country. I suspect we are followed because of Hollywood’s influence through movies and TV shows that the world watches and by our political power from our large population and economy. California always prefers to be a leader, we’re not good followers of other States or the Federal Government. That may be one of the reasons why we are not AWA/SORNA compliant.

        • Lake County

          Any form of registry can spin out of control. I’m sure even if the tiered registry were to work well for us, without further reforms the population of registrants will continue to rise again after the initial drop. Somehow we need to convince our legislators to stop adding to the number of crimes that get people on the registry. Unfortunately, as low hanging fruit, politicians will continue to use us to gain political support from their constituents. It was good to hear the Senate Committee state that they needed to reconsider which crimes get people on the registry.

        • New Person


          Any form of registry can spin out of control.

          I’m sorry, but the 2003 SCOTUS’ Smith decision is calling you to inform you that your statement is merely conjecture.

          Hilarious, but true. Everything we’re experiencing now was brought up to the SCOTUS and they deemed it “conjecture”, believing that man will always be upright in their ways to uphold laws as it. The US Constitution runs contrary to that thought as they believe no man can do the right thing, which made everything supposed to protect the layman from being tyrannically abused.

          Today’s Justice: Everyone is born an Angel.
          If you’re not an Angel, then you’re the devil. There’s no helping the devil.

          Constitutional Justice: Everyone is born a sinner.
          That’s why there’s several checks and balances! That’s why they can call punishment cruel and unusual.

        • Sounds familiar...

          Angels? Government? I refer you to some “hack” by the name of James Madison:
          “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
          https://foundersquotes.com/founding-fathers-quote/if-men-were-angels-no-government-would-be-necessary/

          He was by far one of the greatest men to walk the face of this earth. Incredible insight and wisdom…we could really use him now.

          –AJ

        • Timmr

          All forms of registry have ‘spun out of control’. You may know something I don’t know, but which one has shrunk?

        • Not so!

          Ok here is a different source showing per 100,000:

          http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf

          Look at top 10 states with most sex offenders per 100,000 population (I put the figures into Excel, so it should be accurate):

          1. Oregon: 718
          2. Arkansas: 530
          3. Delaware: 507
          4. Michigan: 431
          5. Wisconsin: 423
          6. South Dakota: 411
          7. Florida: 340
          8. Kansas: 337
          9. Tennessee: 335
          10. Colorado: 334

          Of the top 10 states with most sex offender congestion, ALL are tiered states except for Florida. Even using a different source, it does not seem that tiered registry results in a reduction in sex offender population. If anything, there is a correlation that tiered registry is associated with greater registrants per capita.

        • Lake County

          Wow, these statistics are completely different than the link by the other author. I also wonder how accurate any of these statistics are because don’t some people get counted twice (or more) because the state they moved from or visited and had to register, are never taken off of that states list? Also, do some states have higher populations because they only publicly list Tier III offenders so perhaps registrants are attracted to and move to those states if they are Tier I or II? No one in their right mind would be moving to CA if they are exempt from being published in their current state. We may be comparing apples with oranges here as most of these tiered states all have completely different laws on who gets on and off a registry. These statistics would have more meaning if all tiered states had exactly the same registry laws and all the lifer states had the same laws. With all the different statistical factors involved, I don’t think we can determine which system is better only based on if it’s a tiered registry state or life registry state. I do know that I have a better chance of getting off the registry with the proposed tiered registry than the current lifetime registry.

        • Alex

          There may be a correlation, but it’s not a causation. What’s more important to look at those numbers are the actual laws surrounding how sex crimes are prosecuted and if there’s an age barrier on who can be registered. For example, California does not register minors. Other states do, with some being as young as 8-year-old on the registry. Other states classify crimes differently. I believe it was New York a few years back that actually did not consider taking upskirt shots as a sex crime. This came to light during the case and the law was later changed.

        • Timmr

          All speculation. The numbers we have show no reduction because of tiered status.

        • Harry

          I will question Oregon’s numbers. I live in the shadows of Oregon and our local news is Oregon news. There are some sex offense arrest, but nothing out of the trend. Oregon do have exit off the registry laws plus most are not on the public registry, which, has equal benefits of not being on the registry, except the $70 per year registration fees. which, is far cheaper than what I pay to California for registering my car and that fees will increase in July.

      • Lake County

        Considering that most CA Counties have less than 300 offenders, it should not affect the workload at all for these Counties. Since they have plans on allowing people to file petitions based on their registration date, that should keep the first applications from overloading the system. The police records needed should only take minutes to print up and the DA reviewing files (mostly reading the probation report) shouldn’t take very much time as long as the DA is not preparing to contest the application. The main difficulty for the DA’s office will be to locate each file from storage. These old files often do get misplaced. The police will definitely have a decreased workload in the future by not having to register and do compliance checks on as many people. The State will see a savings with less registrants by no longer having to update as many annual registration data.

        • Hmmm...

          I would tend to disagree with you. Your assumption is based on the fact DAs will not object:

          “The police records needed should only take minutes to print up and the DA reviewing files (mostly reading the probation report) shouldn’t take very much time as long as the DA is not preparing to contest the application.”

        • KM

          The truth of the matter is this bill provides the DA an ability to object ONLY if public safety would be served. The presumption is that once a registrant becomes eligible to be removed that they are not a threat and it is the burden of the DA to prove that the individual is. Therefore, as long as you have a clean record and not currently under investigation you WILL be removed and there isn’t much the DA can do about it.

        • New Person

          So what you’re saying is essentially a second trial to extend your punishment.

          BTW, what exactly is public safety? That is not defined here, which is probably done on purpose.

  11. TM

    So glad SB 421 has passed this first hurdle! I have read through the bill several times but can’t decipher how this will impact the 20% or so registrants who have NEVER been shown on the Megan’s Law Website. I am hoping Janice, Chance, or someone with better knowledge can chime in on this particular issue regarding the bill. I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering about it. The bill mentions rescinding exclusions that were previously granted, but makes no mention of those of us who did not apply for exclusion, but were automatically excluded. The bill APPEARS to require listing EVERYONE on the website for the minimum period. This is, of course, a great concern to those if us that have rebuilt our lives. If this is indeed the case, it will need to be carefully addressed with the authors as it would not only hurt individuals and families, it would largely negate the benefits of termination for those offenders who never appeared on the site.

    • TiredAlready

      I am in your same boat and very interested in how this will be addressed. I am also interested to hear whether anyone else thinks that they may try to put off deciding more regarding 558 or 26 and instead mold those to fit into the tiers. Maybe with the tier ones not being on the site (tier two will apparently have zipcodes and names, tier three will have more info) and maybe with tier ones not having to be escorted on school campuses but with another answer like listing where your children will be attending as part of your annual registration update… you know, “for monitoring and safety”.

    • Tired Of Hiding

      I agree with you totally. If that is indeed the case then it is punishing those who have never been listed but will now be listed punished twice since they had to follow and were subject to all of the laws and registering requirements and as you say, have had some chance to rebuild and now their lives are going to be torn apart AGAIN?

      Hardly seems fair and I am sure that if this does occur that there will be a class action of those who are placed on it as it will have caused additional harm and therefore punishment to the conditions that we fully abided by.

      We might “all be in together” however, the facts remain that we are not guilty of the same crimes and yet some who had a “victimless” crime are treated just as someone who fondled a child!?!

      Absurd right…well at least it should be.

      Lee

      • TM

        All good points. I think if we can determine where we fall in regard to the website as the process moves along we can then respond accordingly. I, for one, am going to send a succinct letter to each author bringing this into the forefront. It would be extremely easy to address this in the bill with one or two lines. Also note, if your minimum registration period has passed, there “should” be some time to apply for end of registration. They say a minimum of 30 days notice prior to placing someone on the website. It’s hard to say how long the application process will take. However, the DA has 30 days to respond and if there is no objection the application should be approved. If the DA requests a hearing, we may nred a writ.

  12. Jack

    You know this is just a casual observance, but I haven’t seen any part of the bill that mentions how often tier two and three offenders would have to register with the police departments. I know in other states tier three offenders register quarterly. Have I missed something?

    • Nondescript

      The only language referring to the frequency of registration in this entire bill is in 290.5 d in regards to pre 1987 convictions.

      “Within 12 months of receipt of the person’s annual update of registration in 2018, the Department of Justice shall determine if the person is eligible for termination”

      We have to remember that this tiered registry bill is an act to amend only certain sections of 290 , not to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch.

      (290.006, 290.45, 290.46, 4852.01, 4852.03, and 13125 and 290. 5). It does NOT amend section 290.012 regarding annual registration.

      The current PC 290.012.
      [(a) Beginning on his or her first birthday following registration or change of address, the person shall be required to register annually, within five working days of his or her birthday, to update his or her registration with the entities described in subdivision.]

      • Hmmm...

        But then what will prevent frequency of registration increasing in the future for Tier 2 and Tier 3? Most, if not all, tiered states require registration every 6 months for Tier 2 and every 90 days for Tier 3. This is a risky piece of legislation. IMO, it would have been better off extending eligibility of the Certificate of Rehabilitation to all registrants. At least Courts can examine each individual on a case-by-case situation.

        With the tiered proposal, registrants are sloppily placed into Tiers, maybe some offenses moved up to high tiers in time, and perhaps registration periods also extended in time. Tiered registry will open up a future to more onerously draconian legislation. It has happened with all the other tiered states, so how will CA be any different?

        Look: even before this bill has passed, the victim’s advocates want certain crimes moved up to high tiers. And the bill hasn’t even passed! I can only imagine what may happen AFTER it passes.

        This bill is a risky piece of legislation.

        • David Kennerly, the Entrenched Client

          “But then what will prevent frequency of registration increasing in the future for Tier 2 and Tier 3? ”

          Because that’s not the current trajectory of public policy. The momentum is towards a more critical scrutiny of sex offender laws with a much greater reliance upon evidence.

          This is recent and it’s certainly far from being fully-realized but we need to be more attuned to these trends so as not to cut ourselves off at the knees needlessly when developing strategy.

          Zeitgeist matters and we need to not only be attuned to it but actively involved in shaping it.

      • Jack

        Thanks nondescript. I didn’t think I’d missed anything. We should watch for any alterations to the bill though. We are trying to emulate SORNA here after all. Hopefully they think the provision of section 290 dealing with SVPs is enough.

  13. USA

    I think the Senate Committee should be commended! Great work. My only concern is:

    -how should the Static 99/SARATSO affect those 10 years or more crime free? (The Megan’s Law Website states it’s no longer applicable for those living a 10 or more year crime free life)

    -what Tier do you put those with expunged offenses?

    -we have 2 -3 current offenses that aren’t shown on the Megans Law Website (misdemeanor battery/indecent exposure). Will that change?

    -should people just fall off the registry? I think the courts are overburdened already

    • Steve

      If you were never given a static 99 and it’s been over 10 years since conviction you will not be taking it.

      • I spoke up

        OK where does it say that in this bill Steve? I don’t believe it unless it’s in writing. Also, if the Static 99 isn’t supposed to be used over 10 years after conviction as you say, why is this bill giving power to the Static 99 to put a person into lifetime Tier 3. I definitely did not feel good vibes listening to Nancy O’Malley talk about how great SARATSO and the Static 99 are. To use it for probation or parole, OK. Anyway, probation or parole last 5 years usually. But when the Static and SARATSO are given enormous power to “predict” lifetime registration, then this is unacceptable. It is a slippery slope to “minority report” style crystal ball fortune telling.

        • steve

          Just read the static 99 and how it is administered. 10 years after the fact it is invalid. It was in the bill somewhere I read it a few months ago it’s just not worded exactly the way I said it.

          This is from the current bill:

          “, and, IF AVAILABLE from past supervision for a sexual offense, the person’s risk level on the SARATSO dynamic and violence risk assessment instruments.

        • Not so!

          See that’s the whole point that makes no sense. The SARATSO and Static 99 scores are supposedly only good for 10 years. If a person never re-offends during that 10 years, why is it then being used to label someone as a Tier 3 (lifetime)?

          It’s a very simple logical flaw.

        • Nondescript

          Writing a bill such as this is a challenge for a State like California. With the exception of a few provisions, the bill in its current state seems to be written to pertain to new registrants or those that are just entering the system.
          An example:
          (c) A tier three offender who obtains early release on a conviction for which registration pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act is required may file a petition with the superior court for placement in tier two if the person has registered for 10 years pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290 .The court shall determine whether placement in tier two is appropriate. The tier two registration period shall COMMENCE on the date the court grants the petition.

          Im sure their are people who would qualify for this who have already been registering for 25 years! They will be subject to another 20 years of registration.

          I know that in other States, it is the judges who decide which tier a person is placed in at the time of sentencing given the relavent factors of the case and conviction at the time. And they can be reassessed at a later time

          But soon, if this bill passes, a one time, long ago offender could just get tossed into a high tier without regard to anything remotely relevant to their current life. It’s an existential confinement . And it is quite sad.

        • steve

          You would get a new test if you committed another crime after the 10 years I believe.
          Nondescript, are you considered a high risk offender currently? If you are considered a”serious offender’ now I think there is a legitimate lawsuit there. Moving up a tier without current risk of dangerousness lacks due process. I thought there was something written in the bill for people moving up a tier to challenge that?

        • Nondescript

          @ Steve
          I’m a rebel and considered a lot of other things, but sex offender is not one of them. My husband is a 20 yr registrant for a crime that isn’t even listed in any of the new proposed tiers. And has never been listed on the website.

          And how can anyone who has been a long time registrant challenge being “moved up a tier” when there has never been tiers to begin with?

        • Greg

          I feel the same way — very leery about this Static 99 and SARATSO crap. Listening to Nancy O’Malley brag about how good SARATO allegedly is did not help. There is something about O’Malley or the Static purveyors that I don’t trust. It’s all just a very shady scam, sold by a bunch of cons, it seems.

    • Alex

      Static-99 is only administered to those that had a physical victim. If the crime was possessing and/or exchanging pornography (or something along these lines that didn’t involve you directly with the victim), then you’re not given it as it wasn’t calibrated for such crimes.

      Static-99 also uses fixed information about you at the time of crime (that’s why it’s called static). It doesn’t require interviews, opinions, or anything like that. So the duration of how long it’s been doesn’t matter.

      This is some of the information it uses. The information is locked in at the time of the offense.

      Your age, your victim’s age, your sex, your victim’s sex, your relation to victim, contact or non-contact crime (did you touch the victim or was this a chat/voyeur crime?). All these things a matter of record and unchanging.

      As you can see, this type of information doesn’t care about how long its been since your conviction.

      All that being said, I have no idea how all this LEGALLY falls into place. This is where a time frame might be a technically sort of thing.

      The really bad thing about the Static-99 is the un-moving age of the registrant. You get a +1 if you’re under 35 years of age at the time of the crime. So if you’re crime was a day before you’re 35th birthday you get that point. And that single point could potentially mean the difference between which tier you get. I’ve scored a 4 because I was 33 at the time. Being a 4 means I’m up a column on the risk factor where’s a 3 is column lower. I fear that being a 4 might mean I could be placed into Tier 2. So for being 2 years too young, I might get +10 years to my “sentence”.

      • Not so!

        Not true Alex. You are so *NOT* true!!

        I did not have a “physical victim.” It was a single non contact offense. No other criminal history. I have a Static 99 score, and it’s fairly high because of 1. non contact, 2. being less than 35 y/o at the time of offense, 3. he was male. I score 6 for being gay. Not listed on the website right now, but if this bill passes I will.

        It’s been said here that by having a non contact offense, the Static and SARATSO actually scores you HIGHER than violent offenders: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

        Tell me how this all makes sense?

        • Alex

          Not So!, you did have a victim. You just said your victim was a male. What I meant by having a “physical victim” is your victim was a direct victim by you and not something like possessing child pornography that you did not produce. If you’re victim was in a chat room or you taking a picture of the person on a playground, those are non-contact physical victims That’s why you were given a Static-99.

          And you’re correct. A non-contact crime is actually a +1 score. As is the victim being a stranger (stranger means you “knew” them for less than 24-hours; so if you meet someone on Tinder, have coffee with them and then 24 later rape them, you actually DO NOT get a +1 on the Static-99 because you now “know” the victim. While if you take an upskirt picture of the victim without having meet them, you now will get that +1 because the victim is a stranger). Hell, being 60+ automatically starts you off as a -3 on the Static-99.

          It also gives you a +1 if the victim is male. Not because you’re gay. A lot of sex offenses against male children are committed by straight men. I believe this comes from their study of showing that men who committee crimes against males are more predatory.

          Now, I’m not saying you’re actually a highly dangerous person like your score suggests. I’m simply explaining how the Static-99 works. I personally don’t like it all as don’t most therapists in the sex offender rehab industry. It’s way too loose of a catchall that in no way represents the actual individual. But they continue to use it because it’s a super simple catchall that you can easily tick-off on a sheet rather than actually properly diagnosing the individual.

        • Not so!

          No Alex. You are incorrect. Read again.

          While I did have a male victim, I did not have a “PHYSICAL victim.” PHYSICAL as in that I DID NOT touch him. And the crime I was convicted of was non violent, non contact yet I was given a Static 99. I have a 6 score. In mandated treatment, most of us young non contacts had 6 scores and were not listed on the website. So I know for a fact that this bill will harm quite a few of us even though we didn’t have any other offenses.

          If you are a young person at time of offense (less than 35 y/o), have a non contact crime, and have a male victim, SARATSO and Static 99 will harm. In this case, it will put people like me into the lifetime tier if this bill were to pass. As of now, I am not even on the website.

        • NotLikingCA

          Did you even read? He just explained that you DO have a physical victim, you just have a non-contact physical victim.

        • ainsley

          It’s puzzling that the Static 99R would penalize non contact crimes more than violent crimes. With the logic that registration is punishment (because *it* is), the SARATSO is actually imposing the likelihood that a person is given *more* punishment (being placed into tier 3) solely because of the one point difference. Now, if I am not mistaken, SARATSO lumps all types of sex offenders together into its Static 99. So it isn’t even clear what SARATSO measures. I highly doubt it is “dangerousness” though. The Static 99 probably has more to do with self interested government bureaucrats wanting to stay relevant by peddling this sham: http://www.sandiegotribune.com/sdut-panel-grilled-on-form-used-for-gardner-2010apr01-story.html

        • Timmr

          From that article:
          ‘Franklin said predictive tools have limitations because the pool of sex offenders is relatively small and those who re-offend smaller still.

          “On aggregate, we can make certain predictions, but they’re not going to work for every single individual,” he said. “It’s not going to get you to where the public seems to want to be, which is no risk.”’
          That is the problem. The people have been sold this idea you can have “no risk”, using instruments, registries, mandatory minimums, whatever, it is, the government has to do it. He was right on. The pool of the convicted is small and those that reoffend is a small fraction of that. Far fewer than that wil ever murder. Gardner represents way too small a sample to arrive at any probability conclusions. But that doesn’t stop them from making policy off of it.

        • Not so!

          Ainsley,

          I just don’t know how SARATSO and Static 99 can say non contact crimes should be scored more. SARATSO and Static 99 are essentially punishing for what it claims to be future prediction of behavior based on less severe (i.e. non contact) behavior.

          But as you say, all types of sex crimes (both violent and non contacts) are lumped into the Static’s data. So what is the Static 99 REALLY measuring? Just white noise.

          #scam

        • What other kind is there?

          Is there any case where one has a “non-physical” victim, other than perhaps a business or corporation? Just seems a little odd to me to specify “physical victim” regarding any sort of SO since they all appear to have one. Makes little sense to me,

          –AJ

        • Not so!

          There is a mistake in interpretation. I mistook you having written “physical” victim as to a “contact” victim. But the error doesn’t lessen the injustice in that the Static 99 ridiculously scores non contact offenders worse than violent offenders.

        • Still unclear

          @NotSo!
          I think you meant your message above to be towards @ainsley, not me. I was merely chiming in trying to figure out how or when it’s even possible to commit a SO without there being a physical victim. I get the contact/non-contact part (such as voyeurism, streaking, etc.). Maybe prostitution is one w/o a physical victim? (Though IDK if it’s even a registerable offense anywhere.)

          –AJ

        • Alex

          I used the word “physical” here incorrectly, I think. “Direct” might have been better?

          A non-direct victim would be possessing child pornography. If your conviction is possessing and/or distributing CSAI (Child Sex Abuse Images; pronounced as “sigh”), then you do not get a Static-99. Probably a few other crimes but I can’t think exactly what they might be.

          Otherwise, you have a direct victim(s) that are contact (touching) or non-contact (voyeurism, sexting, etc).

  14. mike r

    people need to read the supporting docs from the police chiefs and the los Angeles DA and others and see the real reason they are supporting this bill….the following is why not out of the goodness of theirhearts but out of self interest and survivability of their scheme and all the money that goeswith it..they stated it perfectly in one of their supporting docs as follows…

    “the courts have been invalidating many of the local ordinances and restrictions and threaten to judicially abolish or severely restrict California’s sex offender registry which would be detrimental to public safety ”

    That is verbatim and is exactly what I’ve been saying.. I think this bill is great and will help a lot of people but also has the potential to hurt a lot of people too. its like we have this world champion boxer on the ropes ready to drop with one more blow but were backing off and letting him regroup instead of finishing it….this bill is really better than whats in place now thats without a doubt so I understand bith sides. I think we should throw the final blow using someone like Frank Lindsey in a real suit and force them to revamp the entire scheme and make it constitutionally sound by forcing the government to prove in a court of law on the record with the clear and convincing evidence standards that a person is a credible threat to public safety instead of this over cautious unconstitutional assumption without any evidence that an individual is a threat without any due process of law and even if the burden of proof was put onto the person, (which it is sulposed to be the governments job to prove the fact), there isn’t even any mechanism or avenue to contest the governments so called pre-cognitive abilities to determine such facts.Just saying…other then that the bills way better then what we currently have and for those that it helps or are ready to concede and except what the emperor is offering then its great….

    • pgm111

      Mike R. You make some great points and I agree with you in principle. I strongly suggest that we work to get this tiered registry bill passed in its present form and then attack the registry scheme as you suggest. There is no doubt that the registry scheme’s vulnerability is centered on the lack of empirical evidence to support it, ie. overall very low recidivism rate, no correlation between possessing pictures and acting out, etc.

      • Banning of registry photos on tiered registry time is now

        I think registry photos should be banned just as mugshots are for the LEOs which several current court opinions say is ok. Now is the time to bring this into play while the bill is in discussion. Language for not publishing any registry photos should be added using the same justification the courts have said. It would be a start.

        • Arax

          I agree with you that pictures should be taken out. If we can’t stop the public registry then at least photos should come down. Thanks for your comment.

          I also urge people to show up to voice their opinion when it’s time to oppose or support a bill. I am happy to say, that I was able to show up last Tuesday and support the tiered registry bill. I think it makes an impact for the Senate or Assembly members to see so many people actually care to show up at the Capitol!

  15. HopingforHope

    For those concerned about a DA potentially denying a petition, I don’t think you have a lot to worry about.
    I could be wrong, but here’s my reasoning:
    I’m no lawyer but DA’s, it seems to me, live in a world of evidence and proof. So it seems to me they would need to show some sort of evidence or proof that the person still poses a public threat. Being convicted of another sex offense– regardless of the seriousness of the crime– would definitely do it. What if you were arrested for another offense, but not actually charged? Would that be enough? I don’t think so. That shows there’s wasn’t enough evidence or proof for the DA to file a case.

    So, think about it: What else would cause them to deny?

    A DUI? I don’t think so. There are tens and tens of thousands of people driving right now with DUI’s. Clearly, they aren’t viewed as a big enough public threat to subject them to a registration scheme like RC’s because non exists. And besides, a DUI has nothing to do whatsoever with a crime that is sexual in nature (unless you were sexting while drunk, perhaps). What about any other felony offense? Very possibly. What about a misdemeanor offense? As long as it’s not a sex offense or something violent in nature, it probably wouldn’t be a showstopper. If I’m not mistaken, I believe traffic tickets are a misdemeanor. I doubt seriously that your petition would be denied because ten years ago you were caught turning left on a red.
    What other factors might persuade a DA to deny? Maybe public pressure? I don’t think so. If this tiered bill actually passes, there are so many “insurance policies” (as it was described in the senate hearing), that all of this will have been very carefully vetted and thought through with the opportunity for public comment, there will be a well-defined process, and it will be the law. Plus, I believe many DA’s actually support the bill. Could the DA deny you because he thinks you’re ugly, or because he thinks your offense was especially henious? I don’t think so. Unless I’ misundertand it, this is not about DA’s “scoring” the crime you committed, or about judging the kind of person he thinks you are. Chances are, he’ll have absolutely NO idea who you are.

    We have a lot of smart people in this group, and I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. Did I miss something big, another possible legitimate reason that your petition might be denied? What I am trying to identify here are factors that are outside the process. I would argue that the bar for denial will be set pretty high, and that the huge majority of applicants– practically anyone who hasn’t committed another felony– should have nothing to worry about.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      @HopingforHope

      Let us have a clear Idea of how people in their Human Minds misperceive Randomness.

      Randomness Being Life as it is reveled into Reality. The laws of Entropy* akb the Axiom» “The Trouble of Living”^

      A example is:

      People do not understand that random sequences “Seem” to have patterns in them; The Human mind has a incredible ability to see Meaning in these patterns where none exist.

      That is to say – Projecting Meaning upon Patterns that do not exist.

      Moreover – Imposing False Order upon Random events:

      “That’s Creeping Determinism”

      Similar to a UnJust Judge A Seat at the gate of city in contrast to a Just Seat Job §.

      YLT – Young’s Literal Translation of Job 29 §

      1 And Job addeth to lift up his simile, and saith: —

      2 Who doth make me as [in] months past, As [in] the days of God’s preserving me?

      3 In His causing His lamp to shine on my head, By His light I walk [through] darkness.

      4 As I have been in days of my maturity, And the counsel of God upon my tent.

      5 When yet the Mighty One [is] with me. Round about me — my young ones,

      6 When washing my goings with butter, And the firm rock [is] with me rivulets of oil.

      7 When I go out to the gate by the city, In a broad place I prepare my seat.

      8 Seen me have youths, and they, been hidden, And the aged have risen — they stood up.

      9 Princes have kept in words, And a hand they place on their mouth.

      10 The voice of leaders hath been hidden, And their tongue to the palate hath cleaved.

      11 For the ear heard, and declareth me happy, And the eye hath seen, and testifieth [to] me.

      12 For I deliver the afflicted who is crying, And the fatherless who hath no helper.

      13 The blessing of the perishing cometh on me, And the heart of the widow I cause to sing.

      14 Righteousness I have put on, and it clotheth me, As a robe and a diadem my justice.

      15 Eyes I have been to the blind, And feet to the lame [am] I.

      16 A father I [am] to the needy, And the cause I have not known I search out.

      17 And I break the jaw-teeth of the perverse, And from his teeth I cast away prey.

      18 And I say, ‘With my nest I expire, And as the sand I multiply days.’

      19 My root is open unto the waters, And dew doth lodge on my branch.

      20 My honour [is] fresh with me, And my bow in my hand is renewed.

      21 To me they have hearkened, Yea, they wait, and are silent for my counsel.

      22 After my word they change not, And on them doth my speech drop,

      23 And they wait as [for] rain for me, And their mouth they have opened wide [As] for the latter rain.

      24 I laugh unto them — they give no credence, And the light of my face cause not to fall.

      25 I choose their way, and sit head, And I dwell as a king in a troop, When mourners he doth comfort.

      * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
      ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

      » ax·i·omˈ aksēəm/
      noun
      noun: axiom; plural noun:

      axioms
      a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. “the axiom that supply equals demand”

      synonyms:

      accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle; More maxim, adage, aphorism; rareapophthegm, gnome

      “he came to regret his belief in the axiom that there’s no such thing as bad publicity”

      MATHEMATICS

      a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

      Origin

      late 15th century: from French axiome or Latin axioma, from Greek axiōma ‘what is thought fitting,’ from axios ‘worthy.’

      § http://biblehub.com/ylt/job/29.htm

      I speak a True Song

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • Lake County

      I believe most DA’s will follow the spirit of the law and it’s intention to reduce the number of people on the registry. My only concern would be if the DA that prosecuted us was also the DA reviewing your removal application. Some DA’s do have a stick up their a** and if they were your prosecuting DA, they might have more of a desire to challenge your application. In that case, you will have to hope the judge will be fair.

      • Follow the $$$

        That’s why I moved out of the district I was sentenced in. Figure I will get a better chance with the office where I live now with any issues that arise or when I do COR or petition once/if 421 passes.

      • HopingforHope

        I hear you, Lake County, but challenge it on exactly what? The fact that he prosecuted you many years earlier, or wants to get re-elected? This was the point I was trying to make, so I appreciate your comments. I’ve been trying to rationally think this through. Again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if they’re going to make the assertion that you remain a threat to public safety, they need to produce evidence that indicates that condition eixists. I’d say 99% of the population has a stick up their a** when it comes to sex offenders. I’m sure that includes DA’s who go home at the end of the day and hug their children. They’re no different than anyone else. This is why I believe the bar to deny will be higher than many of us might think.

        • Lake County

          Well I was just trying to find a middle ground for those that feel the DA’s will fight every application. Even if your application is investigated by your prosecuting DA, they will still need evidence to convince the judge that you are a danger. However the DA does not need convincing evidence of your danger to just request the hearing in front of the judge, which at minimum will delay your removal from the registry. And your prosecution attorney will know the evidence better than anyone, especially those things we were not charged with. I imagine the DA will be allowed to bring up any detail in the case file even if it was not something you were charged with. However, I really don’t think this will become an issue, especially since most DA’s will have moved on to other types of cases or jobs after 10-20 years have passed.

        • Harry

          It is going to depend on the county. I assuming what I have been hearing about OC, it is going be hell to get off, however, far northern rural counties it could be far more easier. In the county I live in, out of two people that ran for the open DA’s job. The guy that ran on bit of a SO platform lost to the one that did not mention anything about SO’s.

        • New Person

          HopingforHope,

          Not every DA and judge will think, “everyone deserves a second chance,” nor do they care about evidence.

          I’ve already told my story about trying to earn my 1203.4 dismissal in other threads. I’ll tell it to you now. I completed probation successfully. Everything I needed to do to earn 1203.4 was done. When I went into court, the DA and Probation had written recommendations to NOT GIVE ME 1203.4. In the Probation’s report, it said I had successfully completed everything that was asked of me without a negative infraction, but still went on to recommend that I not be awarded the 1203.4. My lawyer asked the judge how he was leaning on this, not on record, and the judge said he would deny it due to their recommendations.

          Odd thing is, 1203.4 is automatic if you check all the boxes. It was also written in the initial paperwork. After conferring with an appellate lawyer, we went for the 1203.4 again, but this time creating a separate section that stated it is by law that I am awarded 1203.4 for completing everything necessary to earn it. The judge reluctantly awarded me the 1203.4. Then he turned to the DA and said, “I’m sorry. It’s the law.”

          I am not in favor of any DA having any involvement in EXTENDING PUNISHMENT because it actually is a second trial for the first offense. That’s called double jeopardy. That’s what’s amiss here is that this tier permits this unconstitutionality of double jeopardy along with letting others go free due to time on the registry.

          You can tell yourself the “good” of people, but if I can give you one contrarian experience, then it should deter you from thinking it won’t happen again. I did everything well to earn my 1203.4, which was automatic, but the DA, probation office, and judge were dead set against me. Only the statute sided with me. If this happened to me, then rest assured that other registrants with my DA has experienced the same. If one DA exists like that in this courthouse, then it can easily be extrapolated that there are others like that DA in other courthouses in California.

          The best way to remove such harassment is to remove the DA and judge from the equation. We’re not in prison trying to get early parole. We’re already free people… wanting to actually be free. There is a concrete difference.

          According to 2003 Smith decision, only convictions are to be registered since it’s public info. Yet here I am with my conviction dismissed still registering. Guess California law supersedes Federal law… or maybe no one has addressed it due to ignorance of the law – just like what the judge, DA, and probation office did to me on my initial case for 1203.4 in denying it to me.

        • Timmr

          When my lawyer explained it to me the plee deal allowed me to petition for an expungement after 10 years. Then the legislature removed that goal post completely for me. I don’t care anymore. I don’t believe anything they say.

    • David

      @ HopingForHope: I hope you are correct. However, DAs also have a habit of running for political office and who among those lawmaker wannabe would want to provide “soft on sex offender” arguments to their future political opponents.

      • Lake County

        Well if the DA does not contest your petition, how will the public ever know that they were soft on crime? The general public wont be notified of the lack of abjection by the DA. Now if they object, then there would be a record of that court hearing. Now if someone reoffends after being taken off the registry it might come up, but if someone does reoffend in a case that gets publicity, then we can expect all future petitions to be challenged.

    • Nondescript

      Here is what I think:

      The DA plays a bit part in this whole petition charade. It is ultimately a judge who relieves people of their duty to register. If you are not listed on the Megan’s website, your registration serves no real continued purpose for the “safety of the community” that they can point to. Unless you have a failure to register, other arrests or multiple 51/50’s the judge is probably going to let you off.

      Consider this: parole and probation are also monitoring schemes. Everyday judges cut people loose early from their probation ( sometimes by years)
      Some of the factors the judge uses if a person has been otherwise completely compliant with the terms of their probation are:
      Any hardships suffered or any restrictions imposed on you as a result of being on active probation? A job loss or loss of promotion at work? Any travel restrictions imposed on you? Did probation affect your ability to pass a background check? Did you lose any benefits as a result of probation?

      Why wouldn’t a judge take these factors into consideration for continuing to be subject to a mandatory regulatory scheme as well ? So what- if ( a big IF) the DA requests a hearing? The judge is the decider.

  16. MatthewLL

    A couple questions from an out of state registrant:
    1. Does the time one is registered while on probation time count toward toe 10 year minimum requirement?
    2. Can an out of state registrant petition without residing in California to be exempt from registration in California, or does one have to be register in CA?

    I will be off the Washington State registry in 4 more years (10 years automatic removal for misdemeanor), but time here starts when you first register, which you do when you are out in probation.

    • Nondescript

      1. Does the time one is registered while on probation time count toward toe 10 year minimum requirement? Yes. The clock starts the day you are released from physical custody and register for the first time.

      2. Can an out of state registrant petition without residing in California to be exempt from registration in California, or does one have to be register in CA?
      Under our current lifetime registration scheme, No. You will have to register in California even if Washington says you don’t have to register there anymore( unless you received a COR / or a governors pardon)

      If California adopts a tiered registry and your offense is one that is analogous to a tier 1 offense in California and you are already past the 10 year mark you probably wouldn’t have to register here( but we don’t know how things will play out yet or what the final wording of the bill will be regarding out of state registrants) The California courts might look at an out of state offender who just ” fell off ” the registry in their own state because their time expired, as not the same amount of scrutiny as California requires. Who knows.

      Best to call and pose question number 2 to the California Dept of Justice/ Attorney Generals Office if you plan on moving here.

      • Alex

        Nondescript, I believe you’re incorrect on point two about needing to continue to register in California if you’re original state says you no longer have to.

        How long you have to register for is largely governed by that laws of the state that you were convicted in. If you move to another state and have your case transferred, then it falls under your current state laws. The transfer of the case usually only applies while you’re on supervision (probation/parole), and even then, the original state could still choose to retain the case while only transferring the supervision portion of the case to your current state.

        The rehab program I was/am part of (I’ve completed my three years and am currently voluntarily continuing the program) have several people out of state. A few were from states with automatic registry drops. When they hit their mark, the original state that still held the case send out a letter to both the registrant as well as California DOJ that the person no longer has to register. California did not further require the person to register.

        Another person committed the crime while in California but it was against an undercover officer in another state (chatroom). It was that state the prosecuted him and still retains his case. So any changes that he wants to make to his case, he currently needs to actually travel to the other state to do so. The duration of his probation and registration time is also currently determined by the other state.

        Of course when it comes to anything law, it’s always the best option to actually speak with a lawyer that specializes in whatever law you have questions about. Forums like this are a good guide to point you in the right direction, but should never be taken as gospel.

        • Not quite, Alex

          @Alex
          “How long you have to register for is largely governed by that laws of the state that you were convicted in. If you move to another state and have your case transferred, then it falls under your current state laws.”

          Your statements about registration being determined by the sentencing state may apply in CA, but that’s hardly true elsewhere. In my personal situation, it’s not even close to correct, and from what I recall of reading other states’ RC laws, my state is not alone. In my case, my state of residence requires me to register for 25 years, even though the length of time in my state of conviction is significantly lower than that. So be careful in broadening your statements beyond CA and/or what you know to be fact.

          Were registries punitive, you’d be spot on nationwide. But being regulatory, any state (or the Feds) can make it whatever they want, whenever they want. That’s what Smith and CT DPS, among others, were all about!

        • Alex

          Was your case conviction case fully transferred to your current state of residence? That might be why you now have to register for a longer period of time based on your current state laws.

    • Jeff

      The app nextdoor has flagged my household is this illegal

      • RFS

        Me too. I was trying to get on there to look for the owner of a lost dog.

        • David

          @ Jeff and RFS: Did NextDoor post something/anything about your home/address on their website? Or did they simply not allow you to enroll/ participate on their app?
          (I know Facebook bans us from joining. And I personally have been booted out of the AirBnB app [after more than a year of using it successfully for numerous rentals with no problems.])

        • RFS

          Ya, it stated something about being unable to complete registration because 1 or more sex offenders reside at the address. I can get the exact error message later.

      • Alex

        I don’t think it’s illegal. Lots of websites and apps pull information from the registry. If you Google my name, the very first link is me on the Homefacts website. Otherwise you’d need to actually go to Megan’s Law to find me as I won’t show up as part of any other websearch.

        They get around this because registry forbids using the information to harass the registrant. But what they’re doing isn’t harassment. They’re simply making the information more readily available.

    • Harry

      If you live in Washington and will be off the registry in 4 years, why move to California? Unless you are tired of the rain? It is going to be two years, at least, before anyone gets off the registry here, if 421 passes and we are going to have second to highest gas tax in the nation and bunch of other off the wall, tax and spend laws.

  17. Eric

    Mark Klass was there to speak in opposition to the bill. The Klass family has my most profound sympathy. They endured the most horrible and tragic fate possible with their daughter being kidnapped and murdered. But the one inconsistency in that case is that the man convicted, R.A.D. had been stopped and questioned by the police and he had no wants or warrants. He was not a convicted SO. A registry would not have mattered. What was significant is that the man displayed severe sighs of being a sociopath, and totally lacked empathy, demonstrated pathological behavior in the court room, and was so pathetic that the judge said he had no problem giving him the death sentence. So it appears that this mentally deranged man had been loose in society and was never questioned. I’m sure he had red flags galore but no system is in place to monitor such cases. This seems to be a grave area in America, people can display any manner of antisocial behavior, but until they have a victim or do a crime it is hands off. We can spend three trillion dollars deposing a dictator in a foreign country but we don’t have a dime for mental health care. I was a teacher for 10 years and believe me, I had red flags flying all around me. I called CPS many times and got the same response. They can’t do anything until something happens.

    • Harry

      Yet, Mark Klass is never a poster parent for mental health care. Why? because he can make money at throwing ex-sex offenders and their families, under bus. It make me wonder what is in his closet that makes him to dwell on sex crime issues, since his child was NOT kill by a sex offender?

      • Nicholas Maietta

        I am thinking that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Klaas are friends and Klaas is following in Walsh’s footsteps, brainwashed in targeting sex offenders by Walsh. I see no other reason why Klaas would target those on the registry. It makes no sense. Why not go after murderers making sure they never get out of prison?

  18. Aero1

    Much love to Janice B is all i have to say ..she’s a very strong Brave courageous woman and it was an honour to meet her for the first time within the last five-years she’s done so much for alot of people she is truly God sent

  19. USA

    Hoping for hope: great comments

    Just one thing. If your arrested and charged: arrest

    If your arrested and not charged: detainment

    FYI

  20. Jeff Stone is Crazy

    Jeff Stone is a Scientology nutcase, its true, look it up. He also has called for CA to leave the US! This guy is a total nutter. I guess that is the type of person who votes against this type of bill.

    • Lake County

      Lets hope the mother ship comes for him soon. That is one nutty group, even for California’s standards of nuttiness.

    • Lake County

      Wow, I just Googled him. There is a lot of stuff posted about him and things he has done. A true nut job. I am actually okay he voted against us. I have a feeling anything he supports would fail. I feel sorry for the people that have to work with him on committees. I can’t believe he was able to get voted into office. I guess he probably received lots of campaign money from fellow Scientologists and the church donated at least $50K to his 2011 campaign.

  21. Krna

    I’m sorry if this is a repeat question… When this goes into law, when will people be allowed to petition the DA for removal? (Example for tier 1): is it ten years after conviction? Ten years after release from jail? Or is it ten years after completion of probation? I was convicted March of 2010, released from inarceration in August 2010, but finished probation 2015. Am I waiting until 2020, or 2025?

    • Steve

      If you are from California have somebody look at your Megan’s law profile. Release date is on there. Mine says 1998 I was done with probation 2002. I believe you will be 2020 just like I will be 2018

  22. Nondescript

    *Regarding Internet Exclusions*:
    So bill 558 has been once again amended on April 26th. The language about ” loopholes” has been scraped, and it looks like many of the offenses for which the original bill was trying to ban internet exclusions are now allowed to have their exclusions back including felony pc243 and pc311.( if sentenced to probation)

    I think this may have something to do with the bill in its original form being in conflict with the tiered registry bill.

    • 1

      However, a misdemeanor 647.6 is still being removed from the exclusions list and in this tiered bill it’s excluded from the list. Which bill would trump the other?

    • Alex

      Can you quote the positive changes? I see the “loophole” portion now has been struck out, but I can’t find any of the other changes you’ve mentioned. Are you referring to the language of “felony” attached to 243 and 311.X and the ability to reduced the felony to a misdemeanor if you were on probation?

      • Nondescript

        @Alex

        Read the bill in its entirety. It now says:
        This bill would prohibit those offenders who were convicted of misdemeanor child molestation (647.6) from applying to the department for exclusion of their information from the Internet Web site.
        They have reinstated (e) 1, and 2 A, B ( the old language of 290 allowing 243.4 a felony and 311 to obtain an exclusion)

  23. Roger

    At the hearing, as I watched the amazing and sudden change in attitude by the police and DAs in supporting a tiered registry, I was filled with hope that this indicates the anti-registrant pendulum is about to swing the other way.

    Since police and DAs are supporting this, we heard some strong law-and-order language in the hearing, focusing on saving time and money, and keeping tier 3’s on for life.

    That’s ok. It’s part of the political game of getting this bill through the legislature. Going from a life registry since 1947 to a tiered registry like most other states may not seem like a big thing, but it is a HUGE thing for the largest and most influential state in the U.S. Having ANY change after so many years requires a major shift in attitudes by the legislature.

    You may see things about the bill that you don’t like, and you want to oppose it for specific reasons.

    But consider this analogy: we are stranded on an island. Hardly ANY of us are getting off the island now. A ship comes by the island, sees us, and sends out rescue boats. Do we complain that not all of us will fit on the ship, or that the ship is not going exactly where we want? Of course not! We take what we can get, even if it is far from perfect. More ships can be sent by those who leave.

    We have to get lots of tier 1 and 2 people off the registry to PROVE to society that there will NOT be a huge crime wave by releasing registrants. That lessens their fear of registrants, which will make them open to allowing more of us off the registry, incrementally working toward freedom for us all.

    As a tier 3, I won’t benefit from this bill. But I am looking AT THE BIG PICTURE, not just the parts I don’t like.

    And that gives me hope! I may not get off for a number of years, but this bill gives a starting point to hope for change.

    Even if there are element’s of Janice’s strategy you don’t agree with, please support her, because she is uniquely qualified to develop a long-term strategy to freedom. After all, she has done an awesome job so far! Without her, we would have presence restrictions, residency restrictions, GPS ankle bands, and many other terrible restrictions.

    United we have hope!

    • James

      Keep in mind that in every state, Tier 3s are on for life.

      • Roger

        Exactly. It takes time to lower the fears of legislators and the public to allow registrants more opportunities for freedom. When our biggest state someday is comfortable with allowing level 3’s to migrate to level 2, other states will follow.

        Incremental progress. That is the most lasting because it takes into account human emotions.

  24. CA

    I might be repeating myself I’m not entirely sure however this is extremely IMPORTANT , the CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD SAID THAT IF A REGISTRANT HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANOTHER SEX CRIME IN 17 years they are the same risk as someone who has never been convicted of a sex crime! WE NEED TO NOTIFY THE AUTHORS OF THIS BILL TO REMIND THEM TO MENTION THIS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE!! Extremely IMPORTANT! THIS MESSAGE IS MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR JANICE THANK YOU!
    Please anybody who can give this information to the right people do it! God bless

    • Lake County

      These are issues you should bring up in your letters to the APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, just like many of us will. You have a voice to notify your legislators of these statistics just like the rest of us do. Janice knows how to advocate for us, but she cannot be the only one to remind them of the many issues and statistics.

      • CA

        Lake County, I’m well aware of what I need to do! Thanks

    • Janice Bellucci

      Dr. Karl Hanson, who has studied sex offender recidivism and re-offense for more than 30 years, determined that an individual who has lived in the community without re-offending for 17 years is highly unlikely to commit another sex offense. The results of Dr. Hanson’s work have been reported by the CA Sex Offender Management Board, but the board did not conduct the research and write the reports. That was done by Dr. Karl Hanson.

      • CA

        Thank you Janice for your response, but either way, this information provided by Dr. Hanson,
        is extremely viable, in our goal to create a tiered registry. Hopefully this will be brought up at Appropriations, it can’t hurt right??
        I am always extremely grateful of all the work you have done for us Janice, you’re the best :]

      • New Person

        Dr. Karl Hanson is considered an expert in this field with ample amount of years of research.

        What I query is how did this tiered proposal arbitrarily come up with the length of tier years? If Dr. Hanson’s research reveals a person is highly unlikely to recidivism rate after 17 years, then how does public safety factor into that research – does it support it or does it neglect it?

        10 years, 20 years, and lifetime on the registry are the three tiers. What scientific based information was utilized to configure the tier length? The registry and it’s proliferation of laws were ignited due to the 2003 Smith decision that the registry was not punishment due to the high recidivism rate of one class of convicts – in the name of public safety. We now know through Dr Ira and Tara Ellman’s research work that the recidivism rate was not from an expert and not substantiated; nor were other information used to counter such an extreme statistic. California’s own CASOMB’s research have recorded less than 1% recidivism rates, once they stopped included ‘not-registering’ as a form of re-offending.

        Use facts, dispel fears.

        Although the tiers have the potentiality to remove registrants off the registry, they’re not doing it by scientific facts. There is fear instilled within the proposal. A second trial hearing to end or extend your registry duty service? That’s an inference upon fear and neglect of civil law to trample upon a free person’s constitutional rights to have the placebo of “fake fear for public safety.” The fact there exists a lifetime term, is in itself, a total disregard to actual research, scientific based work by an expert in the field.

        Fears keeps many oblivious… rendering facts anonymous.

        Does the Public Safety Committee rule on facts or fear? With a superfluous amount of research work over several years from several different sources culminating to the same conclusion, including its own State research group, how is it that these facts remain anonymous to the Public Safety Committee? The 2003 Smith decision painted all registrants monsters (as is duly scribed in the decision that we be treated as one whole group, not individuals due to the 80% recidivism rate). Are we still those monsters created by false facts or are we actual free citizens where substantiated facts from experts rules logic?

        This tiered proposal has no research based facts at its core. It simply just wants to potentially reduce the numbers of registrant so that law enforcement might be slightly more effective.

        In the words of Madmartigan to Sorsha from Willow, “You are the sun, the moon, the stars… without you, I dwell in darkness.” If no one will be using all these scientific, researched based work from experts to represent us, then all of us registrants will be left in the dark… as perpetual monsters. A lifetime term versus 17 years poses a vast discrepancy in motive – fears or facts. Currently, it still remains all fears.

        • steve

          It’ ALL about the legislators. They will not pass a bill that just drops off people after 17 years. They want security measure after security measure but most of all they want judges to make the decision so they can’t be blamed. You can quote Hanson a million times they don’t care.

        • CA

          According to the video i watched of the Public Safety Committee, deciding to pass SB 421
          their was a representative from the Sex Offender Management Board.
          So I think that statistics, play a huge role in the passage of the bill!

        • Lake County

          We should keep in mind the war on marijuana. The prohibition was started by false Reefer Madness beliefs in the 1930’s. During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales. The Act was ruled unconstitutional years later (yes, it took about 40 years), it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s that made it among the the most dangerous drugs. Then it got worse in the 1980’s as it was promoted as a gateway drug to heroin use. They started filling our jails and prisons over this plant. People with even small possession charges would sometimes get large sentences like 10-20 years. None of these laws were based on evidence, in fact the Federal Government did everything they could to keep scientists from conducting any research to determine if this plant was dangerous, safe or perhaps useful as a medicine. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory prison sentences. Later an amendment added schedule 1 drugs to the three-strikes law, which created mandatory 25-years imprisonment for repeated serious crimes – including certain drug offenses – and allowed the death penalty to be used against “drug kingpins”.

          Beginning in the 1970’s (but mostly in the 1990’s) some states started decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana and mandatory minimum sentences. This was done mostly due to the failure of the war on drugs to reduce the use of marijuana and because of the high cost of incarceration. These reforms on the law resulted no no unintended consequences.

          In the 1990’s marijuana started getting looked at more for it’s medical uses. Evidence was piling up that showed that marijuana was not only safer than other medical drugs but sometimes the only drug that could relieve certain medical conditions like seizures and many other conditions. In 1996, California became the first state to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Now 23 states, plus Washington, DC, have passed medical marijuana laws. Now that the evidence of the medical uses of Marijuana have become widely accepted and not caused increased crime or deaths, many states like CA are now allowing recreational use. Once again, these reforms had no harm to society.

          It should be noted that the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes. But this is completely ignored by the states. Just like the AWA is ignored by most states.

          I bring the marijuana laws up as a comparison to how laws begin with myth and fear and eventually can end with proven facts. Both marijuana prohibition and the sex offender registry started by myths and false data. We and our families know that we are not a danger to society just like all the marijuana advocates knew that marijuana was not the evil plant it was once made out to be. Marijuana laws took years to reform and so will the registry. Marijuana laws were gradually changed and we are only starting to make gradual changes to the registry as fear and facts are replacing myths. We will eventually win the fight against the public registry, but it will take time to dispel the myths the public and our politicians believe.

          This tiered registry is not the goal, it is only a big first step in reforms. First we have to prove to society that removing past offenders from the registry wont increase sex offenses. Despite current evidence in our favor, it will take years to prove that this evidence is real and that rehabilitation works and the fear of us recidivism is unfounded.

        • Lake County

          Moderator, please replace my previous post with type-o’s with this post, thanks!

          We should keep in mind the war on marijuana. The prohibition was started by false Reefer Madness beliefs in the 1930’s. During hearings on marijuana law in the 1930’s, claims were made about marijuana’s ability to cause men of color to become violent and solicit sex from white women. This imagery became the backdrop for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which effectively banned its use and sales. The Act was ruled unconstitutional years later (yes, it took about 40 years), it was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s that made it among the the most dangerous drugs. Then it got worse in the 1980’s as it was promoted as a gateway drug to heroin use. They started filling our jails and prisons over this plant. People with even small possession charges would sometimes get large sentences like 10-20 years. None of these laws were based on evidence, in fact the Federal Government did everything they could to keep scientists from conducting any research to determine if this plant was dangerous, safe or perhaps useful as a medicine. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reinstated mandatory prison sentences. Later an amendment added schedule 1 drugs to the three-strikes law, which created mandatory 25-years imprisonment for repeated serious crimes – including certain drug offenses – and allowed the death penalty to be used against “drug kingpins”.

          Beginning in the 1970’s (but mostly in the 1990’s) some states started decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana and mandatory minimum sentences. This was done mostly due to the failure of the war on drugs to reduce the use of marijuana and because of the high cost of incarceration. These reforms on the law resulted no no unintended consequences.

          In the 1990’s marijuana started getting looked at more for it’s medical uses. Evidence was piling up that showed that marijuana was not only safer than other medical drugs but sometimes the only drug that could relieve certain medical conditions like seizures and many other conditions. In 1996, California became the first state to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Now 23 states, plus Washington, DC, have passed medical marijuana laws. Now that the evidence of the medical uses of Marijuana have become widely accepted and not caused increased crime or deaths, many states like CA are now allowing recreational use. Once again, these reforms had no harm to society.

          It should be noted that the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes. But this is completely ignored by the states. Just like the AWA is ignored by most states.

          I bring the marijuana laws up as a comparison to how laws begin with myth and fear and eventually can end with proven facts. Both marijuana prohibition and the sex offender registry started by myths and false data. We and our families know that we are not a danger to society just like all the marijuana advocates knew that marijuana was not the evil plant it was once made out to be. Marijuana laws took years to reform and so will the registry. Marijuana laws were gradually changed and we are only starting to make gradual changes to the registry as evidence and facts are replacing myths. We will eventually win the fight against the public registry, but it will take time to dispel the myths the public and our politicians believe.

          This tiered registry is not the goal, it is only a big first step in reforms. First we have to prove to society that removing past offenders from the registry wont increase sex offenses. Despite current evidence in our favor, it will take years to prove that this evidence is real and that rehabilitation works and the fear of high recidivism is unfounded.

  25. USA

    Great job!

    I do have a few questions:

    – how will those with expunged offenses be tiered?

    -presently, I believe only misdemeanor sexual battery and indecent exposure aren’t placed on the Megan’s Website. Will that change?

    -I think we cleared up the Static 99 question

    • Lake County

      No one can give you a definite answer to that. The bill will still undergo adjustments as it goes through the various committees and even when it is finalized, we will still have to see how the Department of Justice will interpret it and may still require some court challenges after it becomes law. Any answer now will only be speculation.

    • ExpatRFSO

      Misdemeanor possession of CP (PC 311.11 prior to 2002 when it was made a felony) is also not listed on the ML website. In fact it wasn’t even a registerable offense until the late 90’s/2000. Same with PC 314, indecent exposure.

      • TM

        FYI – Possession CP was made a felony in 2006, not 2002.

  26. wb

    hello my question is as follows , I was pled no contest to a 288a riv county 1989 given six months wkns an 3 years probation l violated my probationin 1992 then was given 3 years stats prison of which I did 20 months….my age at time of crime 18 victim 13 no force fear or sex,, no other convictions since this crime .. where do I fall in tiered registry tier 2,3 ???? AS IT IS WRITTEN

    • ExpatRFSO

      Going back and looking at all these old offenses to see where they fit is going to be a big task. Your closeness in age will help you, but your victim being under 14 will hurt you. What was your probation violation for? Due to your ages, I would guess you would be in tier 2.

      • wb

        I was violated for not completing weekends also not reporting to probation ,,,,dumbstuff . my initial registration was for 1 year had I done the 6 month weekends…once violated in 1992 state prison

  27. j

    So let’s say a person (example) is eligible and has been on registry for 23 years (tier 2) would that individual also be taken off the *iml* (international megans law) as well?? well not so much taken off but would not need to notify the authorities? would that particular individuals picture also be removed from the data base online?

    • Alex

      Technically, once you no longer have to register than all things that went along with it should fall off. In practice, who really knows?

    • Tired Of Hiding

      Excellent question and on that I would also like a answer to. It seems that if we no longer have the burden of notifying law enforcement about every move we make that we should have FULL freedom of movement once the notification purdon has been removed.

      I certainly hope this is the case…if not then what is the point?

    • ExpatRFSO

      j, If you were taken off the registry then you no longer have to notify your LEA of advance travel and your information, including your photo, would be removed from the public website. IML is not a database. There is not, as of yet, a federal SO database, just a federal website which accesses the state registries. Having said that, even though ICE has said it isn’t in the practice of sending notice for former sex offenders that no longer or never did need to register, Janice has mentioned that in at least 3 cases she is aware of, advance notice was sent to a foreign country for individuals not on the registry. ICE has said in each of these cases it was a “mistake” but maintains that they can notify for non registrants if they want, they just choose not to. If you read IML, it in fact doesn’t talk about the registry, it talks about those who have committed “specific offenses”.

  28. Leroy

    So having read the proposed amendments of the bill, it reads that some of us will once again be eligible for a Certificate of rehabilitation and a governor’s pardon as it reads as amended below:

    4852.01. (a) A person convicted of a felony who is committed to a state prison or other institution or agency, including commitment to a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, may file a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
    (b) A person convicted of a felony or a person who is convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any sex offense specified in Section 290, the accusatory pleading of which has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, may file a petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to the provisions of this chapter if the petitioner has not been incarcerated in a prison, jail, detention facility, or other penal institution or agency since the dismissal of the accusatory pleading, is not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and the petitioner presents satisfactory evidence of five years’ residence in this state prior to the filing of the petition.
    (c) This chapter does not apply to persons serving a mandatory life parole, persons committed under death sentences, persons convicted of a violation of Section 269, subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, Section 288.7, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, or persons in military service.
    (d)Notwithstanding any other law, the Governor has the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of Section 269, subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, Section 288.7, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.

    section (c) has been revised to read as follows:

    (c) This chapter does not apply to persons serving a mandatory life parole, persons committed under death sentences, or persons in military service.

    So my question is will this make a 1203.4 expungement available again for 269, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5 288.7, and 289 as well?

  29. bluewall

    I am not sure how this will even benefit me, but like what a previous poster said, we won’t know until it passes. My crimes unfortunately requires the president’s pardon since it happened in the military. But good news is good news, and I hope this passes for everyone’s sakes

    • ExpatRFSO

      Bluewall, federal and military convictions are generally treated as out of state convictions thus your state may have a blanket statute requiring you to register, or, as is the case in California, the state will compare the elements of the crime which you were convicted of with the state law as they were when you committed your crime and apply the registration requirements of that state law. Be sure to use the stature from the year off offense, not the current one.

      • bluewall

        July 2002… damn has it been that long…. on probation April 2005, off of probation Nov 2008

  30. Nondescript

    This is interesting. It really does seem like they want to trim the registry down.

    “The bill would REQUIRE the offender to file a petition at the expiration of his or her minimum registration period and would AUTHORIZE the district attorney to request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful tier completion, as specified. The bill would also AUTHORIZE a tier three offender who meets specified criteria to petition the court for placement in tier two, as specified”

    Authorizing someone to do something generally means to empower them or grant them permission.
    Sounds like once a registrant hits their 10 or 20 year expiration date, it is an actual requirement that they file the paperwork so they can be booted off the registry. Hmm, I wonder if there will be a penalty if they don’t .

    • New Person

      I wonder at what cost is this “requirement” or is at the Public’s expense. Otherwise, wouldn’t this be seen as a “fine”?

      • Nondescript

        Failure to unregister?

      • Timmr

        I’m not paying to get off. They can keep draining the state’s coffers monitoring me and I will oblidge them, until the whole stupidity crashes under its own weight or I die. When you have to buy rights, they are not rights but privileges. Make them pay.

        • New Person

          That’s the point I’m actually making, Timmr.

          You’re out of custody and completed probation. There should be no other cost b/c you’ve already paid for it. Regulatory schemes shouldn’t have any monetary payments from registrants (at least in California). If it does, then it ventures into punitive area a la probation.

          So this document is a legal document that reveals this regulatory scheme is now deemed punitive as you have to pay a fee to get off of the registry like all the court fine fees and such to be paid off first in order to get off of probation – provided there is a fee involved that is “required”. That would render the registration scheme punitive in California.

          I’d sue the moment there is a monetary value designated as a “requirement” to be off of “custody”. I mean, isn’t that how it reads?

        • Lake County

          We have no idea yet if a fee will be requested to file the petition. But even if there is a fee, the court is required to wave the fee for those that can show their income is low. Proof like getting any public assistance is all that would be required. That is per CA law. I’ve posted a link to all that info somewhere here in the last month..

    • Hmmm...

      If they really wanted to “trim the registry down,” why not make getting off the registry automatic?

      • Nondescript

        Perhaps one day they will streamline the process and make your 10th or 20th year of registering your last, automatically. I personally don’t think this bill would pass at this point in time with all the manufactured media hysteria that exists regarding people who have committed sex offenses, unless they promoted it as having a “safety net” built in for those who haven’t complied with their requirements, or are provably dangerous ( and yes they’ll have to prove it to a judge). They didn’t create this multimillion dollar apparatus to have 10’s of thousands of people escape from its clutches so easily. It wouldn’t look good for them. They always need to look like the smart masterminds who keep the bad guys from harming society otherwise the public loses confidence in them.

        • New Person

          You mean like japanese internment camps?

      • Alex

        This is also supposed to save money. And nothing saves money like potentially having an additional 100k people clogging up the court system petitioning to be recognized as human.

        • Lake County

          It only clogs up the court system if the DA is contesting your petition. And after the first year wave of petitions, it really should be no big financial burden to the court.

  31. USA

    Let’s stay positive:

    I do think:
    -Static 99 needs to be addressed (10 year rule)

    -how will expunged offenses be handled?

    -presently, the only 2 offenses not showing on the Megan’s Law Website are misdemeanor Sexual Battery and Indecent Exposure (will thus remain)?

    -exclusion (Tier 2) how will the process occur to request exclusion?

    -how will Tier 1 & 2 finally get excluded from registration? Let’s face it, the court system is breaking st the seams! Do they really have time for this? There should be a checklist to determine if the individual has fulfilled the requirements? (Ie: crime free? Time since arrest/or release?)

    DA’s tend to manipulate the truth and unfortunately aren’t always honest (they can call you whatever they desire and their immune here in Ca)!

    • Someone who cares

      Usa – how did you figure that there are only two offenses not listed on ML? I tried looking for that info but never found the actual offense or PC anywhere.

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 *

.