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

Fixing California’s bloated sex-offender registry

R Street just signed a letter calling for commonsense reform of the California sex-offender registry, based on a bill proposed by our friend and Legislative Advisory Board member Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    “…it’s unjust, cruel and…” Unjust and cruel like in punishment?

  2. Danny Boy

    After reading the letter, it seems all these organizations want to do away with registration for only “low risk” offenders. Low risk makes a good sound bite. But I feel it’s important to note that people will be flagged “high risk” because of the STATIC 99. The STATIC 99 is not at all a fair way to put a person it a specific tier.

    • pgm111

      Many of us agree that the Static 99 is extremely flawed. My suggestion is that we get behind the Tiered Registry bill and see it passed and then attack the Static 99. One step at a time.

    • AJ

      @Danny Boy
      A convenient outcome for government in removing “low risk” people is that they are dividing and conquering. The smaller the RC pool is, the harder it will be for anyone trapped in it to fight.

      –AJ

    • Greg

      The Static 99 really scares me not just because it’s junk science, but also the slippery slope these junk “risk assessments” will lead to. If you give these types of controversial risk assessments a chance, then politicians and judges will give them even more credibility in the future.

      The thing is I don’t think the 10 “risk” factors of SARATSO can foresee a person’s chance of reoffense. Everyone is unique in their own way and everyone’s triggers and personal “risk” factors can’t be summed up in only 10 very limited questions. It just doesn’t make sense.

      I have to say that I share great concern with regard to us who are concerned with Static 99.

  3. Robert Curtis

    The Problem with the registry is how it has been used as a means under color of law to violate fundamental rights of the once convicted and their families. Example: I saved my son’s life twice once from drowning and once from choking but in April 2012 in Orange County California the Board of Supervisors passed a law kicking me and other registrants out of parks, beaches and harbors without regard to our rights as parents. There was no history of registrants violating in parks and beaches but there is a history of children getting hurt in parks and beaches. My child doesn’t deserve to have his parent available as his first line of protection because he’s my child. They say the registry is not punitive but by its nature how can be anything other than punitive? What is more punitive than placing a registrant’s child in harms way by removing their parent from being with them in public places like parks and beaches? History has looked hard for that perfect group to target, well they found it in the EX-sex offender. Who would dare stand up for a registered sex offender? To do any kind of harm to them is easily sold off as being for public safety and protection of children. In the deep south the slave owners would hang a young male slave on a barn door to be whipped to show the “respectable people” how they (certain politicians) kept their slaves in line. People like Senator Connie Leyva are still doing the same thing by kicking registrants off their child’s school grounds with bills like SB-26. The effects of such legislation is to empower administrator to say well we have no escorts so you can’t go to your child’s school events. If they did go the child would be marginalized and harmed socially. What the Registry does is create a climate that punishes families…oddly families are usually the ones victimized. Now because of the punitive nature of the registry harming families most crimes may go unreported because of the registry. A boy in Alabama hung himself after streaking at a Home Coming Football game because he was threatened to be placed on the sex offender registry. Kids do stupid things like mooning a friend, streaking and sexting…the boy probably thought, ‘well my whole life is over anyway.. I’ll never get a good job or housing so what did the registry do? The nature of it the registry steels hope and killed that boy. The Sex Offender Registry is a Living Death it is evil and it is wrong! Proverbs 16:25 “There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is the ways of DEATH.” The Registry (again) is a Living DEATH it is Evil and it is Wrong! TRUTH

    • New Person

      just a minor correction… California isn’t saying it’s not punitive, they’re reiterating the 2003 decision that states it isn’t punitive.

      according to Anonymous Nobody, there is legislation that identifies registration as punitive, but slowly it ebbed away to non-punitive. Those in California did have the capacity to be off the registry sooner if they qualified for the 1203.4, case dismissal.

      The 2003 decision intimated that employment, housing, or travel would not be affected.

      So far, only Michigan is contesting the 2003 decision compared to what’s occurred since. Not many are fighting back on standard set in the 2003 decision, only that it was deemed non-punitive.

  4. ReadyToFight

    @Robert Curtis…..well said man.

  5. Roger

    Agreed, Robert. Of course, because of 70 years of hysteria and fear behind the California registry, incremental change is the only way to ultimately get rid of it. No court case will magically make it go away. We must prove that getting people off the registry–starting with tier 1 and 2–will not cause a wave of recidivism. That builds trust with the public, which then will incrementally accept more changes.

    It’s a long-term emotional battle, not a logical one.

  6. mike r

    Roger I have to respectively disagree with the premise that no court case can change or eliminate the current unconstitutional registration scheme…just remember cases like the following have indeed changed our country and the courts are our only avenue to true justice since most of our politicians are corrupted and work in their own best interest. Janice could be renounced as one of the greatest civil rights leaders of the 21st century just as Marshall was during his fight for rights..Marshall showed incredible courage and I know that it took a lot of courage to get as far as we’ve got but the one case that can change the scheme can and will be presented sooner or later.

    Brown v. Board of Education
    However, the great achievement of Marshall’s career as a civil-rights lawyer was his victory in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of black parents in Topeka, Kansas on behalf of their children forced to attend all-black segregated schools. Through Brown v. Board, one of the most important cases of the 20th century, Marshall challenged head-on the legal underpinning of racial segregation, the doctrine of “separate but equal” established by the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson.
    On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and therefore racial segregation of public schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While enforcement of the Court’s ruling proved to be uneven and painfully slow, Brown v. Board provided the legal foundation, and much of the inspiration, for the American Civil Rights Movement that unfolded over the next decade. At the same time, the case established Marshall as one of the most successful and prominent lawyers in America.

    one case can “magically ” make the current registration scheme go away when it’s argued correctly..

    • New Person

      Mike,

      if you use the Korematsu case, then one can indulge as to why only 80% recidivism rate was the only rate needed by the SCOTUS despite many other stats available by experts.

      Sure, we know it’s a false stat, but out of sheer curiosity, why wasn’t there other statistical research results utilized to query about the “high and frightening” 80% recidivism rate? It reveals sheer negligence to not use other information, but also why did the SCOTUS not confirm the 80% was derived by an expert with substantiated works?

      That is complete carelessness by the SCOTUS!

  7. mike r

    agreed..and it is a tragedy of justice that scotus has not been challenged on that exact subject..I am still dumbfounded how no one has challenged that assertion. it’s like the big elephant in the room and everyone’s afraid to touch it…that started over 14 years ago and seems to have been pushed out to the fringes like that issue is irrelevant and has no merit….I know our contry is full of idiots but come on man.a frigging five year old can put two and two together and come up with four so why the he…can’t anyone see the big red truck and address the issue..it’s unbelievable…

  8. USA

    Guys, let’s be positive! I’m still on the registry for a expunged misdemeanor that resulted summary probation!!!

    -static 99 is only applicable if your a repeat offender within 10 years!

    It’s not applicable to those crime free for 10 years or more?

    We have low risk/moderate and high risk??

    • uhhh...

      USA, STATIC 99 is used for both first-time, as well as repeat male offenders. The STATIC 99 is complete junk science because if it lumps all types of crimes together, then WHAT EXACTLY is it measuring??

    • Greg

      Static 99 scam applies to first time offenders and repeat offenders. No exceptions. Static 99 applies equal to violent and non-violent crimes. So offenses are lumped together into what is supposedly a “scientific” actuarial.

  9. Eugene

    I just got off the conference call, i got the tell end of it, but i am glade that i heard a little, i am going to try to make it to the conference in LA, is there any hotel or motel nere by, that people who going to the conference could stay.

  10. Mar

    In September of 2011 I took a plea bargin for 3 years in prison and 3 years of parole. I was released in February of 2014. When I got out my parole officer informed me that I had to do 5 years. Then towards the end of the year he told me I have to do 20 years. And last month he told me that it is 10.
    I want to know that if I recieved a plea bargain of 3 years of prison & parole how can they change that?
    What can I do to fight this?
    Any help will be great.
    Thank you

    • Me

      I’m same situation. I was arrested oct 2011 and took three year deal and three year parole. Supposedly their was a new law that went into effect in 2011 that everyone that committed a sex charge is automatic ten years parole. Nothing a lawyer or judge can do unless the law goes away. We’re literally just screwed bro. Be happy tho we got lucky if you want to call it that….now anyone that gets arrested for sex charge gets automatic 20 years parole. And some lifetime. So it gets worse and worse. Ten isn’t as bad as twenty have to look at some sort of positive out of it.
      Oh and by the way…the laws “supposed reasoning” is to “prevent or deter everyone in future to not commit sex crimes because of this harsh PUNISHMENT. Uhm when I did mine I had no idea the consequences or what would happen or never would have happened. So any other person won’t know anyone was given automatic ten twenty lifetime whatever until they actually commit the crime. It’s just ridiculous.

      • Mar

        I understand and know what I did was wrong,but at the same time if it’s an automatic 10 years of parole they should have something when giving a deal.i mean isn’t that getting someone to do something without full acknowledgement.i mean it took some options away because if I knew bout it at the time I more than likely would’ve fought my case. But I wonder if there is something we can do, at least a lawsuit or something

        • AJ

          @Mar & @Me
          Have you looked into whether or not the law (change) took effect, or was even under consideration, when you committed your crime? Perhaps it doesn’t matter with parole versus incarceration, but typically courts have ruled that ex post facto applies if after the commission of the crime, not sentencing. But if the law was even just under consideration in the legislature when you offended, it’s considered okay. (This is how SCOTUS allowed dead people to be taxed under Clinton’s tax increase–it was being considered by Congress while they lived.)

          I’d call a decent criminal attorney and utilize the usual free 30-minute consultation to see what your options are.

          –AJ

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 *

.