A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and other criminal justice leaders have won state Senate approval to remove names of low-level, nonviolent offenders after 10 or 20 years. This would also include people who are considered not to reoffend. Under current California law, people convicted of certain sex offenses must register for life. Proponents of the bill argue that low level offenders are unfairly categorized with a blanket public perception of sex offenders, affecting offenders’ ability to obtain work, a home and even maintain safety. Radio Program or here

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

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

48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Heard Janice on the radio today. So glad to hear what she had to say. The ‘opposition’ seemed to even be on OUR side in this. Keep up the public exposure of what is needed and how we can all finally get our freedom.
Sending my letters on 421 to morrow

Excellent job by Janice presenting the case for lower tier registrants, vigilantism, and the fact that most sex offenses are committed by people not on the registry. Ms. Moulton, with all due respect, dealt with a horrendous tragedy in which her child was murdered; however, she seems to equate all registrants with murderers… obviously an agregious error (and the basis for the Adam Walsh laws). This misinformation needs to be challenged albeit with care so as not to attack the parents of murdered children. The only point I would have liked to hear from Janice, and I’m sure she would have had they given her enough time, is the damage the registry causes by destroying the opportunity for reformed registrants to lead productive, non-offending lives. After all, take away jobs,housing, and support, and you potentially leave at least a few homeless on the streets who may no longer care what they do or who they harm. In short, the irony of the registry is that it has the propensity to create and enhance the exact same danger it alleges to protect society from. Perhaps the next show can give Janice a few more minutes.

Great job as always, Janice!

Also, I have to say that I applaud the journalistic style of KPCC. No yelling. No sensationalizing. No b.s. Sounds like a great radio station.

Thank You Janice!

Did anyone happen to catch Scott Weiner on KABC this afternoon talking to John Phillips and Jillian Barberie?
I just caught the tail end when they were summarizing their discussion and making the point that rapists and aggravated children molesters would not be coming off the list.
I’ve heard Barberie frequently rail against RCs, perpetuating the typical myths and ignoring facts.
Would love to heard the whole interview.

Just listened to KFI John and Ken from yesterday (6/20) and Erin Runnion talk about AB421 and making her false point that the tiered registration will unleash all sex offenders on the public. No mention of the facts about how much it will take to get off the registry. I know there was another call this morning on KFI from Erin and I did not hear it but the same I am sure as last night.
Need to get Janice on KFI and bring the true story to the public; probably will not invite her but need to try and get on that station

It seems odd to me that this Moulton person is the only real vocal opponent to the tiered registry. Even those couple of people they paraded out to oppose the bill in the safety committee were weak at best, and the usually spirited Mark Klaas kind of just threw in the towel. Can they not find anyone to passionately articulate an opposing argument? I thought there would be enormous opposition to the removal of 90 percent of “sex fiends” from public disclosure. They sure are controlling the narrative quite well.

Regarding the interview, when Ms Moulton admitted that perhaps teen sexters should not be subject to the harshness of the registry, her solution was that, that is something that should be fixed that through legislation. Considering her advocacy for children, has SHE done anything to get that changed? Lobbied the law makers perhaps? My best guess would be NO. I also think her sex offender baby sitter story that was articulated with a strange tone in the inflection in her voice was dubious at best. Her worries about the potential dwindling public registry shows where her true concern lies. It doesn`t matter whether someone is dangerous or not, because just like the rest of the pathologically curious public, they have been programmed to feel entitled to know everything about everyone. If there was a way to find out every trifling detail about all our neighbors and work colleagues with the click of a button- most people would use it. The fear about ones safety is just an delusory excuse- it is really a fear of the unknown which makes people feel at dis-ease with themselves. But alas, there are poor souls entering the system everyday as new registrants. There will be plenty to be had of new facades , tattoo locations , and aliases to make the public feel better about themselves in short order.

This is a wonderful article! I can’t even imagine where California would be if Janice and her organization didn’t exist! We would be banned from living in certain areas, banned from beaches/parks/libraries and who knows what else? I can’t even imagine how many lawsuits have been filed. Now, we have an opportunity to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel!

“This would also include people who are considered not to reoffend….”

Does this also include a Level III offender who has not commented a crime for 10, 15 or 20 years??

Mike

I believe you can petition the court to have your Level 3 reduced to a Level 2 if your crime free for a certain number of years. Good luck! Stay positive

I moved to Cali from Washington 2 years ago.. I was no longer required to register there (20 years passed).. and now I see i’m in trouble..

I haven’t registered here, in fact, I didn’t even consider the laws would be different

are there any provisions in the new law about relocating to CA? can’t find any.
I really feel I need an attorney, but can’t afford one

Another problem with different rules and regulations that nobody is able to comprehend is this. Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours? It is just too ridiculous to even enforce any of the rules, and hopefully, all this will crumble soon. It’s time!

So, my husband and I live in CA and are wondering how exactly are they tiering registered citizens? My husbands offense is 288 (a) Lewd and Lescivious acts with a child under 14. He was convicted in 1999 and released in 2006. He completed parole in 2009. I am asking because I noticed he doesn’t have a risk assessment score on Megan’s Law and some registered citizens do. Is that what they would use to determine this?

I don’t think you are correct about being convicted and then getting off the registry in CA (or another state) and then visiting or moving to a state where the residents do have to register. In Florida, for example, it seems to me that if you are “convicted” in any state of an offense which would require registration in Florida, you have to register if you visit/move to Florida, even if you are no longer required to register in your former home state. It’s based on your conviction in the other state, not requirement to register there.

From the Florida law regarding who must register — “Conviction means a determination of guilt which is the result of a trial or the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. A conviction for a similar offense includes, but is not limited to, a conviction by a federal or military tribunal, including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States, and includes a conviction or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction in any state of the United States or other jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control release, or incarceration in a state prison, federal prison, private correctional facility, or local detention facility.”

I don’t think you can hope to get off the registry in CA (or my state IL if the Task Force recommendations are implemented), and then travel around the US (or move to another state) regardless of their local registration laws.