ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


California seeks to solutions to homeless sex offender rate

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California has as many homeless sex offenders now as it did 2½ years ago, when a state Supreme Court ruling that overturned restrictions on where they could live was seen as a way to increase housing options and allow law enforcement to better track them. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. David

    Credit goes to Janice Bellucci, Esq. who is mentioned in the article!!

    (I love the way the article’s author writes the following as though it was law enforcement & legislators’ choice to loosen restrictions: “….when a state Supreme Court ruling that overturned restrictions on where they could live was seen as a way to increase housing options and allow law enforcement to better track them.”
    No, Ms. Bellucci had to fight like Hell to get the laws changed! It was not a pleasant, benign effort by well-meaning lawmakers looking out for the well-being of homeless ex-offenders!!)

    • New Person

      Agreed. +1

    • Eddie

      The problem is the Housing Authority will not let lifetime registrators be housed in there Housing projects and other landlords will not let sex offenders live in their houses for insurance purposes, and communities Newman that a new sex offender came into an area they might cause damage to their properties trying to scare the sex offenders away it is very important that the tiered legislation passes so some of them who are on the sex offender registration can come on for the lifetime registration and therefore get housing once that happens the amount of homeless sex offenders will decrease

  2. AJ

    Good to see another helpful piece in the WaPo, which is certainly read by Members of Congress and SCOTUS Justices.
    I do find it kind of comical that the State can’t figure out why things haven’t improved. Let’s see, you completely abandon someone, barring them from public assistance and, in some cases, force them into homelessness. How without a home, without a job, and probably with little to no money, how do you expect this problem to improve? They need *help*, not just an end to the harm. Job training, shelters and/or public assistance for housing. These will turn the tide. And yes, getting the cities to drop their ordinances would certainly help because, even though unconstitutional, they require time and money to fight in a court…yet another burden upon the homeless.

    Were homelessness in general an easy solution, it would have been gone long ago. Toss in the extra State-imposed burdens upon homeless RCs, and the problem only magnifies.

    • Neil B Fisher

      People allow me to advise you if the majoity of you don’t already know this , The last thing I heard regarding the homeless sex criminal is the main reason that a registeriant has to come in every thirty days instead of once a year is that according to thoes in authority the sex offender has nonthing to do except sit or lie around thinking and deaming about sex all day so it keeps the offender off balance and helps to keep their thoughts off of thinking of sex towards thinking that in a short time I have to get a way downtown and be at local law enforcement for hours then get my way back home. What a waist of our time their time and the tax payers money.
      I have two very important statements to make to you all.
      The Board is buffering with it’s time and it’s law suggestions for YOU! because it knows that thoes n authority are afraid to Move to fast because of the people of the state might say that they again are not working in the best interest of the people by being to easy on thoes Dangerous and Violent sex criminal . Yeah I know! but so does the board it has th

  3. Rolls eyes at Rushford

    Rushford is a dork. His comment is brainless and reminiscent of nothing but hot air.

    Homelessness is not just applicable to RCs obviously. Even when you do away with the restrictions and give assistance where you can, it does not mean there is success in the end with the homeless person, which impacts many who are not RCs. Help the homeless RC of course, but help all of the homeless as best you can. Stay the course Janice, et al, and all restrictions should go away in due time…

    As one of the commenters said here, what is the diff between a 2000 ft restriction and a 500 ft restriction when they are both still illegal? Nothing!

    • Harry

      “Rushford is a dork. His comment is brainless and reminiscent of nothing but hot air.” There need to be cuffs put on Sex Offender Registration Abusers (SORA) like Rushford and Runner.

  4. Joe

    I get the impression that the powers that be are not enforcing the “anti-discrimination” laws that you have in California regarding housing, insurance, access to business services, etc. Is that correct? If so could that be part of the problem?

  5. Registry Rage

    “Those who are homeless are less apt to keep their locations updated and more likely to commit new crimes.”

    ^That statement is NOT supported by statistical evidence, must less factual data. It’s just pushed as “we have to keep tabs on these people more” over zealous anticipatory public safety propaganda!

    They are too ignorant to release the registry (in any iteration) IS the problem!

  6. Timmr

    Great comments all. Not many judges and congressmen and women read this ACSOL site, but they do read the Post. They won’t see our comments unless we put them there.

    • AJ

      Agreed, and well said. It does, of course, require an assumption that said judges and Members of Congress read the online version and associated comments. That said, it cannot hurt to put comments there, because they certainly have a higher chance of being read than if not ever posted! 😉

  7. Neil B Fisher

    I truly believe and suspect that once the majority starts to see how good the Tier system works and the Sex Offender Industry is truly shown for what it was (give us that money honey no matter who got hurt) then watch the big money law suits start showing up in courts then watch how fast the state makes having been a low threat offender being placed in the same basket as a high threat offender a long term state disability and all the needed benefits. That are truly needed. We have done our time and then some for some imature mental bad judgements that occurred another lifetime ago. Who is liable now?

  8. PR

    $25,000 would be better spent on programs to assist in finding employment and suitable housing to Registrants. Instead of funding some useless study.

  9. Q

    “It’s just a complicated issue, and it’s difficult to ferret out the causes.”

    What a foolish statement. Of course it’s coming from someone who makes money off of the lie. It’s not a complicated issue, nor would it be hard to solve. It’s pretty obvious to me the problem centers around the registry being public and all the rhetoric promoting mis-information/lies. Removing housing and presence restrictions was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to undo all the damage that has been heaped upon society and a created class of people because of this registry being made public. If these people can’t see that it’s an abject failure at doing what it said it would do and can’t draw the correlation between their policy and homelessness, etc, then they are indeed stupid. This current policy of a public registry is pretty much like saying “OK; we’ve cut off your arms and legs, now you are free to leave and go get a job and stable housing.”
    The registry needs to be non public like it used to be. Only then will we see things start to turn around.

    This article is yet another piece playing on peoples ignorance and stupidity.

  10. Guest

    More commentary on this (and SB 421).

    The level of “journalism” (on both topics) is pathetic. The quality of comments (on both topics) is truly frightening.

  11. someone who cares

    Guest ~ The comments are typical for the uneducated people using Facebook and other Social Media. Other than staring on their I-Phones while crossing a busy intersection like zombies, they really don’t have much else going for them. Paying attention to their comments gives them way too much credit. A lot of these people don’t know that they themselves could easily by sex offenders, especially the way teenagers act, dress and interact with each other in this day and age.

    • The Unforgiven

      @guest and @someone who cares, couldn’t agree more on both comments. I just scanned the FB comments just to see. I never understood the stupidity of the ones who say ‘lock them up for life’ and such. Who’s paying for this thing you want so desperately? Taxes have to go up somehow, someway. So I would expect these people to be first in line to graciously open their wallets and hand out more of their hard earned money. Something tells me every single one of them would vote no to raising taxes. And, especially with CA law, pretty much everyone is a sex offender. So when the comments mention how they shouldn’t have done that’, then fine, lets lock up everyone who did or is currently attending high school. Massive amounts of offenders right there. Look at all the good that be done and how many ‘just one child'(s) that could be saved.

      • Timmr

        I noticed there have not been so many rude comments at the end of these articles. Is that a success? Maybe. But I assumed they have all moved into the safety of their echo chambers on facebook, where their stupid comments will find praise, not denunciation in the company of like mindlessness. “Taxes, what taxes? I just wanted to say something that will get me likes.”

  12. AlexO

    “The board is planning a $25,000 study through San Jose State University to try to figure out why the number remains high.”

    I’ll tell you what. If you promise to send me $5000, I’ll tell you right now.


    What study do you need? This stuff comes up in your background and pretty much any place that’s in any way decent will deny you. Add that you’re already homeless, and you have an even bigger obstacle.

    • Makes you wonder huh?

      My two cents – this is a pork barrel study in someone’s district where the university is and some graduate/doctoral student(s) need a project. Granted, it could be an educational grant, but the topic is really kind of obvious for the answer they are looking for. Maybe this will only validate what is already known.

      • AlexO

        Yup, that seems about right. Hopefully something positive will actually come of this. If they need an official study to state the obvious in order to drive another nail in the registry’s coffin, spend away!

        • Timmr

          You know, I was thinking that after I made my above post. They formed a whole functioning board, the CSOMB to study how best to control all us monsters. Turns out they discovered the monster scare was mostly myth and the laws based on those myths counter productive to reducing victimization. Report on! Oh State, give Janice more fuel for lawsuits.

    • JAB

      Exactly Alex. But in California you can only go back seven years for that felony and Megan’s law clearly states you cannot use this for employment or housing purposes. So how are they still getting away with allowing background companies to use that website and kick you out of your apartment. Because for one they cannot prove you have a felony, as you’re protected with the seven-year limit. The only way they know that you are a RSO is due to the website. I just scratch my head because I don’t see how they get away with this. And save their $25,000 because when you have people illegally using websites to get you fired and kicked out of your apartment, that’s why they’re homeless.

  13. American Detained in America

    As one of those who has remained homeless, it’s because I’m not going to put my family on the Megan’s Law website by moving in with them, nor am I going to hinder them further by making it difficult to find someone who would rent to me in a good neighborhood. Until the registry is abolished or made private, or we get a tiered registry that gives me the ability to stop registering, this is how it’s going to be for us.

  14. Arax

    Well Timmr,

    I just left a comment on Washington Post’s article. I agree. Everyone who can, should leave comments at the end of the article.

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 *