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

Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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!!)

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.

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!

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?

“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!

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.

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?

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

“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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.