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)


CA: Bill Seeks To Drop Some Offenders From Megan’s Law Website

[CBS Sacramento]

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A California senator who believes the state’s sex offender registry is broken says sex offenders may no longer have to register for life.

The bill, SB 384 would take lower-level sex offenders off the registry. Right now, four states including California, make all sex offenders register for life. And today, the registry tops 100,000 people in California. Some law enforcement officials say it’s working against them.

“They’re on the list and can’t get off,” said Gretchen Kocinsky, whose friend was arrested at a young age for a non-serious sex crime. “They are now married with children and can’t go volunteer at their kids’ school,” she said added.

Read more and watch the video


Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    Wow, what a poor article in terms of the information it presents and tries to sell.

    “McCartt says law enforcement used to rely on the registry as a tool to solve sex crimes. He says only keeping dangerous sex offenders on the registry would be doing law enforcement a favor. ‘If something happens to a kid, you go straight to that list, you can figure out who the suspect is,’ he said.”

    No, the registry doesn’t really help solve sex crimes as over 90% of offenses are first-time caught. Presenting it as if it does is very disingenuous, especially for a DA who absolutely knows the stats. And the current bill doesn’t exactly reduce the number or registrants. In fact, it reduces it by exactly zero as really no more people can get off than could before through the CoR. And the fact that it doesn’t automatically drop people and still requires a petition to the court (making it more or less another form of CoR), you’re not going to get anyone off anytime soon all while spending a ton of cash shuffling a deck of cards without dealing.

    “Rapists, repeat offenders and criminals who use force on children would still be required to register for life. The bill would go before the Assembly later this week.”

    O’rly? Is that why all of 311 was moved to tier 3 along with several other codes?

    It’s awesome journalism like this that spreads misinformation and causes the people to rally more and more against the media.

    • JoeHillsGhost

      I’m guessing that a more reliable way to solve a crime would be to gather evidence at the scene, perhaps talk to the victim or others, and build a case from there. But what do I know.

      • jc

        So if they can use my info from the registry against me… can I plead the 5th when it comes time to go do my yearly updates?

  2. Not Really

    ‘If something happens to a kid, you go straight to that list, you can figure out who the suspect is,’ he said.”

    The California Sex Offender Management Board knows better and will continue to argue the facts and science. If it is dissolved, then is the time to really worry about progress.

  3. Registry Rage

    If something happens to a kid, you go straight to that list, you can figure out who the suspect is,’ he said.

    Hahaha! Hahaha! Oh, wait. He’s serious.

    This is exactly what makes the LEO’s collective nationwide ignorance so dangerous – they actually believe the BS that they’re trained with – which I suspect is the nonsensical, fear mongering soundbites the NCMEC constantly spews: “all it takes is a second.. it could happen to your child, too.”

    • Joe

      I understood his comment to mean that, if the big list was whittled down to those who are deemed truly high risk, down to a few, instead of the many, it would be more useful to use as a suspect pool, as opposed to the current list of over 100k.

      Kind of makes sense, but not really. If something happens to a kid, 95+ out of 100 cases, all they would do is waste their time with the “little” list as opposed to the “big” list, and in the end arrest someone not on the list at all, but someone belonging to family and friends.

      Given that the first few minutes / hours are supposedly crucial in child abduction cases, I remain surprised that the pubic is accepting of that. Maybe it is not about protecting children, after all….

      • Tim Moore

        That makes sense. 90% of new crimes are committed by non registrants. I am not aware of evidence that smaller registries make for that much more of a deterent. There is one document from South Carolina that suggest this, but I don’t know of any other. Also, there is nothing in the law that says they have to monitor all registrants or they can’t select out the repeat offenders for special consideration. The problem is in the clerical end having to process 80,000 CA registrants not in prison, which apparently accounts for a big chunk of the budget. They probably would rather use that chunk of change for officer overtime doing compliance checks, and compliance sweeps, which give you greater public relations value than continually updating the listing of people on a site few look at anyway.

  4. Not Really

    Not to mention how many actually use it. Compare the statistics from the mid 90’s when people were charged to call a 900 number. It wasn’t that important. Who called or requested information is also fascinating.

    California Sex Offender Information

    This is very interesting.

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 *