The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) discussed the Tiered Registry Bill and registrant statistics during its monthly meeting today. The discussion included a detailed account of the history of the Tiered Registry Bill as well as its future.
Dan Felizzatto, the lead lobbyist for the Los Angeles District Attorney (DA), who was the bill’s sponsor, led today’s discussion. The lobbyist stated that the bill is the result of a “team effort” that included a diverse group including law enforcement, victims rights groups, Equality California and the ACLU. He noted that the bill began in January as Senate Bill 695 with Senator Ricardo Lara as its author. When Sen. Lara declined to move the bill forward, Sen. Wiener agreed to author Senate Bill 421, which had many of the same provisions. That version of the bill was stopped, however, on September 1 when the Appropriations Committee failed to release it from its Suspense File.
According to Felizzatto, the Governor persuaded the Appropriations Committee to resurrect the bill in the form of Senate Bill 384. As part of that agreement, Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, chair of the Appropriations Committee, drafted new language which assigned most, but not all, offenses involving a minor on Tier 3.
CASOMB member Janet Neeley clarified that those convicted of PC 288(a) will be assigned to Tier 2. She estimated that up to 50 percent of the registrants in California have been convicted of that offense.
Felizzatto conceded that the bill assigns anyone convicted of a child pornography offense — including possession, distribution and/or production — to Tier 3. He added that he expects there to be an opportunity in 2019 to revise that part of the bill.
The Governor has not yet signed the Tiered Registry Bill, however he has publicly stated his support for the bill. The deadline for the Governor’s approval is October 15.
Also during today’s meeting, CASOMB member Brenda Crowding of the CA Dept. of Corrections stated that there are a total of 5,745 registrants on parole. Of that total, there are 2,936 parolees considered to be high risk. CASOMB member Neeley stated that there are a total of 105,122 registrants in California. Of that total, there are 76,228 in the community (not incarcerated). In addition, she stated that there are 16,359 registrants in violation and 6,557 registrants who are transients.
16000 in violation???Glad to hear cp offenses will have a chance to be lowered. I think all of this will be for not considering the way the pendulum has begun to swing.
Thank you for the summary.
6,557 registrants who are transients!
What CASOMB isn’t saying is that the “high risk sex offender” label is only good for five years offense free in the community using their own Static 99. The Static 99 Coding Rules even say “risk” is cut in half for every five years offense free in the community. The fact the tiered registry uses the Static 99 to classify someone into Tier 3 is completely inappropriate! Even giving a “high risker” the opportunity to get to lower tiers at 20 years is totally inappropriate because doing so gives the Static 99 more credit than it truly deserves.
Five years is all that the Static 99 is good for. And even five years is pushing it, considering the bogus “risk factor” are derived from lumping all types of offenses together. If all type of offenses — both violent and non violent — are lumped together, then what is the Static 99 REALLY measuring? It’s comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks for the update Janice. It’s really encouraging to have you there keeping track of the moving target that is this bill. We love you.
The team “included a diverse group including law enforcement, victims rights groups, Equality California and the ACLU.” Did anyone else notice that one particular group of stakeholders was not invited to participate in this team effort? That’s right, no registered offenders were included. (Next up, we’ll have a discussion of racism and not invite any minorities! WTF?)
It may be the wrong time to bring this up, but what about an amnesty of sorts for the 16,359 registrants in violation?
Turn themselves in, plead guilty to failure to register and suffer the extended period before eligible to apply for removal from the registry. That would be 1 year extension or 3 years if misdemeanor or felony. You know, since it’s so important for public safety to be able to track them.
“Felizzatto conceded that the bill assigns anyone convicted of a child pornography offense — including possession, distribution and/or production — to Tier 3. He added that he expects there to be an opportunity in 2019 to revise that part of the bill.” Including misdemeanors? How does this make any sense? …
Brenda Crowding of the CA Dept. of Corrections said “there are a total of 5,745 registrants on parole. Of that total, there are 2,936 parolees considered to be high risk.”
This doesn’t jive. These numbers look way off. If empirical studies have found that overall 1% or less of all people forced to register will not go on to commit another crime considered sexual then how is she coming up with these numbers? It sounds like she is either making them up or their method of determining risk is flawed, and we know their method has been called junk science by many people. This risk assessment is is witch doctor mumbo jumbo at best for two reasons. First of all these people can’t predict the future, no matter how god-like they think they are. And second, they are incapable of knowing what’s in a man’s heart, which brings me back to number 1, because people change over time; this is a axiom. Why does everyone seem to see these things except these people? This tiered registry is just another hideous twist in the hideous lie that is the need for a registry.
50% on the registry are for 288(a); that’s what this was all about the excessive and zealot use of 288(a) by prosecutors that snared many of otherwise good folk! you get charged with this and you really have but one choice and that is to strike a deal: or chances all you’d have to mount a rigorous offense against someone you care about, including family; suffer devastating humiliation going through a very public process; or face the almost certain consequences of a loss: I never spent a day in jail for this, not even arrested, but had I not plead I’d still be in prision
I’m still trying to figure out how intercourse with a 13 year old gets you on Tier 2, but an internet sting in which there was no attempt to meet the fictitious minor gets you on Tier 3. Once again, no logic, just hyperbole and hysteria.
so… child pornography is tier 3, which is life registration, yet most physical convictions are only tier 2 which is 20 year registration? i’m not understanding how that makes ANY sense whatsoever.
Uh, sexual intercouse is Tier 2? Your lucky. I have a 14 yo old and they are clearly immature and not capable of making rational decisions. Your comments sounds like you think it’s ok. I think I would be more careful with comments. As noted 100 times, there is time for amendments!
I apologize if this is the wrong comment board but I see tiered bill and I figured this would be a good place to ask. Now, when this comes into effect, does it go based off of the date you were convicted, released from jail/prison or release from probation/parole?
The time count is retroactive. For those who were granted probation it’s effectively your conviction date. For those sent to prison, it’s starts with when you were released onto parole. It basically looks at when you were released into the community without 24/7 supervision.
Do I understand that correctly that even MISDEMEANOR possession of child pronography, for which one is eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, is also to be in Tier 3?
Something is better than nothing! I am one who believe in momentum, in every movement that produces substance comes more opportunity which lead to results. The 50% to 20% that Janice stated in her post is a current victory. We have to remember that by the time 2019 arrives, the shock of such an unpopular position will be accepted or forgotten by most. It is my opinion that with a new law comes new opportunity. In the meantime I will encourage all of you to do your own research…..you will be amazed at what I got accomplished with no money and the internet. In 1998, I plead guilty to a now 288. misdemeanor and in 2013 a bogus 290. failure to register. The 288. was reduced because it was a wobbler, but I learned the terminology from the California blue book of penal codes; I simply went into court and spoke their language. Until I used the word “wobbler” the state of Ca. and the Judge were in agreement that I could not have nothing done to my case. When I chose to address the court and started to use court room jargon, they each agreed with my findings; subsequently, the courts sent me a letter stating that my 288. was reduced to a misdemeanor. Now, the bogus failure to register was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor because I went on-line to found that misdemeanor 288’s allowed for first time 290. failures to be charged with a misdemeanor. If I had not researched, I would have been stuck with another felony, which the courts should have known better. That case has since been expunged. Of course I give all the credit to Jesus, but I want to courage all of you to never stop plugging away at your respective cases.
Dohow, congrats. I had my wobbler reduced to a misdemeaner, expunged it later on my own and later (I forget the PC) had a detainment record ordered sealed and destroyed! I recommend people begin taking care of business rather than complaining and stating they won’t be pushed around! Take action!!!!
Quick question: some registrants are assigned to the public list, some are not. Does SB 384 change how this assignment is done? Under SB 384, will some people not on the public list be moved to the public list , and vice versa?
I’d make a request of folks and to say to them who seem to feel they’re getting the raw end of the deal with this legislation: namely this notion that child porn is some how a lessor offense than a 288(a), or that its moral equivalency is less in some way.
I’m not going to argue moral equivalents. For the most part I think it’s fair to assume those convicted of either of these crimes did something inappropriate in some manner.
But two ideas to we need to get hold of are: 1). their (Joe public’s) logic and fears is about the risk of someone re-offending and I have the same fear too and support laws too in a responsible manner. 2). 288(a)’s are not all contact cases nor are they of the gory stuff. They are lewd and lascivious acts (please look up those words in the dictionary) that may or may not involve contact. In other words events occurred that should not have and they are thought to be motivated by sexual gratification.
288(a)’s are not the worst of the worst they are the majority of cases because when you dont have an out right major event, you need some where put the rest. In fact I view the statute as the catch all, as if to say: ” Although it’s not an earth shattering event, we have to do something with this matter, and of course we must meet our quota and appear tough on crime, and all”
Whereas child porn, they argue while not contact, involves a lot of thought and compulsion, some argue a little scary. Now I dont know, but just my feelings are that anyone can have fantasies but that doesn’t mean they’ll act on them. We all have fantasies, and no we do not act on them. So my opinion is that child pornographers are no more a risk than uncle Bob catching a cheap thrill. In fact, the data supports that conclusion.
So I’d request to those not a 288(a), please dont misinterpret who those are that make up a 288(a) in an attempt to minimize what you did at the expense of someone else. There’s no moral equivalency test here. The 311 and 288(a)’s of the world screwed up, must take responsibility for their actions, and deal with why society fears one class over another–I’ll stress again, please understand what makes up a class before dragging others through the moral equivalency routine. I’ll respect you and wont judge you only if you do the same. I am the 50%. I did not have intercourse or anything akin to that–so please stop saying that please!!!
So if you have been convicted for failure to register you won’t be eligible to end registration in 2021 ?
Does anyone know what my son will be. He was convicted of 261.5c and 261.5d statutory rape. He scored a 2 on the static.
Thank you
I made a pdf of the bill with popups of the penal code. The intent was to help those trying to figure it out.
Today’s Law As Amended.pdf https://mega.nz/#!8y5HjDKb!6qPh0Fwk_WZRrmxeZ9Bgbu6YQO3UyLOTs1zLMBZKMLo
Just curious. I’ve read that several people have convictions for failure to register. Are you guys getting hit on these for valid reasons or? The last time I registered, I was caught off guard. They printed out several old vehicles I owned and wanted me to initial what I owned still? I think I forgot to register one car, but I can’t remember license plates? What if I opened a used car lot and had access to 50 vehicles? What if I owned 8 homes? Truck driver?
I have coined a new title for the tiered registry bill. It is ” The Frankenstien Bill”. They have gone deep into the bowels of legislation, pieced together the worst pieces of any law they could find, and made a monster out of parts that otherwise would be nothing and harmless. They will let this monster loose to “terrorize” innocent townsfolk who will then do their best to either run this monster out of town, or kill it outright. The monster didn’t ask for this life, and only wants love, but its hidiousness ( the registry ) has condemned it to a life of misery and hiding in the shadows. We are the 21st century’s Frankenstien.
So let me interpret these statistics of registered sex offenders: Of the 105,122 on the registry 102,186 are not regarded as any form of high risk to the public; 88,763 are living a crime free, incident free life (many for decades), and 6,557 have been failed miserably by the justice system as they are unable to regain a foot hold in society, are unable to find employment or housing do to the detrimental effects of the registry.