Janice’s Journal: The Stage is Set

The stage is set. The Governor has signed the tiered registry bill into law, a law that opens a wide gap in the dam of California’s “Lifetime Registry for All”.  A dam that was in place for 70 years.  It is now our job to widen that gap.

The Tiered Registry will take effect in January 2021, about 3 ½ years from now.  While it is truly unfortunate that those who will benefit from the “new” tiered registry will have to wait so long, the lengthy gestation period for the “new” tiered registry could provide us with opportunities to address that registry through both legislation and litigation.

First, legislation could and should be pursued during the next legislative session (2019-2020) which improves the tiered registry by broadening its benefits, especially to those convicted of non-production child pornography (CP) offenses.  For there is no logical reason for, and no empirical evidence to support, the “new” tiered registry’s requirement for people convicted of non-production offenses to register for the rest of their lives.

There are additional problems with the “new” tiered registry that also need to be corrected such as the addition of people to the state’s Megan’s Law website due to a “high” score on the Static-99R at the time of their release.  The Static-99R is a controversial testing instrument that produces flawed results such as scoring all gay men under the age of 25 as high risk.  And even if the results of that testing instrument were considered valid, a score that is 10 years old or older is irrelevant because it does not reflect the results of post-conviction rehabilitation.

In addition, the “new” tiered registry requires a judge, when considering whether to approve a person’s petition for removal of the registry, to consider both pre- and post-conviction factors that are sure to result in prejudice against the petitioner.  For example, the judge must consider pre-conviction factors such as whether the victim was a stranger and post-conviction factors such as noncriminal behavior.  As written, this could mean that a judge must consider a ticket for jay walking and/or the late return of books to the public library.  These factors must be modified or removed.

Second, litigation could and should be pursued to challenge the need for, and value of, a public registry in California.  There are Constitutional issues, recent court decisions and empirical evidence to support such a challenge.

For example, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution could be the basis for a challenge to why those convicted of a non-contact, non-violent offense such as possession of CP should be required to register for a lifetime similar to those convicted of multiple violent contact offenses against multiple children.

Another example is the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits governments from retroactively applying new laws that punish.  There is a growing number of court decisions, including Does v. Snyder in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognize that the requirement to register as well as its collateral consequences are punishment and therefore cannot be applied to individuals convicted decades ago.

Finally, there is empirical evidence to support the fact that public registries do not increase public safety.  In fact, there is even evidence that public registries may decrease public safety.   There is also empirical evidence to support the fact that the rate of re-offense for those convicted of a sex offense is very low especially when they have lived outside of jail or prison for 17 years or more without re-offending.

The stage is set.  There is much to do.  Please join us by Standing Up – Showing Up- Speaking Up at monthly meetings, annual conferences, legislative hearings and more.

— by Janice Bellucci

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

I think the Static 99 test is both accurate and very fair! No test will accurately determine anyone’s risk level, yet some form of evaluation must be done! You gave one example ie: Gardner, but that’s only one person.

If you rate high, you must have an extensive history?


The Static 99 Test seems very straightforward to me! There are clearly no ideal answers, but it’s really to the point! Who is more of a threat?

I.e.: married/kids, 45, family member victim?

I.e.: unmarried/no relationship, 24, stranger, male?

No argument! Now, if the person has been crime free for 10 or more years, it’s a different story!

Can you guys clarify prior sentencing dates? I imagine that means you have been arrested/convicted and have a date to be sentenced? If you have more than 3, you get 1 point? Makes total sense. Now, here is the 1,000,000 question? You guys keep complaining and complaining. What do you suggest? How else can the state determine who is a risk and who isn’t?

Most of us? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Some people where arrested 20 something years ago and have never received a Static 99 test! Good topic. What if you register (Janice) and they request you take one? What if a compliance officer comes to your home requesting this? I would imagine thousands of registered (include your mouse) citizens haven’t taken this test! So, the big question is, do we refuse (I wouldn’t score above 2/3 ) to take it or? Let’s here from someone intelligent (Not MikeR etc)! What do we do? (Guys, start thinking out of the box).

Concerned, wake up! I remorsefully hate to share this, but most people don’t get caught the 1st time they break the law! How many times have you broke traffic laws before getting a ticket? I clearly know how many strangers did you affect with your flawed thinking before getting arrrested? Most people get treatment and feel remorse after getting arrested? You don’t sound remorseful! (Please see my instagram) I suggest you go back to counseling and tell them your rationalizing your actions! No test can truly determine who is and who isn’t a threat! Yet, I feel (check out my instagram 69) it’s both very well thought out and fair? I do feel it shouldn’t be used to consider someone where they are crime free for 10 years etc. I keep (69) hearing people moan and groan, yet NONE of you have a intelligent suggestion🙃. Wake up!

Your the best! Concerned, I’m not worthy! You rated a much higher score than me! You win


Watson, if you guys knew it all, why are you so concerned? Oh, Corcerned is on the registry because he was only concerned about himself? Hmmm
Now, I believe Alex stated you don’t need to be present for the Static 99? Really esq? I guess they know your relationship status? Stranger vs family member? Oh boy. You guys should fire Janice and take over. Your all too smart for all of us! I guess that’s why you got caught? False sense of ? Best wishes Static 99 pros. We are still waiting for an alternative or suggestions?

AlexO, really great to hear! I’m glad your knowledgeable regarding the sentencing report! I guess we now know why you score so high with the Static 99 Test!

I.e.: Norm these days? That’s not something I would admit. I’m Concerned!

My husband is working the night shift tonight. He sent me this link through e-mail. It’s a judge’s order that invalidates the Static-99R because David Thornton, who is Karl Hanson’s partner, didn’t disclose data behind the Static-99R. If it’s not good enough to predict Sexually Violent Predators, why does the state think it’s good enough to classify the non-violent, non-contact, and the contact offenders who did not use force/coercion/true violence?

Anyway, my husband and I are just clueless and we talk about the Static-99R a lot because it has the potential to affect our lives in three years. Here is the judge’s order:


I would like to see people who have had there convictions dismissed per 1203.4 automatically be granted registration relief after the alloted 10,20 year registration requirements. Also in similar state requirements in other states you do not need to petition the court to relieve you of the duty to register, the requirement just falls of according to the convicted crime. California in almost every case overcharges the indictment, as leverage to make you take a deal, the static 99 goes off of the charges not just the conviction. Its common to be charged with half a dozen felony only to end up with a misd. Battery charge.

Is this normal practice to pass legislation without even knowing what that legislation actually is? Seems kind of counter to the entire legislative processes if you ask me. Lets see, here is a blank piece of paper with a title on it about lets just say a jaywalking bill for an example. Lets vote on it and have the gov sign it so that we can workout what we want to do about it in three years from now. Seems kind of non-democratic to me. Where are the public hearings addressing the language, where is the opportunity to oppose the law since you do not even know what the law states, where are the steps to legislation altogether, Legislative Process
Step 1- Introduction: …
Step 2- Committee Consideration: …
Step 3- Committee Action: …
Step 4- Subcommittee Review: …
Step 5- Mark Up: …
Step 6- Committee Action – Reporting a Bill: …
Step 7- Publication of Committee Report: …
Step 8- Scheduling Floor Action:
how can there be committee considerations without knowing the language, where is the subcommittee review of a blank piece of paper, well I do not have time right now to get more into but you get the point. A bill is signed into law and we do not even know what the bill is. Insane…….

That’s a very good question, one that I hope gets resolved before 2021.