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: Pair of bills aimed at release of sex offenders pass Public Safety Committee

A locally authored bill about where the state places sex offenders once they’re released from prison passed the Senate Committee on Public Safety on Monday.

Senate Bill 1198, introduced by Sen. Scott Wilk, and Senate Bill 1199, which Wilk authored, address significant concerns about how the criminal justice system deals with individuals convicted of sex crimes. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    I wish these articles would stop saying CA tired registry has anything to do with evaluations on how likely people reoffend when placed. Unless something has changed, no one is evaluating any of us in this manner. The tired registry strictly places everyone based on their offense codes. The only exception being the stupid Static-99 forcing some people into tier three even though Megans Law itself has a chart showing how risk (and score) drops overtime.

    • steve

      That’s not exactly accurate…you are either an SVP, serious offender or low risk.

      • "High" Risk

        The actual term is “high” risk.

        Under the tiered registry, it is entirely possible for even a person *not* convicted of a serious [PC 1192.7] sex offense (yes, even a first-time offender) to be classified as Tier 3 *if* he scores “high” on the Static-99R. Indeed, the offense need not be a specified 290 offense at all. Because under the tiered law, it seems that even if a person was ordered to register per 290.006, that person can also be classified as Tier 3, so long as he scores “high” on the Static-99R.

        But in the tiered law itself, the legislature veiled the Static under the “SARATSO” tool term. So it seems that the CASOMB bureaucrats can change whatever “tool” it wants to use in the future.

  2. Government Bureaucracy or Conflict-of-Interest?

    It seems that with regard to the Static-99/R, the legislature learned *nothing* as to the Static’s flaws.

    SB-1198 begins with: “In 2010, the Legislature honored the memory of Chelsea King by enacting Chelsea’s Law, which established an evidence-based system, known as the containment model, for monitoring, containing, and supervising sexual offenders.”

    Notwithstanding all of the Static-99R’s methodological and ethical flaws, the Static gave the man who murdered Chelsea King a “low” (2) score:

    Even under the newer Static-99R, the man who killed Chelsea King would still be given a 2 score if it were to be given to him in 2007. This is not “honoring” Chelsea King. This is an insult to Chelsea King. Propping the Static-99R does nothing but further political and bureaucratic careers.

    As for adding two more CASOMB positions, 5 of its 17 positions — including the slot representing criminal defense attorneys — are currently “vacant.” That is a ~29 percent rate of vacancy. Yet the government wants to grow a bureaucratic organization enveloped in conflict-of-interest?

    As mentioned in past, the head of CASOMB, DA Nancy O’Malley, was discovered to have taken a $10,000 “donation” from a police union before she cleared the union’s officers of having shot and murdered a teenager. It was trending on Twitter a few weeks ago:

    Indeed, a Stanford University data analyst found that DA/CASOMB leader Nancy O’Malley’s Oakland/Alameda office had received among the most “donations” from police unions compared to other DA offices around the country. This blatant conflict-of-interest (which is, more or less, a bribe) could be indicative of further corruption within CASOMB:

    Then, of course, there is the fact that CASOMB’s other leader, Tom Tobin, runs Sharper Future. Sharper Future just happens to be the largest sex offender “treatment” scheme in California. Sharper Future has a near monopoly of CDCR contracts. In another affront to conflict-of-interest, Sharper Future is even given CASOMB certification. So a government institution, managed by a man who owns the largest sex offender treatment scheme in California, is permitted to issue its government certification to a multi-milliondollar business owned by its leader.

    Could it be that the larger CASOMB becomes, the more corruption — based on conflict-of-interest decision-making — that we will experience?

    • Rick

      Static 99 scams aren’t about protecting the public. The Static 99 scams are designed to overestimate ‘risk’ so that the maximum amount of people are put into Tobin’s Sharper Future treatment program. Casomb is rigged so that the board members—Tobin, O’Malley, etc.—profit from the conflict of interest you speak of.

      Birds of the same feather flock together. If O’Malley is engaged in that type of pay to play corruption, what does she do behind closed doors??

      Also, IF the Static was really accurate as Casomb’s claim, then why is Karl Hanson so defensive with keeping the Static data a ‘trade secret?’ And why does Hanson continuously change the coding rules and risk assumptions?

      As Hanson continuously moves goal posts (i.e. coding rules, risk estimates, etc.), verifying researchers are always a step behind Hanson.

      • True

        “As Hanson continuously moves goal posts (i.e. coding rules, risk estimates, etc.), verifying researchers are always a step behind Hanson.”


        Good point. I think that Karl Hanson knows exactly what to do to keep himself relevant. As you say, all Hanson has to do is come out with new Coding Rules, actuarial predictions, and maybe even add a forth and fifth category to “risk” (“IVa” and “IVb”)… like he recently did. Then those who oppose Hanson’s schemes are in a consistent game of trying to catch Hanson ‘hiding the ball.’

        Of course, no one in the judiciary, legislature, and certainly executive calls Hanson out on his genius self-marketing (especially in California, where CASOMB — embattled in its own unchecked conflict-of-interests — is sometimes considered the “go-to” source for sex offender “science”).

        Many in academia have brought attention to Hanson’s questionable Static-99R schemes; but the contrarians seem overshadowed by the more powerful forces advocating for the Static’s use (despite the many obvious flaws).

        Case in point: Almost every academic and government organization that claim the Static’s effectiveness cite only conflict-of-interest studies authored by Karl Hanson and/or his other Static-99R developers. The Static-99R developers, as made clear in the Coding Rules, are Amy Phenix, Yolanda Fernandez, Andrew J. R. Harris, Maaike Helmus, R. Karl Hanson, & David Thornton.

        Even on SARATSO’s website, to sell its Static-99R propaganda to the public, SARATSO cites exclusively studies that are in conflict-of-interest. To those informed of this clear conflict-of-interest, it could be laughable. Check it out for yourself:

        Of course, this is nothing more than evidence of Karl Hanson’s genius self-marketing — as no one seems to challenge even the most obvious.

        Independent studies to verify the Static-99R’s claims are made impossible, since Hanson and his team keep their data (as you correctly state) a “trade secret.” In at least one case, Hanson’s non-transparency resulted in a judge dismissing the Static-99R entirely because Hanson and Thornton did not want to give up the data in a Daubert challenge.

        Yet despite all of its flaws, the Static-99R will be used to label thousands.

  3. Harry

    Sen. Scott Wilk is a ‘Runner mate’ looking to be reelected.

  4. Nicholas Maietta

    Just wait a freaking minute! Prior to my release from prison, CDCR refused to let me choose another county to live in. I asked to be transferred to a county where I would have guaranteed employment and housing and had friends. Instead, I was forced to go back to my home town were I endured homelessness and virtually no income shortly after my release.

    I was not aware of any paroles who were ever able to get transferred to another county to better their lives.

    Why make a law that does what CDCR already does? This makes no sense.

    • PR

      I agree my son was paroled to the county he resided in prior to his incarceration. The CDCR already mandates this? This legislation makes no sense.

  5. Laura

    Are these bills now wanting the SO to be released back to the City they were last living in and not the County? Or am I misunderstanding something?

    • James

      I do not think you are misunderstanding anything. It is hard to comprehend the costs and benefits of this bill.

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 *