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
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.
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.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1198
Notwithstanding all of the Static-99R’s methodological and ethical flaws, the Static gave the man who murdered Chelsea King a “low” (2) score:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-panel-grilled-on-form-used-for-gardner-2010apr01-story.html
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?
http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=1235
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:
https://twitter.com/davidminpdx/status/975758668774785025
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:
https://twitter.com/samswey/status/980977953973637121
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?
Sen. Scott Wilk is a ‘Runner mate’ looking to be reelected.
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.
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?