ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


CA: California moving to “evidenced based” policies for Sex Offenders

[UPDATED LINKS 6/23/18] [ – 6/21/18]

California, which has the largest sex offender registry in the US, has been taking steps in the right direction over the past couple of years.

The State recently migrated towards a “tiered” system that would allow some registrants (those deemed “lower” risk to re-offend) to be removed from the registry eventually. While the plan wasn’t perfect, because it tiered people based on offenses rather than actual risk, California is now seeking to enact a new bill to help them introduce empirical evidence into their practices.

Senate Bill 1198 will establish a mandate for sponsoring research that will become the foundation for evidence-based laws.

Read more

Related links:

Wilk bills move clear Assembly Committee on Public Safety [ – 6/23/18]


Join the discussion

  1. Richard

    I’m all for research for risk. But if the state is simply going to double-down on Karl Hanson and his STATIC-99R Minority Report “science,” then I feel this is in the wrong direction.

    The STATIC-99R seems politically motivated to rationalize—in the name of “science”—the perpetuation of the registry. Indeed, if you give more credibility to the STATIC-99R—and implement more resources into scrutinizing “high” risk sex offenders—then you may actually exacerbate an already fragile group by imposing greater restrictions, Megan’s Law publication details… all factors that inhibit successful community reintegration, employment, relationships, housing, etc.

    By creating a Tier 3, using actuarial “science” to rationalize a new group to disparage/villainize, then the government is “feeding the beast” to perpetuate and legitimize its legal and law enforcement resources.

    Unfortunately, I feel that many politicians and state “doctors” know what their doing. But most people are unable to see past the disingenuous veneer. It’s especially frightening to see very few questioning Karl Hanson’s lack of transparency, conflict of interest in Hanson citing himself to boast of the STATIC, as well as other researchers who cite material that rely exclusively on Hanson (without taking the time to review underlying data).

    • Real Treatment Has No Shame

      Literally, everything that endorses the Static 99R is in conflict-of-interest. We see even Ivy League scholars talking about how credible and great Karl Hanson is without mention that Karl Hanson cites Karl Hanson when scholars cite Karl Hanson. But, in reality, it’s nearly impossible to see if Karl Hanson is indeed credible when Karl Hanson protects his “trade secret” and makes it incredibly hard to review his “statistics.” Unfortunately, though, this seems to be enough for politicians — as well as people within our community — to draw the inference that the Static’s too-good-to-be-true claims are “evidence-based” and “empirical.”

      There is a reason why the Static 99R was covered up by “SARATSO Tool” in the tiered registry legislation. Unfortunately, in the many years to come, we will see exactly why. I fear that it will take several decades before most finally realize how terribly flawed the Static 99R was, as well as how much of a fraud Karl Hanson is. Maybe we’ll see a Rolling Stone magazine exposé on Mr. Hanson one day?

    • Agamemnon

      Also remember that the STATIC-99 penalizes anyone who is homosexual.

      • CR

        I think I know what you mean, but I don’t think the way you are saying it is right.

        The Static 99R penalizes those who commit sexual offenses against males. That would include females who have male victims (presumably heterosexual), but not females who have female victims (presumably homosexual). I say “presumably” because while the respective gender of offender and victim may imply the sexual orientation of the offender, it doesn’t prove it. Even if it did, it is clearly not homosexuality that is penalized in the Static 99R, but rather having a male victim.

        Also penalized is having a non-contact offense, stranger victim, or unrelated victim, among other things.

        The whole thing is bullshit anyway. Here is the coding form:

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Static-99R, et al are for the exclusive use of evaluating male “perpetrators” in which case female “offenders” would not be scored using it at all thus making the “male victim” question on the test entirely a demerit imposed upon homosexual relationships.

        • @David Kennerly

          David Kennerly,

          You are correct that the Static-99R is not for use on females. See, i.e., page 13 [“not recommended for females”].

          Static-99R Coding Rules:

          Here are two other very important points:

          1. The Static-99R specifically states that the Static score is only valid for two years after a person’s release from incarceration. See, i.e., page 13 [“Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”].

          2. A person’s Static-99R score is halved for every five-years offense-free in the community. Thus, even assuming the Static-99R is very accurate (*doubtful*), even people that score ridiculously high on the Static-99R are not “high-risk” after five-years offense-free. See, i.e., page 13 [“Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014).”].

          But even for men, there are a plethora of so-called “risk assessment” instruments — including, but not limited to, the LS/CMI — that are indeed dynamic. Why is CASOMB and SARATSO only considering a “static” (and not dynamic) instrument?

          Even more perplexing: I question why CASOMB, SARATSO, California Department of Justice, as well as CDCR, strongly insist on using only the Static-99R to “evaluate” individuals. Equally perplexing is why they are giving so much weight to Karl Hanson, his fallback people — including, but not limited to, Hanson’s PhD student, Seung C. Lee — as well as certain self-interested “doctors.”

        • CR

          @David K. Thanks. I did not know that Static 99R was only used on men. So yes, I see your point, but I have also seen government studies, recently posted on this site, that show that men who have male victims have a higher recidivism rate than those who do not. Something to consider, because if true, then there might be an objective reason for the demerit, as you say.

        • @CR

          @CR, I’d be very skeptical of government studies. Remember Smith v. Doe?

          Smith v. Doe cited a government “study” for its recidivism statistic. Look at the mess that we’re in now.

          After we’ve been through all this sh*t, are we seriously going to trust a government study again??

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          CR, I think that pervasive bigotry against same-sex relationships almost certainly infiltrates any ostensible findings of “reoffense.” I would also have to get down into the dirt of what is meant by “reoffense” to fully plumb the depths of any assertion that purports to find a statistically meaningful distribution. In other words, and too briefly, I am more than a little suspicious of how same-sex interactions are scrutinized relative to others, especially when they are age-disparate. To put it another, more harshly frank way, there’s not much that I trust in an edifice built by neo-puritans to regulate human behavior that was just a few years ago imprisoning men for having homosexual sex. We need to stop congratulating these social engineering prudes for their self-proclaimed moral probity and cast a more suspicious eye on their motives and intelligence.

      • CR

        I forgot to say in my previous post what I think you actually meant.

        What I believe you meant was that due to sexual orientation, gay men are more likely than straight men to have male victims, and are thus penalized disproportionately compared to straight men who offend against victims that correspond to their sexual orientation.

        If that is what you meant, I agree with you. Just not that it’s about homosexuality per se, given that female offender of female victim (presumably gay) is not subject to the disparate rating, and female offender of male victim (presumably straight) is.

        It could be about “male homosexuality” to some extent, given that the registry in CA seems to have been created in part to penalize male gays. That supposes there is a link between Hansen’s thinking (and secret data and methods) and past or present anti-gay sentiment.

        • Agamemnon

          I agree with all that you said, and I should have clarified myself better (I check here on work breaks so I’m usually pressed for time).

          The bottom line is that the sexual orientation of a crime should not be a factor when determining punitive measures.

        • HOOKSCAR

          The registry is not punitive in the eyes of the government. This is the heart of the issue. This is the only reason the registry, static 99, and all things attributed to it exist. This is what needs to be addressed.

        • Agreed

          @HOOKSCAR, agreed. The Static-99R, “treatment,” tiered registry, etc. keep us focused from the real problem: Registration isn’t punishment.

          Until registration is declared punishment, anything done is an illusionary placebo bandaid fix.

        • Scam 99R

          Until they fix that registration is punishment, it’s important to continue fighting against the Static 99R SCAM, unfair treatment, as well as registration itself. It took many decades for SCOTUS to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson. When dealing with registered “sex offenders,” I have a feeling that the court would want to protect its credibility in using a magazine statistic than actually getting it right with Individualized sentencing.

          They have to protect the majesty of that big black robe, you know.

      • bob andrews

        I would be one of them few that are gay and get penalized (no pun intended ahha) for being gay with the lame static99, so if JANICE wants to SUE because of it ill be glad to be a JOHN DOE !!!!

    • Just tired

      Static99 is being chanlenge under the Daulbert Standard in the federal courts

  2. ab

    The best evidence so far shows that no one should be in the business of predicting what others might do based on previous conduct. The registry does nothing but shift dealing with any real problems for another time. Monitoring people for years doesn’t guarantee that they won’t do something else or find a way to get away with the same thing. Nor does watching previously convicted people help prevent someone new from breaking the law the first time. If California was serious about an evidence based approach it would focus on stopping offenses from happening before legal action is necessary because all the research (evidence) reveals numerous points of opportunity for redirection to other less destructive paths. No one starts out at birth doing the worst things and over a lifetime plenty of alternatives exist it is a matter of recognizing when someone is heading towards disaster then changing circumstances far enough in advance so the disaster does not occur. It could be as simple as taking a right turn rather than a left turn when driving or as complicated as stopping two people who have no knowledge of each other from ever becoming aware of each other because one or both of them would be at risk of becoming a victim of the other person.

    • Debo

      Most people that offend have empathy problems and narcissistic personality problems in order to allow or justify their behavior. This develops early in life from being neglected or coddled to much. The sad thing is its a coping mechanism for them because they are hypersensitive usually. If an effort is made early to identify and work with these kids it would keep them from offending and learn empathy and to not objectify women or people. Unfortunately the people that make the decisions have instant gratification needs for votes and do not even bother to implement real solutions to the real problems not to say people do not need to accept punishment for their actions because they do. I recently saw a doc on Netflix about a NY serial killer and after he was caught he said that they should have had a way for him to turn himself in without getting into trouble so he could have stoped earlier and not killed 17 people. It made me realize how I or others sound to the general public when we say there should be a way for us to do the same. I do believe that people using pornography and or CP need to have a way to get help without being put on a registry for life this would also help with reducing it also.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Sorry, Debo I’m not buying it. I don’t have an empathy problem nor have I ever. If anything, I score too high on all relevant measures of empathy for my own good. In my experience with others in my post-carceral boat, this is far more common than not. The whole “power” and “lack of empathy” shibboleth is driven purely by politics and propaganda. Are there violent offenders for whom that is true, i.e. they’re driven by a narcissistic goal of dominating and hurting others? Of course they do but I will thank anyone who doesn’t confuse me, and the great majority of us, with John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer and others like them.

        • Tim Moore

          The ones who are empathy anemic are the ones who love seeing their fellow human beings locked in cages.

  3. Gralphr

    The best evidence is time outside prison without anymore sex crimes period. 10 years crime free (not including minor things like traffic tickets, etc.) and EVERYONE should be released from registry (with the time less for no contact crimes, such as Cp). If one doesn’t do anything in a decade I’d think their rate of offending should be very low.

    • CR

      I disagree. No one should have to register, ever. A sentence is punishment for a crime. You do your sentence, then that’s it. You should then be restored to all the rights and privileges you had before you were sentenced.

      I also disagree with your implication that non-contact crimes, such as CP, are somehow categorically less serious or deserving of a lighter sentence (or time on the registry) than other sexual offenses. It is a cognitive distortion to imagine that there is no victim in those cases, or that the victim is necessarily harmed less than by contact. The truth is that every offense is different, and all offenders should be judged and sentenced individually.

      • Debo

        CR good points I believe CP could be a way to start a system of people being able to turn their self in to get help with no reg and probation with treatment. You are 100% right there are victims with CP but I think it would be more acceptable to the public Also you are right that the registry should be gone altogether Law enforcement is more than capable of keeping track of people convicted of sex crimes If someone has been deemed a danger to society without a reasonable doubt then they should be in jail or institutionalized not on the street.

        • David

          I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to interview us (i.e., those who have been convicted of sexual offences) with regard to what might prevent future offenses. Doesn’t it seem the obvious thing to do to ask us what might have prevented our actions?

      • All I Can Say

        When an offender does not make contact, the victim is better off than if the offender did make that contact.

        • Ehhh...

          Sometimes true, sometimes not. A lot of non-contact victims suffer emotional trauma as well. The impact on a person, because of a crime against them, may have more to do with that particular victim’s coping skills. Personally, I would be careful with a blanket statement as that.

          Nonetheless, to reiterate just one of the Static-99R’s multitudinous flaws: It makes no sense at all that non-contact offenses are penalized more than contact offenses. Under Static-99R logic, if all other “risk factors” are equal, an exhibitionist or peeping tom scores higher than even a convicted violent rapist. The Static makes the outlandishly obscene assumption that all non-contact offenders are at higher “risk” because the original risk factors were derived from a “particularly violent” group of Canadian and UK offenders from the 1970’s. The same risk factors are then carried into CASOMB/SARATSO-funded “studies” — in 2018 and beyond — with claims that said risk factors apply to Americans residing in California (and elsewhere).

          Something wrong here. Again, there is absolutely no logic in lumping all types of people and their crimes together in an “actuarial instrument.” Giving credence to the Static-99R brings us in full circle, as the Static-99R essentially lumps all crimes and people together. Ironic, since I thought the reason for fighting against the registry was to keep it from lumping all types of crimes and people together?

          And this is just ONE of many basic flaws to the Static-99R.

        • Tim Moore

          One has a chance to make a motion of amends to your victim and develop an understanding through moderated contact. There is good contact that heals and energizes and there is bad contact that destroys. Without contact and understanding, there is little left in the emotional tool box but seeking revenge, wallowing in guilt or other destructive acts. I am glad some of my earlier therapists had the wisdom to resolve conflict, rather than institutionalize it. That was almost two decades ago. Things have gotten more penal minded and less solution oriented since then, focusing more and more simply on the type of offense, as a measure of public disgust, and not on the people involved.

      • David

        @ CR: I disagree with your point that CP has victims. Not always. If someone is aroused looking at Donatello’s sculpture “David”, is the sculpture’s model (now dead some 600 years) somehow harmed? When I was a child of 3 or 4, I was photographed nude standing in a bathtub with my same-aged cousins. That photo is long ago lost to the ages. But if some individual had somehow gotten hold of that photo and arouses himself with it, how am I harmed when I have no knowledge of it and, frankly, no concern about the lost photo?? Or would you say that neither of those situations constitutes CP as that was not the intended purpose of either? (Though I cannot speak for scupltor Donatello.) Or what if I am aroused by photos of Victorian women dressed from toe to crown with barely a hand or cheek showing. Is my arousal at such photos harmful to those long deceased women??

        • NPS

          Michaelangelo sculpted David; at least he sculpted the one made of marble that is world renowned.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          NPS, Donatello’s David was in bronze (and is the one wearing a hat) and is, as with Michelangelo’s David, in Florence. David was much depicted by Renaissance artists, including Ghirlandaio and Bernini. Michelangelo’s was, confusingly, reproduced quite a bit with one having a Victorian figleaf (detachable) at the Victoria & Albert Museum. There is no doubt that a great deal of artistic masterpieces would not be viewed favorably by present puritanical standards were they being created today. It is now, quite literally, impossible to know if they are illegal.

        • Walter

          David, I couldn’t agree with you more. If the person is unaware of someone being aroused by the picture, how then are they harmed, especially if the pic was taken years ago. Also, some pic are hard if not impossible to tell the age of the person.

        • CR

          @David, the topic of what constitutes CP and whether or not there is a victim is a complex one. Your examples are of simple nudity in a non-coercive context. Simple nudity by itself is not pornographic, thus depictions of nude children, no matter the medium (e.g., photographs, drawings, statues), does not constitute child pornography. Whether someone is aroused by any particular depiction is not determinate either.

          Neither is victimization dependent on the classification of an image as pornographic. As an example, a non-pornographic nude photo of a child (or anyone) taken surreptitiously is at least an invasion of their privacy. Even if they are not aware that such a picture exists and is being circulated, and regardless of whether or not anyone is aroused by it, they are still a victim.

          What of a non-pornographic simple and innocent nude child photo that, perhaps unbeknownst to the viewer, was taken under coercive circumstances? How can one say that there is no victim in that case, or that the distribution of the photo is harmless?

          Doubtless, much CP is of a far less innocent nature. Surely any child who is coerced to engage in sexual activity is the victim of a crime. How can someone viewing it, even years later, claim that because they personally had no contact with the child, their crime was victimless?

          I didn’t say that there is always a victim in every CP offense. I don’t believe that of contact offenses, either. And that is because the laws are over-inclusive and utterly inflexible, and some things that are prosecuted as crimes were actually consensual, private, and harmless. What I object to is the frequent implication by people convicted of non-contact offenses (e.g., CP possession or distribution) that their crime is less serious or less damaging than a contact offense simply because there is no contact and/or/therefore no victim. That is patently absurd.

      • WTF?

        So is riding with a drunk driver the same as being the drunk driver?
        I say this because CP can be accessed without intent or maliss. There are people that get arroused by photos of different things. Arrousal means a heightened sense not purely sexual (a rush if you will).
        Now production and distribution is another story. I do believe this offense creates victims. And obviously there can be contact offenses in the process.
        The internet has instantly created a whole new world of voyeuristic genres. And the government has hogtied itself via the constitution to try and prevent “bad internet” . Many countries simply ban porn on public accessible internet.
        So in closing, are Certain crimes deserving of a lighter judgement, yes.

  4. 290 air

    People act how you treat them. you treat them like animals then that’s what you will get as with our current sex offender laws. You treat them as a human beings with a possibility and hope of rehabilitation there’s probably a lot better chance that’s what you will get.

  5. AO

    Hopefully this will then mean that if and when this start happening, a whole lot of people in T3 and T2 will be actually evaluated as individuals and removed from the registry. If they only do it for new convictions, it’ll ripe for a good suing.

  6. David

    Janice (or anyone knowledgeable), as of June 19th, the Bill has been re-referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee “with recommendation: To Consent Calendar.” What does that mean … “to consent calendar”?
    (The Bill is NOT listed on the Agenda for the Committee’s next Hearing, Wednesday, June 27th. Does this suggest that the Chair is withholding the Bill so it dies?)

    Is NOW the time to phone the Committee members to urge their support?

    • Debo

      Empirical evidence wonder what their definition will be May just be a way to contract the wave of unconstitutional wins headed their way by outlining some so called evidence people are a risk Better watch this close. Once someone is labeled a high risk by so called empirical evidence theres no way going back after that. Especially if they say you cant challenge it later on or say 25yrs you can some crap like that.

    • kind of living

      For what reason would we support this ? why would we give their so called science any credence ?

      • David

        @ kind of living: Here’s why I will support it: Getting the State to do research on S.O. recidivism rates is one way that we can open the dialogue with lawmakers to get them to start thinking about genuine facts on low recidivism rates. If we can do that, we can begin working with them on reducing or eliminating the SOR altogether. Additionally, until we can get them to understand that the STATIC-99R is garbage, it’s likely they will continue to rely on it (because they know no differently). So if they have to research a risk assessment tool for women and juveniles, they may come to realize they need a better tool for men as well. Eventually, we may bring them around to the realization that “most these people aren’t so bad, certainly not the monsters that media portrays”. Yes, it’s a slow, plodding battle, but it’s necessary.

        • @David

          How do we get the politicians to understand that the Static-99R is “garbage” if so many continue to hold it — as well as the self-interested “doctor” Karl Hanson — in such high regard? Ten questions do not determine each person’s future — yet this is precisely what Hanson has led the masses to believe.

          *This bill is nothing more than a mandate to continue propagating, promoting, and endorsing Karl Hanson and his “sciences.”*

          If you have yet to read, Hanson has laid the blame on his student, Seung C. Lee, to write the newest “study” that sets us up for the Static being credible for at least ten years. I agree that the Static-99R is nothing more than The Minority Report coming to fruition:

          This bill is simply a waste of taxpayer resources. This bill is only a benefit to Karl Hanson and career bureaucrats who will use the “scientific” findings provided by the authority of this bill to further legitimize themselves, their salaries, “treatment” contracts, as well as the registry itself.

        • AJ

          How do we get the politicians to understand that the Static-99R is “garbage” if so many continue to hold it — as well as the self-interested “doctor” Karl Hanson — in such high regard?
          Simple: you can’t and won’t. So quit trying to fight it, and instead use the data to your favor. Like it or not, you will never be able to knock Hanson of his respected position among psychologists, State boards, etc. So instead, why not join them in exalting him and *all* his information and papers? Papers that say recidivism halves every 5 years. Papers that say even a high-risk person is below “background levels” after a certain amount of time (17 years? I forget.). You don’t have to agree with any of his findings or research…all you need to do is make your opponents agree with it, which they already tacitly do through use of the S99.

        • Mike G


          I appreciate your remarks. I really have no idea what this Static 99 is, and why everyone is so afraid of it. I don’t think it was around when I was convicted, and no one has ever said anything to me about it.

          Is there some other system out there that would be better, or is that what they are trying to study?

          Just trying to figure out how all this would affect me and others like me.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          AJ, I agree with you except: never say never. We’re not fortune-tellers and things have a way of changing dramatically and unexpectedly. I would say the same thing to those who like to say “the Registry will never go away.” A lot can change, provided there are enough people willing to change it.

        • Edgar

          In addition to being mentioned in the coding rules, another mention, now from the 2018 paper that every 5 years the risk is halved.

          “the sexual recidivism rate halves every 5-year offense-free in
          the community”

        • kind of living

          I will not get behind any of this , we have enough crap we have to fight to just invite more . 2021 there are going to be some pissed off RC’s as it is , and I don’t see any factual reason that we would get behind this or anything else with out facts that show they are going to back off . you can bet money on the fact that if the state wants it they intend to use it against us in some way , and that would stand to reason with so many of the courts turning a blind eye to what it clearly says in the constitution , it looks like more seats for their ass’s is what it looks like to me to further add some kind of credence to bull crap science that they already are turning a blind eye to that very fact , no one on that board is going to sell out their sweet jobs down the drain , Karl Hanson and all of his backers are dangerous to us and our family’s !

        • No One Deserves Tier 3


          Under the Static-99R’s generalizations, even someone who scores the highest possible Static-99R score — an aberration — would not be a “high risk sex offender” after five-years offense-free. Also, why are a “6” and “12” score classified as the same “high” risk? Seems unfair to lump a six point score variation in the same risk category.

          Also, note that the 10-year recidivism “study” was conducted by Karl Hanson and his student, Seung C. Lee, from a “Carleton University” in Canada. The other three authors of the 10-year recidivism study are with the California Department of Justice. A clear conflict-of-interest.

          As for Canada’s Carleton University, it is not to be mistaken with Carleton College — the latter, a top small college in Minnesota. Again, Karl Hanson and Seung Lee are affiliated with Canada’s Carleton University — which has a worldwide ranking of 401-500 (literally, bottom-of-the-barrel). It sort of reminds me of the University of Chicago, a prestigious university, and how many “doctors” practicing in the pseudo field of “forensic psychology” are alumni of the Chicago School of Professional Psychology (the latter, literally a diploma mill). I remember one fairly educated person that I know having mistook the Chicago School of Professional Psychology for the University of Chicago. I had to point out that the two are not the same.

          Indeed, the business owners who decided to start the Chicago School of Professional Psychology may have intended to mislead the less informed of its zero affiliation to the much more prestigious University of Chicago.

  7. David

    @ David K.: Well said, sir. 👍

  8. mike r

    AJ is exactly right. Hit them with their own stats, reports and most definitely Hanson’s own words out of his Declration in the CA case…

    Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014). Also see, Hanson Declaration [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 45-46 ¶¶ 182, 183.

  9. mike r

    Is this some kind of joke??? This changes nothing that is not already in place. It states nothing about using such a tool in determining who goes on the list and does not change anything that is not already in place. Just gives a couple more seats or positions on the board which is just more bureaucracy…

  10. American Detained in America

    True evidence based policies would include abolishing the registry, not simply changing it. There is no evidence that even supports its existence.

  11. Aero1

    I do enjoy reading everybody’s comments on here to read other people’s perspective on the situation but the truth is due to modern technology with face recognition hand recognition body recognition voice recognition cameras and surveillance everywhere they can track find anyone at anytime within hours the FBI has stepped in and took over years ago as well as Geek Squad when I got my DUI 2 years agobeverybody who is charged with a misdemeanor had to go down the DA’s office and give DNA the technology they have for tracking people is crazy do you guys really think it’s a coincidence or letting 90% of registrants off the registry they no longer need Meganlaw it’s prehistoric to them it just can’t get rid of it completely cuz everybody would freak out and then they will be forced to show the new technology they have of Tracking not only registrants everybody in America so all this stick99

    • Aero1

      Basically they don’t care about static-99 reports they don’t care about Megan’s Law they don’t care they can track anybody at any time in the 🌎

      • Tim Moore

        Good point. They just need these to make it easier to arrest us for something. Designer laws.

  12. The long road home

    I could tolerate (?) a law enforcement based non public evidenced based tier registry like is in place in many other more progressive countries. It would allow the second chance we all want while still being able to oversee the 5% that have serious issues. It is when the public is allowed to dictate rules of punishment that the whole system breaks down. It is like asking 1000 people what safety systems are needed on a car. If you allowed them to dictate this, you would end up with a $200,000 Prius that was undrivable!
    This is what we have, a registry so bloated with oversite and obscure requirements that even the professionals implementing them don’t know the law.

    As an example, I purchased a car and called S.J.P.D. to ask if I could change my vehicle over the phone. I was told to do it when I came in for my annual. They didn’t bother asking if I was in fact registering annually. I told the person I didn’t want to be out of compliance and the answer I got was ” it’s just a technicality”. Oh, really? How many persons are in prison on a “technicality”.
    So in closing, streamlining this grotesque excuse of a law with realistic ( all be it unnecessary ) requirements based on actual data, not emotional reactions, can go a long way in satisfying the publics blood lust and still allowing politicians to save face.

  13. New Person

    This bill confirms what I denoted in another thread… In a 2010 CASOMB report, it reported the State has not started any research in to recidivism rates, or namely research based analysis.

    To me, this is huge. That means PC 290.007 and PC 290.5 were created not based on evidence. In fact, it moved the bar to be off the registry that much higher to first earned a 1203.4 and then CoR. Without evidence based information, then the State has been changing laws without merit with respect to 1203.4 and the 1958 Kelly v Municipal decision that relieved you of the registry once once successfully completed probation.

    Here’s PC 290.007:
    “Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 , unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5”

    In 1958, Kelly v Municipal stated that the 1203.4 immunity program cannot be superseded by PC 290 and that it relieves one from the registry. PC 290.007’s language acknowledges the law and disregards the rule of law to relieve one from the registry. This violates California Constitution Art. 1, Section 9:
    “A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
    the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”

    Thus, PC 290.007 was passed not based upon empirical evidence and impaired standing law contract as provided by 1203.4. Then, instead of your probationary period being the length of registry service, the State pushed it to 10 years and a petition in front of panel in the form of the CoR (Certificate of Rehabilitation).

    To me, this is huge as California admits it did not create new laws based upon empirical evidence and nothing has changed between 1958 till present in respect to research.

    I am thanking God right now for giving me this information as my brainstorming continues. And this piece of legislation is proof that what the State did to all those who qualified for 1203.4 was deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution.

    I got from 3 years probation and off the registry without being re-judged to 10 years wait and petition in front of a judged and DA about my rehabilitation. Why the extra seven years? Why the extra court room judgement? Why was there no research based evidence ongoing to make any changes? PC 290.007’s language of “regardless” is damning.

    I’m getting weary of being rejected because I’m on the registry. You can have sex with a minor and not register. Why? Because the courts wanted to define the difference between forced sexual intercourse and consensual intercourse with a minor to improve standing in society such as to land a job. How is having zero days on the registry from something statutory to 10 years minimum from something statutory equal? It’s not. Neither is 3 years equal to 10 years plus re-judgement!

    • AJ

      @New Person:
      “To me, this is huge. That means PC 290.007 and PC 290.5 were created not based on evidence.”
      “Thus, PC 290.007 was passed not based upon empirical evidence”
      “To me, this is huge as California admits it did not create new laws based upon empirical evidence and nothing has changed between 1958 till present in respect to research.”
      The problem is that under rational basis review, there doesn’t need to be evidence of anything. There doesn’t need to be a study of anything. There doesn’t even have to have been an example of anything. And if the State cannot come up with a “rational” reason for whatever law, sometimes courts/judges will do it for them! I wish I could find the SCOTUS Justice (Stevens? White? Stewart?) and his quote about rational basis review being no review at all. And indeed it is almost always a rubber stamp. There are VERY few cases where courts have applied what’s been termed “rational basis with bite.”

      To overcome rational basis review, one either has to escape it to heightened scrutiny by implicating a liberty interest or fundamental right, or one must prove the law is ineffective in every single instance, real or imagined.

      • mike r

        Yep that is what makes CA Taylor so unique. It is the first case that I have heard of that smacked down the law on no rational basis. We need to run with their reasoning think.

      • mike r

        You know AJ, I like how in Taylor they singled out a subset of offenders and claimed that only the parolees in San Diego county were an entire class. This is interesting. There most definitely are situation where residency restriction may very well be constitutional and may even be useful in at least one case out of that class. What if one of the perps were lets say a repeat offender that actually lurked around parks or schools to find their victim? Bam rational basis. This goes against the grain of rational basis. It also singles out a subclass of offenders which is very interesting. Low risk offenders can be considered a subclass then as well I would think. There is no rational basis to subject low risk offenders to the registry for all the same reasoning as the residency restrictions but ten fold worse. In CA court it seems like it would be a slam dunk since everything that the court relied on too shoot down the residency restrictions is the same or worse for the registry with all the documented Gov reports that state the same thing.

      • New Person

        @ AJ,

        “To overcome rational basis review, one either has to escape it to heightened scrutiny by implicating a liberty interest or fundamental right, or one must prove the law is ineffective in every single instance, real or imagined.”

        PC 290.007 impairs the obligation of the contract in 1203.4 (expungement) and cannot be passed as denoted in Ca. Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 9. The established law and basis set forth in 1958’s Kelly decision stated that PC 290 cannot override 1203.4.

        So a law impairing that set obligation cannot be passed. But also, for what reason did they amend the law? There was no rational basis that overrode that PC 290 can usurp 1203.4. Which implies they were using some scientific method. What method? This bill states they was no method.

        Essentially, it’s a two pronged attack. The rational basis was set that PC 290 cannot override 1203.4, which provides a legal avenue off the registry. The change to thwart the process from 3 years to 10 years requires rational connection – which means a specific methodology. This bills is evidence it has no methodology. Yes, they are using Dr. Karl Hanson’s Static-99, but they are not using all of his research work that states the longest term of police surveillance is 17 years. Since they are not using all of Hanson’s research, then they must have done their own research. Which they have not. So there is no rational connection between the statute’s/ordinance’s means and goals.

        Then factor in why 261.5, unlawful sex with a minor (statutory) isn’t a registerable offense or was not make a registerable offense. The reason was to distinguish between forcible and statutory sexual intercourse, which can help improve chances of employment. This was passed in the 1970s, while oral and anal sex were deemed criminal sexual acts for all ages.

        1203.4 essentially does the same thing as 261.5 such that it distinguishes which sex crimes were heinous and which ones were not so dangerious, as only those who qualified for probation could earn the 1203.4.

        Then comparing just convicts, why do only sex offenders need a 1203.4 and a CoR to regain parts of their life back when all other 1203.4 recipients do not need the CoR (Certificate of Rehabilitation)?

        This all brings to head statistics. Because I’m sure the state used statistics to manipulate the law as there seems to be no rational basis to extend being on the registry. With this bill, it shows there was no rational nor empirical reason to extend the registry nor be re-judged after earning the 1203.4.

        • AJ

          @New Person:
          PC 290.007 impairs the obligation of the contract in 1203.4 (expungement) and cannot be passed as denoted in Ca. Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 9.
          Good thing you’re using the CA Const., and not the US one. SCOTUS has completely gutted the Contracts Clause (
          But also, for what reason did they amend the law? There was no rational basis that overrode that PC 290 can usurp 1203.4. Which implies they were using some scientific method. What method? This bill states they was no method.
          What rational basis was there? The legislature decided it so. And that’s all that’s required to pass muster with the courts. Under rational basis scrutiny, there is no need for any scientific method, or indeed *any* method. As long as a single case, even if only hypothetical, can be proffered, a court is obligated to defer to the legislature and uphold the statute. If you can show it was arbitrary and/or capricious, you may have a fight. But please understand that “rational” in regards to judicial scrutiny does not have the same definition as “rational” in everyday English.

          Rational basis scrutiny is incredibly difficult to overcome. You can have logical arguments all day long, and the court will still defer to the legislature and any findings (or none) they have made. The judicial branch’s answer to the problem is, “take care of it at the ballot box.” While that works on paper, it doesn’t work in practice.

  14. Edgar

    On the California Megan’s Law website, on the opening page there is discussion of the Static-99. Is this new? It looks helpful.

    • Skeptic

      I’ve seen the “discussion” by the California Department of “Justice” regarding the Static-99R. The Megan’s Law page regarding the Static-99R is highly misleading because it mentions nothing of “risk” halving after five-years offense-free. Further, the Megan’s Law website says nothing of the Static-99R score only being valid for two years. Also, Static-99R “risk” is an estimate only upon release (a “snapshot”). Ostensible risk becomes increasingly inaccurate as offense-free years progress. Also discussed is the LS/CMI, which *is* dynamic. (The Static-99R is only “static,” and does correct as an offender gets older and matures).

      Unlike the Static-99R, the LS/CMI claims to predict “violent” reoffense. Strangely, the Static-99R does *not* predict violence and/or even dangerousness… so the Static-99R is quite misleading.

      It is entirely possible for one to score “very low” on the LS/CMI, yet “high” on the Static-99R. Both are “SARATSO Tools.” Yet why is *only* the Static-99R taken into account?? The strong push for the Static-99R has more to do with the profit motives behind CASOMB and CDCR’s “treatment” contracts than anything else:

      • AO

        @Skeptic, scroll down to the bottom of that link. There’s a chart there that shows the decline of the score over time and some explanation.

        • Skeptic


          That is beside the point because the Static-99R chart is a SNAPSHOT of a person’s risk *at the time a person is released from custody*. The Static-99R is not a dynamic assessment, as the Static does *not* correct as an offender gets older and matures. Also, remember that the Static lacks sample representativeness — as it lumps all types of offenses, ranging in severity, and people into the same pot. The Megan’s Law website is extraordinarily misleading because it refers to high scores being synonymous to “hazard.” Yet the Static-99R does not measure dangerousness per se. The Static-99R only claims to measure “RISK of recidivism AT TIME OF RELEASE.”

          One concern is the fact that Karl Hanson has kept his data secret, refusing to provide it to other researchers. Potential Frye or Daubert issue. Another concern is that scores “6” to “12” are lumped into the same “high” risk category. According to Karl Hanson (and assuming Hanson didn’t fudge any numbers) a “6” score would fall to a reoffense rate of 3.9 to 7.9 percent after eight-years offense-free. Yet the Static-99R lumps the same high-risk label for a “6” as it would to a “10,” or even “12,” even being exported to the Tiered Registry Law for Tier 3 registration. In other words, the same punishment given to a “12” is given to a “6!”

          To put it in other words: We are no longer imposing punishment based on an underlying crime/conviction; but we are now talking about imposing punishment based on a number! Imposing punishment, based on a misleading number, for something they MIGHT do!

          Also, it’s incredibly disingenuous to stand by the fact that 10 questions – or “risk factors” – are behind each and every offender’s offense. Every person and offense is different. The reason(s) behind a particular offender’s offense may not have anything to do with the 10 questions!

        • Edgar

          It looks like scores are being reduced with the passage of time as indicated in the bottom chart.

        • Chris

          Edgar, STATIC-99R scores never “reduce.” Unless things have recently changed, once the DOJ gives you a score it sticks with you for life—as none of the questions/risk factors change.

          Only the claimed recidivism rates reduce from the time a person is released from jail, prison, or sentenced to probation. The STATIC isn’t a dynamic tool. Again, the STATIC-99R figures you see in the chart are supposedly only an estimate from when a person is released from jail, prison, or sentenced to probation.

        • Chris

          Skeptic, you (rightfully) put emphasis on the STATIC-99R being an estimate from when a person is released from jail or prison. Thus, remember that the 3.9 to 7.9 percent is exaggerated since the recidivism rate is from when a person is released from incarceration. So, logically, the “high” risk—dynamic—recidivism rates are probably much lower than the “static” figures. It’s amazing that so many people gloss over the fact that the STATIC-99 schemes are just that: STATIC! Not dynamic. Also, note that even for the crazy high score—10—the STATIC-99R only claims to be accurate about half the time. Literally, the STATIC—at its very best— is a random guess!

          This H. Karl Hanson fellow has proved to be an expert in verbal and written Judo—as evidenced in how Hanson writes his Coding Rules and “studies” to protect his STATIC-99 schemes. But as pointed out by some, Hanson repeatedly avoids requests so that others may review his STATIC “tests” for fraud. Why else would Hanson be so protective of his STATIC schemes and hide under the trade secret excuse?

          Also, for whatever creepy reason, all the experts seem to gloss over Hanson’s nontransparency, as well as the clear conflict of interest with Hanson citing Hanson citing Hanson (or Hanson and others citing him, Hanson’s Carleton University students, as well as the other STATIC-99R developers).

          But above all, what type of precedence does using the STATIC-99R set for violating individual liberty and constitutional rights? I feel it deeply troubling that so many “experts” seem to be OK with Minority Report “science.”

        • @Chris


          Static-99R-like “risk assessments” are going to plague the criminal justice system in upcoming years and decades. Risk assessment give the air of science, “empirical,” and “evidence-based;” but when it comes to government-sponsored Static-99R-type “tests,” I’d be exceptionally cautious.

          Risk assessments are exactly Minority Report style law enforcement. I know immigration is a topic that many of us disagree with. But as evidence of how risk assessments can evolve to be used against “sex offenders:” Just in the few days, and what is truly exemplary of a “slippery slope,” ICE was discovered to use a risk assessment tool that only recommends “detain.” Here is an article from the ABA Journal:

          In another instance, not relating to immigration, here is another risk assessment tool that some fear will “perpetuate bias:”

          Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation’s top former law enforcement officer, warned us about these risk assessment “tools:”

          “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.'”

          Here is the article from the ABA Journal:

          For whatever mysterious reason — perhaps the Static-99R’s tendency to exaggerate “risk” and funnel more people into longer and more state mandated “treatment,” as well as keep people on the registry for longer/lifetime periods — the Static-99R is portrayed as a more credible risk assessment. But as we already know, the only reason to why the Static-99R is considered credible is because Hanson, his fellow Static developers, and Hanson’s students have a near monopoly in “validating” the Static-99R’s methodology (even though virtually all the validating studies are in conflict of interest).

          As said above: Has the the Static-99R, in any jurisdiction, ever made it past Daubert and/or Frye standards?

  15. mike r

    I think the only way to win is to get past Smith and show the stark contrast from then and now. If this is the case then I smacked every step of Smith down comprehensively one by one. Maybe that is why it is taking the district judge so long to decide on the MTD in my case and has not just rubber stamped it. We will see sometime soon.

  16. mike r

    It is going to be interesting how the court treats my judicial notice request….If it is treated the same as the reports on residency restrictions then it is a done deal. I would also think that we are being put into sub-classes as well by a tiered registry or being determined SVPs and such. Tier one offenders subclass, tier two offenders subclass, tier three offenders subclass. There is NO rational basis to subject tier one to the registry at all, tier two maybe on a case by case scenario, tier three there could be a rational to that but only for so long and on a case by case basis. They would have to gather empirical evidence without the other tiers to see if there is an actual rational basis. If the legislature did no independent fact finding on the original 290 legislation please concisely cite it as I have been looking for that exact citation….

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 *