ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (07/23 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

 

California

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

[UPDATED LINKS 6/23/18] [floridaactioncommittee.org – 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 [signalscv.com – 6/23/18]

 

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.
  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
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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

@ David K.: Well said, sir. 👍

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 https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 45-46 ¶¶ 182, 183.

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…

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

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 ancestry.com 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

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.

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!

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

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.

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….

72
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.