CA: Gov. Brown signs Wilk’s sex offender bill into law

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1199 into law Monday evening, an attempt to correct the way Jessica’s Law led to a disproportionate number of sexual offenders being released to rural areas.
The bill’s author, Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, said the bill addresses an unintended consequence, which created a burdensome and unfair situation in several parts of the 21st Senate District, which he represents, as well as rural communities throughout the state. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m less interested about this bill and a whole lot more interested about SB 1036.

How do they reconcile the this bill with the SO registry releasing all this information?

“SB 1036 would “prohibit the … personal information, as defined, of a pupil or of the parent or guardian of a pupil in the minutes of a meeting of the governing body … if a pupil who is 18 years of age or older or a parent or guardian of a pupil has provided a written request to the secretary or clerk of the governing body to exclude his or her personal information or the name of his or her minor child, as specified.”

Wilk said a grandmother who spoke during the public comment portion of an SUSD meeting — expressing her opinion regarding a book that had offended her — later learned that her residential address had been published as part of the official record of the meeting’s minutes.

The woman felt that in “today’s political climate” it was not a good idea to have her personal information published without her expressed consent.

“Personal information,” according to SB 1036, “includes a person’s address, telephone number, date of birth and email address.”

The article doesn’t really say what the bill does. Does it abolish the 2000 ft rule in urban areas? That would be great and a step in the direction of a civilized society moving away from the witch hunt.

So they want to keep out a group of convicted people that has about the lowest rate of re-offense of any, but who cares if there are plain old habitual deadly weapon assaulters, wife beaters, robbers or dui’s living among us?

Just looked up the text of the bill 1199. It says that when the SO is released from custody. every effort reasonable will be made to release them to the city they were last living in before incarceration. So this is good, it should put pressure on any existing residency restrictions to be abolished because they just make it difficult for an SO to assimilate. Once again Governor brown is throwing us a bone and moving towards eliminating the horridly oppressive registry.

Well, this is familiar in a way. “5) The unauthorized release or receipt of the information described in this subdivision is a violation of Section 11143.”

But check this out:

§ 11142 Any person authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record who knowingly furnishes the record or information to a person who is not authorized by law to receive the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Does this mean city-data.com is guilty of a misdemeanor due to furnishing the record to us since we are forbidden that fruit?

Also interesting:

§ 11143 Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code , who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Am I guilty of a misdemeanor if I look at the records city-data.com publishes?

What a mess.

I can’t see any legitimate reason that a person could not look at any $EX Offender Registry simply because the person is listed on an $OR. It’s not legitimate. Any government that supports that needs to be sued. Any person who supports that is a stunning idiot and a disgusting “person”. Pretty clear cut.

Great article! You should be more concerned about the new law the governor signed (the bail law). It’s rather disturbing. If you now get arrested for a minor offense or misdemeanor in Ca, you will probably be released. If you get arrested for a Felony or sex crime, you can’t get out! Bail no longer exists! It’s up to a Judge to determine if you can be released or not! In my view, this might tempt DA’s to overcharge as a bargain chip etc. In my view, it’s scary! Also, it will basically abolish bail companies!

All that bill does is give more power to this state’s fascist parole board. If you’ve got a 288 on your record they say they won’t let you live within 35 miles of the victim. Sounds like a holocaust to me.

Is this a positive or a negative? I’m not sure. Negative thought – Most likely Santa Clarita is trying to keep registrants out of there backyard since Santa Clarita most likely has more open space (than the cities south of them) where registrants or family of registrants can purchase homes, land to live. Positive – This will help put pressure on all those cities south of Santa Clarita to work on lessening restrictions since they will perhaps be required to allow those listed to have a home…hopefully.