ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (05/21 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

 

 

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: When Will They Learn?

The CA state legislature began a new two-year session just last month. And in that short period of time, legislators are already heading down the wrong path.

What path? The path which identifies all individuals convicted of a sex offense as dangerous and likely to commit a new sex offense.

For example, Assemblymember Kevin McCarty who is known for his compassion for those who are or have been incarcerated, introduced a bill (AB 277) that would allow parolees to earn “reintegration credits” that could ultimately allow them to travel greater distances from their homes. Under this bill, a successful parolee could travel as far away as 125 miles instead of the current 50 miles.

The problem with AB 277 is that it arbitrarily excludes anyone “who is required to register pursuant to Section 290.” This exclusion ignores the fact that a person may be required to register due to a conviction that occurred many decades ago or involved a non-contact, non-violent offense such as public indecency.

As another example, Assembly member Melissa Melendez introduced a bill (AB 884) that would disturb the balance struck during the recent passage of the Tiered Registry Bill. Specifically, the bill would assign anyone convicted of violating PC 288(a) to the highest tier which requires lifetime registration.

If this bill becomes law, the hopes and dreams of at least 40 percent of the individuals required to register in California would be dashed. That is, instead of being eligible to petition for removal from the registry after “only” 20 years, these individuals would be required to register for their entire lives.

These bills must be stopped in order to prevent further punishment of individuals who are currently required to register! Opportunities to stop them are coming soon in the form of a hearing to be held by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 12 in Room 126 of the State Capitol.

Please Show Up – Stand Up – Speak up on March 12 at the hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. You can even join ACSOL at the nearby Starbucks restaurant (12th and L) at 8:30 a.m.

For if the legislators refuse to learn the “easy” way, we will need to teach them the “hard” way by speaking in opposition to the legislation that they offer during committee hearings at which the legislation will be considered. And when you join ACSOL at a committee hearing, you will feel the power because you will be empowered. For it is inevitable that we shall overcome. That reason will be the ultimate victor.

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
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You knew this was coming. This vile woman just beat everyone else to the punch.

Unless I am wrong, the “worst” thing one could do – before the introduction of PC 288.7 in 2006? (penetration of a person 10 or under) – was PC 288(a) (L&L with a person under 14) – which included everything from touching a 13 year old over clothing on the upper thigh to anally raping a 2 year old. Right away, super helpful.

The current tiering law is 100% offense based, and as it stands now…

– any number of “intent” crimes (288.2, 288.3 and 288.4 – talking to, meeting for or displaying images of sex to) with a 17.5 year is Tier 3, while PC 288(a) is Tier 2.

– 288(a) is Tier 2, while 288(c) is Tier 3. Again, before 2006 anally / vaginally raping a 2 year old would be 288(a), after 2006 sex with / raping an 11 year old would be 288(a), while a 25+ year old hugging and kissing a 15 year old would be Tier 3.

– having sex with a 16/17 year old (that that even is a crime boggles the mind) is Tier 1, while having photos of a 16/17 year old having sex is Tier 3.

All while…

– torturing any number of children is no Tier whatsoever (like the recent case in Perris).

– killing children, on purpose or as a (repeat) drunk driver, is no Tier whatsoever.

– getting a 14 year old to be the lookout for your robbery sees that child prosecuted and sentenced to life as an adult.

None of that makes any sense.

The sex offender registry is stupid, evil and useless. Modifying the sex offender registry is nothing more than polishing a turd. The sex offender registry must be abolished, not modified. Let’s pool our efforts and resources to make that happen. I am in.

Janice, politicians will never learn if there are no consequences for their blatantly bad laws. When a politician can ignore all the evidence and continue doing things based purely on fear mongering in order to garner votes, even though the consequences actually make the public less safe, they have no reason to stop. When the highest of courts basically rules that facts have no rational bases to laws written (and I mean facts, not “rational” as defined by the law), we have an incredibly broken system.

These bills wont pass LE is just as tired of all this fear mongering as we are. Law enforcement knows that the public registry is flawed and useless the way it is right now and it has to be broken down into tears so it can be manageable and make sense I keep people safe and track the people who need to be track and to make every single 288(a) case a tier 3 that’s 50% of the registry and then you got the tier 3 S.O that’s about 85% of the registry so basically even with the tier law the registry would completely stay the same.Misdemeanor 290 cases with a certificate of Rehabilitation could allways be taken off of the registry we all known that for years so there’s no way the state of California is going to take one step forward and two steps back I don’t see it happening

When men start compelling former government officials to testify by summons concerning the use of statutes containing the words “Was in prison for a crime” in registration violation cases things will start changing.

that so many registrants refuse to acknowledge their plain indenture by mass protest in D.C. says a lot about the bunch. Complaining to fed courts has its limitations. Observe the state of Michigan. Their state’s Congress unmoved by declaration. Their ability to move intact but the state’s legislature is hard against limiting governmental utilization of database for public safety. Indeed efficacy proven considering “aid to law enforcement” but not before a crime done only subsequent is SORNA effective.

Sounds like the assembly hate mongers are getting ready for battle against the tiered registry. They are probably suspecting the new governor might be sensible and reasonable and that worries them. The CA state legislature has so many problems in CA that they don’t know how to deal with (massive homelessness, soaring housing cost, worst fires in history, water shortage, traffic, energy efficiency). These problems take ingenuity, insight, research, time investment, and inspiration to solve. Obviously the legislature is severely lacking in these areas, so better to scream “Get the Sex Offenders!!” and constituents will really think they are doing something for the state. Gavin Newsome is smart, and has some understanding of human nature. I don’t think he will give in to the emotional knee-jerk of these simple minded politicians.

Does anyone know if this includes attempts? I know a huge number of us are internet sting cases. I wonder if this only includes actual commissions of the crime.

Janice, I love reading what you write. You are so inspirational! Thank you for everything you do. We are blessed to have you fighting for us and with us!

Well state Janice. I do have a few questions regarding SB 384? There is a big difference between PC 243.4 A Felony and misdemeanor. I would imagine if the charge is reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B, it’s legitimately a misdemeanor? This is the difference between a Tier 3 and 1! Expunged?

Okay, I am confused. Thoroughly confused.

Full Disclosure: Am here in Connecticut

So wait a second. I know how States’ enact SORNA Laws far more aggressive than the Federal SORNA Requirement.

Now, isn’t this an argument about an important thing. That thing is when a person has FULFILLED a SORNA requirement in terms of Registration (10 years) and now these states want to dial this pack and say “anyone who has ever been in history convicted, regardless of the SORNA fulfilment must now re-register based on California??? WTF?

Great job Janice. I do have a question/I’ve never seen this topic. SB 384 is coming. How does SB 384 affect those who have had their offenses reduced to a misdemeanor? (17B). Ie: battery reduced to a misdemeanor makes a huge difference. Also, what if you had a 288 misdemeanor expunged? Anybody have clear understanding of this? Or, what if you had a felony reduced to a misdemeanor and later expunged?

Interesting. I imagine per the law that if your charge is reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 B, for all intense purposes you have never been convicted of a felony and your gun rights can be reinstated as well FYI

Intriguing. I (Janice Comment) can possibly understand if a Felony is expunged, but the 17B is a must. It’s clearly noted in the law. What do you mean by they won’t implement regulations for the tiered registry (in layman terms)? Thank you

Well stated Benny! I’ll bet 1000000/1 they must respect the reduction pursuant to 17B! It’s the law! I might only wonder about if a Felony is expunged? Most layers recommend having the wobbler reduced to a misdemeanor and later expunged for this purpose. This is clearly stated. Please keep us posted Janice and I think God you exist. My plea was a PC 243.4 A reduced per 17B and later expunged with Summary Probation.

Well stated D! I concur

Approaching the registry and fighting it differently. Why not go after the outrageous to make a point of clarity on how outrageous having a registry is. Fight to allow registrants to be able to carry firearms (CCW-Conceal Carry Weapons). We have many cases of violence against registrants and there families. If they push laws to exclude to applying relief bc of being a registrant then way not seek to have amended laws that keep them from protecting themselves like that of acquiring a CCW? Perhaps the fight for such will loosen the nuse applied elsewhere…

Well stated Benny. I have no doubt the 17B will prevail. The law is very well stated regarding this. Now, if you had your felony expunged, that could make a big difference. It’s been years, but this is an interesting note:

[7] A “wobbler” still may be reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17(b) even after the case is dismissed under section 1203.4. See Meyer v. Superior Court in and For Sacramento County (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 133.

So, there you go! I remember (21-22 years for me) when the Megan’s Website first came out. I was on it for 1 day. I called and they removed me because of the misdemeanor

Balance! Balance!! You ADVOCATE balance! That is the entire problem with the thrust of this group! You think BALANCE is perfectly good for registration, that registration is OK at minimum for many.

You are thinking wrong, and that is why we got a BS tiered registry bill and why these bills for more and harsher registration continue — because this group hysterically advocated and cheerleaded for a horrible bill that for some even increased the time of registration from 7 to 10 years minimum but possibly more and which will not provide the promised relief for many when it finally takes effect.

Registration is not OK for ANYONE! That is what probation and parole is for, those by law are the test of whether someone is reformed.

What this group did in cheerleading on that BS tiered registry bill gives the foundation for these bills that basically advocate hate and sadism. We already said it is OK to have registration and to apply it worse to some and even lifetime for others — so why should these bills not say similar? This group hysterically advocated and cheerleaded that tiered registry bill and those distinctions.

It is ludicrous to argue over a bill about whether a parolee can travel 50 miles or 150 miles rather than argue that the parolee should not even be subject to registration, they already are more closely monitored by parole itself – and if they weren’t registering, the bill would not even apply to them!

You don’t ever see this — because this group has taken the stance by what it supports that registration is OK at least for many, this group has supported that distinction as it hysterically and very wrongly advocated for the tiered registry that sets up all the same qualifications as a COR.

Worse yet, there was no real challenge to bringing in the computerized decision of whether someone is safe to even stop registering under the bill — that is an extremely dangerous thing to accept, that PRETENDS to be science, but it is rife with prejudice and has not even been subjected to a legitimate vetting. For instance, if you are single, not married, it judges you as that much more likely to reoffend. It will stand in court as effectively unchallengeable, as the most expert of expert witnesses – that’s why the haters want it.

Think, how can you be offense-free for 10 years, for 20 years, yet have that thing judge you as likely to reoffend?! The test of time is the best test of all — and that is the time set for probation or parole. Five years is the time frame SCIENCE has found after which recidivism rates plunge dramatically, leaving relatively few likely to reoffend — and we advocated at least 10 years for the most minor of offenses, for many 20 years, but then let this BS computer model override that anyway. To substitute some BS computerized prejudice to override proof positive of the test of time — I cannot say how stupid it was not to raise hell about that.

So of course, after the BS tiered registry bill, we will continue to have bill after bill, and worse going forward when the progressive movement of today is over before long. The advocacy of this group supports making distinctions for sex offenders in these new bills. This group let itself be co-opted by the ACLU, which has NEVER opposed registration in all these years and does not now; it at best merely opposes some of the worst things, and for those only seeking half measures.

And I mention Los Angeles DA Jacki Lacie, whom this group touted as our hero for the tiered registry, only last week taking to screaming “Sex offenders, Sex offenders” when criticized for her harsh approach on prosecutions in a topic not even about sex offenders! She is one of those to hype up and exploit such scare tactics at our loss just to divert attention! I told you she was not our friend, was the enemy! She’s out here screaming “Sex offenders,” one of those hyping things up against us. No wonder she wanted this BS tiered registry — it does a LOT less than meets the eye, its design was to actually prevent something that actually would be good — this group supported the best tactic to deny us!

What this group should at least do now is jump into this progressive movement and strongly advocate to eliminate registration for ALL misdemeanors, but without ever indicating it is OK for anyone else — how can mere poor demeanor be “dangerous,” by law and definition it is minor. Even if they were to reoffend, it would be only a MINOR issue, maybe offensive but not a danger — not that that makes it at all acceptable, but it should not be subjected to registration. But again, giving misdemeanants probation as the test is OK if ending that registration with an expungement, although to register while on probation is simply redundancy and pointless expense.

A minor offense is not one to justify registration, which is always justified on the basis of DANGER. In fact, until the Clinton administration, with Hillary Clinton’s choice of attorney general, made registration a national requirement, successfully completing probation and so obtaining an expungement was the standard to stop registering — in other words, lower level offenses never did face lifetime registration! Point this out, that was never done before this hysteria. And it was never 10 years either, it was the time of probation, a year, maybe a few years.

That expungement route to relief was overridden when the registration laws, and their new requirements, were made retroactive and the expungement route was very quietly eliminated at that same time — the two together taking away the relief that already had been earned and given.

Simply eliminating that retroactivity would return the relief from registration all those people already earned and were granted! They would not have to fear a computer saying otherwise, or loony district attorney challenging them. Even those who do not live in California any more would get the relief (the tiered registry bill requires California residency as you must be doing your registration here in order to qualify).

Stop all registration for misdemeanors. At minimum! Whether new offenses or old ones. Or, at minimum, make an expungement provide relief from registration once again – serious offenders do not get probation, although some low level felons do.

Stop all registration for non-violent felons. Stop registration for anyone, that is what parole and probation is for. In fact, if they are that bad, obviously they should not even be in the criminal system, they should never have been prosecuted, or imprisoned, they should have been handled by the medical system instead, if you actually believe in a “correctional system” — what they did was a symptom, even if tragic, not a crime.

That is, start the elimination of registration — start moving up the ladder. For god’s sake, if you think registration is broken, how can you think it is OK for misdemeanors?! In the tiered registry debate, they said registration is broken. Eliminating it for misdemeanors should not be big deal, that is about the most broken thing about registration — even federal registration does not require registration for misdemeanors! In fact, eliminate registration for all offenses for which the federal government does not require it — as I had advocate from day one or this group.

Hi, what i believe is the government. Is keeping everyone side tracked on all these little things to us busy fighting and not seeing the truth! People there are studies by every state and government that shows recidivism is below 4.7% they know this and don’t want anyone to know this because the registry is about money nothing more & the report the legislature used to enacted these laws has retracted his paper & did an actual study n guess what? His shows recidivism below 4.5%, so why doesn’t everyone find an make copies and blast this on every media source and bring it to the legislature to take the registry down & what they did is defined by law is FRAUD and they can be sued for that according to the law!

36
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.