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


Number of CA Registrants Tops 110,000 Mark

The current number of individuals required to register in the state of California exceeds 110,000 for the first time, according to a presentation made during today’s CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) meeting. The total number is 110,003 which includes 77,895 individuals who are living in the community as well as 22,379 in state prisons and 953 in a state hospital. The number of individuals in county jails and other locations is unknown.

“The rate at which the registry continues to grow in California is alarming,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “California residents now constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of individuals required to register in the entire nation.”

According to different presenters at the board meeting, there are currently 6,409 registrants who live in the community, but who have no fixed address and are considered “transients”. Of that total, there are 1,577 “transients” who are in violation due to failure to register. In addition, there are 6,179 registrants on parole of which 3,303 are considered high risk.

The future implementation of the Tiered Registry Law, which is scheduled to become effective in 2021, was discussed briefly during the CASOMB meeting. The CA Department of Justice is currently discussing implementation in statewide “stakeholder meetings” limited to law enforcement officers and judges. The agency may meet with criminal defense attorneys and civil rights organizations at a later time. As part of its implementation of the new law, the CA Department of Justice expects to hire 60 new employees.

Also during the CASOMB meeting, the results of recently completed research regarding women who are required to register was released. There are currently 1,699 women on the state’s registry and of that total, there were 77 women who committed a subsequent sex offense. Because of the low re-offense rate, the author of the research concluded that all women on the registry should be treated as low risk.

Finally, a report was presented regarding an in-prison treatment program at Corcoran State Prison for some of the inmates required to register. The program began in 2016 and inmates who have less than 13 months remaining to serve, have a Static 99 score of 4 or higher, and are not serving an indeterminate term are mandated to attend. So far, a total of 158 inmates have completed the program. Because the program is considered to be successful, plans are being made to expand it to other prisons.

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    “There are currently 1,699 women on the state’s registry and of that total, there were 77 women who committed a subsequent sex offense. Because of the low re-offense rate, the author of the research concluded that all women on the registry should be treated as low risk.”

    What where the men’s rate? This is 4.5%. Pretty much all studies I’ve seen place everyone on the registry at or below this. So why should only women be automatically treated as low risk when there’s literally nothing different about their numbers than men’s?

    • Joe123

      Because: Double Standards in our society when it comes to handing down punishments.

      A 25 year old female teacher sleeping with a 16 year old male student is given a slap on the wrist.

      A 25 year old male teacher sleeping with a 16 year old female student gets calls a ‘Monster’, ‘Pedophile’, ‘Rapist’, ‘Worse than any Murderer’.

      Welcome to the USA, one of the most oppressive regimes on earth.

      • NPS

        Since when was being put on the registry a slap on the wrist?

        • RegistrantNotAnOffender

          What is ironic is that you posted on bere a couple weeks ago that women can’t be predators and don’t reoffend.

        • NPS


          No Mr.RNaO, I said my therapist stated emphatically that women do not re-offend and are not predatory. Of those 77 women who committed a new sex offense, (remember, failure to register is considered committing a new sex offense) how much of it was truly due to predatory behavior.

          Nothing ironic about that since the CASOMB agrees that women should be considered low-level.

          I don’t like you. It seems you’re trying to create a battle of the sexes among registrants. It’s a fruitless battle so don’t continue it.

        • NPS

          Nice try. You’re fudging numbers, American Detained.

          If 5.3% is the number for re-offense (and that is not twice the amount of 4.5%), that includes both male and female registrants. The 2.7% (it increased) is the rate for those on parole. Again, no breakdown between male and female. It could be both. I know you’re trying hard to say that women are worse than men, but you don’t have the figures to make that assertion. What CASOMB should do is look at the rate of reoffense among males and females (which they already have) and further break down that 2.7% of parolees who reoffend between male and female.

        • Joe

          No stupider word than “predator”. Why is “predator” only used in the legal jargon in a sex context?

          A young man trying to hook up with several people (who may even be legal in the next state over), or a teacher having a relationship with a student is a predator, but someone who lays waste to entire neighborhoods by selling drugs, or devastates the lives of the elderly by swindling them out of their life savings – not?

        • Joe

          @NPS – I have been meaning to ask you for clarification…. if I am mis-remembering, or someone made those statements using your handle, never mind and apologies.

          I seem to remember statements by @NPS like “I am not a sex offender” and “I am required to register under PC 290” or something to that effect. What does that mean, exactly? If you are required to register as a sex offender, but are not one, then who or what is?

        • AO @ Joe

          Joe, that statement is about us as a people. We’re all on the registry, but we’re not sex offenders anymore. We’re people that committed an offense but are not doing so now (for anyone reading this, please don’t get into semantics about yourself personally and whether or not you’re actually guilty). You probably seen many people on here use the term RC or Register Citizen in place of SO or Sex Offender. Words and labels are important and have a lot of power.

        • RegistrantNotAnOffender

          I don’t care if you like me. Stop posting misinformation, my baby sitter molested me and then was busted publicly for it years later. Don’t tell me women don’t reoffend, that’s something you say to feel better about yourself and your sins.

      • RegistrantNotAnOffender

        But you’re right I got a year for text messages and a colleague got six months for having sex with a student when neither of us had any record.

        • American Detained in America

          I got 2 years for a fictitious victim when I even said in the chat that I didn’t believe they were a girl. There is no common sense in these laws.

          I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed the numbers on the women…they commit new sex crimes twice as often as men!

      • FairLaws

        I remember that post she says her therapist said she is not a sex offender. There is no such thing among therapist as labeling someone a sex offender or not, they leave that for the courts to decide.

  2. Bob

    Is there a place where minutes or recordings for these meetings are kept?

  3. ab

    Would love to know the number who is on county probation, federal supervised release, and a breakdown by offense (whether they are state, county, or federal) of everyone required to register in the California.

  4. mot

    Has there ever been a study of those who are on the Registry as the result of a crime that stemmed from a STING? The LE have for years made money from the Fed for running STINGS and in all cases there was never a true underage person involved. What would happen if the Registry were to be cleansed of all STING related offenders?

    • Joe123

      I bet you the vast majority are either sting operations, which should be unconstitutional at face value (LE is creating fake scenarios that don’t exist to try to lure people), and the other half would be the ‘worst of the worst’ which are viewers of underage porn (‘legal crimes’ that already happened in the past), the most dangerous offenders in the whole land apparently.

    • American Detained in America

      That is where the tiered registry is ridiculous…people with a fictitious victim are automatically Tier 3.

  5. David

    “The CA Department of Justice is currently discussing implementation in statewide “stakeholder meetings” limited to law enforcement officers and judges. The agency may meet with criminal defense attorneys and civil rights organizations at a later time.”
    Okay, I understand how L.E. and Defense Attorneys would be considered stakeholders – though I think the more accurate description would be “financial beneficiaries”, right? Judges – how are they stakeholders (except if they are seen as lenient on sex offender, the public will get its collective knickers in a twist)? Civil rights organizations? Well, we’re now getting warmer.
    So how about the most direct “stakeholders”: the Registrants themselves?? They are not allowed to speak for themselves or argue for their own rights??
    (But then the other direct stakeholders – the torch-and-pitchfork mobs will want their say …… though they and the pandering politicians have, by this time, had ample opportunity to vocally express themselves and press their torture down upon us.😡)

    Seriously, are immigrants’ rights groups comprised only of ICE officers, immigration lawyers, and the ACLU …… while failing to include the truest stakeholders: actual immigrants??

    It’s absurd that the individuals most affected by the group’s decisions are not permitted to be part of the discussion. Or is it that the L.E. representatives, judges (and probably “therapists” too) have that uneasy feeling that what they have been doing for so long is, at it’s foundation, wrong, both Constitutionally and morally? Do they fear facing those who they have knowingly oppressed?

  6. not knowing my math

    what are the % to this ?

    California has 39.54 million people and this is how many Rso out of 100 ?

    what the math?

    • American Detained in America

      approximately 0.28% of the population in California

      • Cool RC CA

        So pretty soon it will be 1% and everyone will know at least 1 person who is on the list. According to “Six degrees of separation”

  7. bob

    Cant wait for the registry to get to 250K here in cali then the loser lawmakers will see they created a problem, just right now they are to stupid to realize it…

  8. Timothy

    I’m starting to get pissed off concerning California’s impact upon my state of Wisconsin.
    What is the Gender ratio among the 110,000 persons on the Cali registry? Male :female.

  9. USA

    Well written article. The number of registrants here in Ca is out of hand. Just think about how many registrants are added each year? It’s now time to allow those who have Comitted just misdemeanors or expunged records to go on with their lives! So, meeting with law enforcement and Jusges is a good step! Comments regarding the women is a great point, but I also have read many articles in the past where women have committed similar or worst crimes then men and not required to register? I also think the new law regarding the gay proposal where vaginal intercourse didn’t occur to be troubling? I feel everyone should be treated both fairly and equally! Isn’t that what gay people are seeking otherwise? I think we just reform the process to make it easier to get removed via SB 384. In Summary, if you do this, this and this, a Judge has to confirm the process. Overall, I’m just so glad that Janice and company exist!

  10. C

    Wow, at this rate it won’t be long until we’re a formidable demographic and politicians are courting the sex offender vote.

  11. Agamemnon

    More than half of the registrants on parole are considered “high risk.”

    This makes their conditions considerably more difficult, including residency restrictions and MORE WEEKLY HRS IN SHARPER FUTURE, which makes finding and maintaining a job harder.

    I was considered low risk. Have my original signed conditions stating so. Then after my release, they told me I was now high risk. Had to sign new conditions. This was my first crime and I’ve had no violations.

    • AJ

      Wait a second…if recidivism is “frightening and high” and as high as 80%, shouldn’t ALL RCs be “high risk”? Once again, the State talks out of both sides of its mouth.

  12. "High Risk" B.S.

    That Static-99R is going to mess with a lot of people’s lives.

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 *