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.
“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?
Is there a place where minutes or recordings for these meetings are kept?
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.
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?
“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?
what are the % to this ?
California has 39.54 million people and this is how many Rso out of 100 ?
what the math?
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…
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.
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!
Wow, at this rate it won’t be long until we’re a formidable demographic and politicians are courting the sex offender vote.
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.
That Static-99R is going to mess with a lot of people’s lives.