Committees within the California legislature have begun the process of scheduling consideration of bills of importance to registrants and their loved ones. Click on the bills to see what you can do:
This AB277 has me totally at a loss for words. How in this day and age of discrimination awareness can supposedly rationale people sit down and say that the person who sets a wildfire that burns 1000 homes and kills firefighters, or the person who sells cocaine to a child, or the person who puts a gun in the face of a 19 year old bank teller–that all these people are less risk then some who might not have actually even had contact with another person. And the outrageous absurdity of grouping all people who are charged with a sex offense in the same category just has me stymied. A person who looks at CP or the person accused of the morning after remorse offense and a person who does a violent act like kidnapping have nothing in common. There is no more relationship to them then the person who abuses prescription drugs and being a member of the cartel. It is just insanity and outright stupidity–or the only other thing it could be is corruption, that something else is driving this ludicrous thinking of the politicians.
Laura
Guest
March 4, 2019 2:24 pm
Would someone tell me what exactly are “reintegration credits to parolees”?
Tom
Guest
March 5, 2019 12:56 pm
AB 884 – Oppose:
The third bill of importance to registrants and their loved ones is AB 884 which does not yet have a hearing date. This bill would assign to Tier 3 individuals convicted of violating PC 288(a), lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14.
I just looked this up on the legislative website, can someone give me a better URL? Does this also include 488(c)
ReadyToFight
Guest
March 5, 2019 6:26 pm
This AB 884 is exactly what many registrants on a Tier have warned us about. Playing with the lives of 40% of the RC population. More should have been done to secure what we already have in place! This is something that will have rippling effects on registrants and their families if it passes.
Tim Moore
Guest
March 6, 2019 9:29 pm
Some Twitter addresses for you:
@JonesSawyer59 (chair, Assembly PSC)
@NancySkinnerCA (chair, Senate PSC)
@asmMelendez (author of AB 884)
Be factual, be courteous.
I know phone calling is better, but I didn’t do that.
Here is my email:
I hope you will include 290s in AB 277. I understand the political optics are terrible.
290s get the longest, most grinding parole term possible, even while they are among the lowest risk offenders. I’m sure you already know this. First time, low-risk offenders are routinely given 20 year parole periods.
Perhaps you could make a proviso that under no circumstance would a 290’s parole period be less than 5 years under this bill? I hope that someone finds the political courage.
David
Guest
March 11, 2019 10:20 am
Here’s an easy phone list.
Please make the calls!!
California State Assembly
Public Safety Committee FY18-19
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair)
(916) 319-2059
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair)
(916) 319-2036
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
(916) 319-2016
Tyler Diep
(916) 319-2072
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
(916) 319-2054
Bill Quirk
(916) 319-2020
Miguel Santiago
(916) 319-2053
Buffy Wicks
(916) 319-2015
Roger
Guest
March 12, 2019 5:03 pm
We are planning to send more action alerts on SB 145 and AB 884.
Be sure to subscribe.
jesse
Guest
March 29, 2019 4:07 pm
SB 145 is not a LGBT bill. It addresses certain conduct that affects males, females, gay and straight likewise.
I can just see Tommy Quarterback say to Suzie Cheerleader: “no you cannot give me a bj, we can only have vaginal sex… while that is a crime at least I won’t have to register for the rest of my life as a sex offender”. To sell it as sexual orientation is dishonest.
The real problem is that it is a crime in the first place to have relationship with a willing 16/17 year old (of any gender or sexual orientation) – a person old enough to be prosecuted for anything, be prosecuted as an adult for years, old enough to operate a 2-ton motor vehicle, hold legal employment, get married (with parental consent) and then legally engage in the offending activity (!?!?!?), old enough to enlist in the military (with parental consent), etc etc.
That it this is even a crime is absurd. That certain relationshippy activities with such a person come with mandatory sex offender registration boggles the mind.
The sex offender registry is a steaming pile of dung and any efforts to amend these ancient laws (Oral Copulation to this day is in the “Crimes against Nature” section) is polishing a turd – nothing more and nothing less.
Equally absurd is SB 884. It is entirely offense based (other than that ridiculous Static-99 provision) – and the Tiers make zero sense.
A real life example. There is a registrant in Lancaster who apparently had a relationship with a 17 year old male (can be googled). Convictions are for 286(b)(1) (Sodomy with Minor under 18) -> Tier 1, and 288.4(b) (Go to arranged meeting with intent to commit a sex offense (the above mentioned 286(b)(1) -> Tier 3.
So, real slow…. for having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old he is placed in Tier 1, for arranging to have the very sexual relationship with a 17 year that places him in Tier 1 old he is placed in Tier 3.
For arranging to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old he is placed Tier 3, but we are trying to make the argument that someone who actually had a sexual relationship with a 12 year old should be in Tier 2? Please!
All the while someone who murders a child is not required to register at all. WTF?!?!?
Mind you, none of this affects me in any way. I could not be more sympathetic and in agreement that people who have been in this nightmare for decades need to get their lives back. But this is not the way to do it. The tiered registry was marginal to begin with as introduced and has turned more bizarre with every turn in the legislative process.
Again, the sex offender registry is a steaming pile. Any effort to amend it, and amend it piecemeal and poorly is polishing a turd. I am not in support of this.
This AB277 has me totally at a loss for words. How in this day and age of discrimination awareness can supposedly rationale people sit down and say that the person who sets a wildfire that burns 1000 homes and kills firefighters, or the person who sells cocaine to a child, or the person who puts a gun in the face of a 19 year old bank teller–that all these people are less risk then some who might not have actually even had contact with another person. And the outrageous absurdity of grouping all people who are charged with a sex offense in the same category just has me stymied. A person who looks at CP or the person accused of the morning after remorse offense and a person who does a violent act like kidnapping have nothing in common. There is no more relationship to them then the person who abuses prescription drugs and being a member of the cartel. It is just insanity and outright stupidity–or the only other thing it could be is corruption, that something else is driving this ludicrous thinking of the politicians.
Would someone tell me what exactly are “reintegration credits to parolees”?
AB 884 – Oppose:
The third bill of importance to registrants and their loved ones is AB 884 which does not yet have a hearing date. This bill would assign to Tier 3 individuals convicted of violating PC 288(a), lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14.
I just looked this up on the legislative website, can someone give me a better URL? Does this also include 488(c)
This AB 884 is exactly what many registrants on a Tier have warned us about. Playing with the lives of 40% of the RC population. More should have been done to secure what we already have in place! This is something that will have rippling effects on registrants and their families if it passes.
Some Twitter addresses for you:
@JonesSawyer59 (chair, Assembly PSC)
@NancySkinnerCA (chair, Senate PSC)
@asmMelendez (author of AB 884)
Be factual, be courteous.
I sent an email to the assembly chair. It hasn’t bounced yet so I assume it went through
assemblymember.jones-sawyer@assembly.ca.gov
I know phone calling is better, but I didn’t do that.
Here is my email:
I hope you will include 290s in AB 277. I understand the political optics are terrible.
290s get the longest, most grinding parole term possible, even while they are among the lowest risk offenders. I’m sure you already know this. First time, low-risk offenders are routinely given 20 year parole periods.
Perhaps you could make a proviso that under no circumstance would a 290’s parole period be less than 5 years under this bill? I hope that someone finds the political courage.
Here’s an easy phone list.
Please make the calls!!
California State Assembly
Public Safety Committee FY18-19
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair)
(916) 319-2059
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair)
(916) 319-2036
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
(916) 319-2016
Tyler Diep
(916) 319-2072
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
(916) 319-2054
Bill Quirk
(916) 319-2020
Miguel Santiago
(916) 319-2053
Buffy Wicks
(916) 319-2015
We are planning to send more action alerts on SB 145 and AB 884.
Be sure to subscribe.
SB 145 is not a LGBT bill. It addresses certain conduct that affects males, females, gay and straight likewise.
I can just see Tommy Quarterback say to Suzie Cheerleader: “no you cannot give me a bj, we can only have vaginal sex… while that is a crime at least I won’t have to register for the rest of my life as a sex offender”. To sell it as sexual orientation is dishonest.
The real problem is that it is a crime in the first place to have relationship with a willing 16/17 year old (of any gender or sexual orientation) – a person old enough to be prosecuted for anything, be prosecuted as an adult for years, old enough to operate a 2-ton motor vehicle, hold legal employment, get married (with parental consent) and then legally engage in the offending activity (!?!?!?), old enough to enlist in the military (with parental consent), etc etc.
That it this is even a crime is absurd. That certain relationshippy activities with such a person come with mandatory sex offender registration boggles the mind.
The sex offender registry is a steaming pile of dung and any efforts to amend these ancient laws (Oral Copulation to this day is in the “Crimes against Nature” section) is polishing a turd – nothing more and nothing less.
Equally absurd is SB 884. It is entirely offense based (other than that ridiculous Static-99 provision) – and the Tiers make zero sense.
A real life example. There is a registrant in Lancaster who apparently had a relationship with a 17 year old male (can be googled). Convictions are for 286(b)(1) (Sodomy with Minor under 18) -> Tier 1, and 288.4(b) (Go to arranged meeting with intent to commit a sex offense (the above mentioned 286(b)(1) -> Tier 3.
So, real slow…. for having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old he is placed in Tier 1, for arranging to have the very sexual relationship with a 17 year that places him in Tier 1 old he is placed in Tier 3.
For arranging to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old he is placed Tier 3, but we are trying to make the argument that someone who actually had a sexual relationship with a 12 year old should be in Tier 2? Please!
All the while someone who murders a child is not required to register at all. WTF?!?!?
Mind you, none of this affects me in any way. I could not be more sympathetic and in agreement that people who have been in this nightmare for decades need to get their lives back. But this is not the way to do it. The tiered registry was marginal to begin with as introduced and has turned more bizarre with every turn in the legislative process.
Again, the sex offender registry is a steaming pile. Any effort to amend it, and amend it piecemeal and poorly is polishing a turd. I am not in support of this.