ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

Action ItemsCalifornia

Action Alerts: CA Legislative Committees to Review Important Bills [UPDATED 4/2]

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:

SB 145: Click here to learn how to SUPPORT SB 145

AB 884: Click here to learn how to OPPOSE AB 884

 

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    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.

  2. Laura

    Would someone tell me what exactly are “reintegration credits to parolees”?

    • Chris

      This bill would create a program under which the length of a parolee’s period of parole would be reduced through the successful completion of specified education, training, or treatment programs, or by participating in volunteer service, while adhering to the conditions of parole. The bill would make this program inapplicable to a person who is required to register as a sex offender. The bill would also increase the 50-mile travel restriction for a parolee who successfully participates in the program, subject to certain restrictions. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Board of Parole Hearings to adopt regulations to carry out the program.

      SECTION 1. Article 1.4 (commencing with Section 3007.5) is added to Chapter 8 of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Penal Code, to read:
      Article 1.4. Reintegration Credits
      3007.5. (a) A parolee serving a determinate period of parole is entitled to earn reintegration credits to reduce the term of that parole. This section does not apply to a person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290.
      (b) A parolee subject to lifetime parole may earn reintegration credits to advance the date of the parolee’s discharge review.
      (c) Reintegration credits shall be earned at the following rates for completing the following programs or activities while on parole:
      (1) (A) For the completion of an accredited academic program or course, as follows:
      (i) For a general equivalency high school diploma, 12 months of credit.
      (ii) For an associate’s degree, 12 months of credit.
      (iii) For a bachelor’s degree, 12 months of credit.
      (iv) For the completion of any quarter, trimester, or semester-long course taken towards an academic degree for which a passing grade was received and for which credit was not awarded for the completion of a degree, six weeks of credit.
      (B) For purposes of this paragraph, “accredited” means that the program or course is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the State of California.
      (2) For the completion of a certified career or technical education or training program or certificate, six months of credit. For purposes of this paragraph, “certified” means that the career or technical education or training program or certificate is offered by an institution that is approved, certified, or sponsored by a government agency or state-recognized professional licensing or certification body that licenses or certifies persons in a particular profession, occupation, trade, or career field.
      (3) For the completion of a cognitive behavioral treatment program, two months of credit.
      (4) For the completion of a substance abuse treatment program or residential treatment program that is not ordered by a court, three months of credit.
      (5) For the completion of a minimum of 12 voluntary service hours per month, 10 days of credit per month.
      (6) Reintegration credits may be awarded pursuant to this section for academic achievements completed while on parole in cases in which the parolee began the academic program during the period of incarceration.
      (d) Reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review shall be awarded at the annual review. The department shall reduce the period of parole imposed on a parolee pursuant to Section 3000 by the amount of reintegration credit awarded at the parolee’s annual review. Once awarded, earned credits shall not be revoked.
      (e) Any reintegration credits earned during the 12-month period before each annual review may, at the discretion of the parole agent, be revoked and not awarded only if a parolee has had a new arrest or a parole violation during that 12-month period.
      (f) A parolee may not be awarded more than 12 months of credit earned during a 12-month period. Excess credits earned in a 12-month period before an annual review shall not be awarded in a subsequent year.
      (g) In revoking earned credits, the parole agent shall utilize the Parole Violation Decision-Making Instrument described in Section 3768.3 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
      (h) A parolee shall be awarded retroactive credits pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (c) for educational or training programs that were completed during the parolee’s current period of parole but before the effective date of this section, subject to the restrictions in this section.
      (i) As used in this section, “voluntary service” means any time spent volunteering for a nonprofit or government agency, including time spent visiting prisons, jails, or juvenile detention facilities. Any volunteer activity shall be approved by a parole agent and documented by a site supervisor in a manner prescribed by the department.
      3007.55. (a) A parolee who successfully earns and is awarded any amount of reintegration credits pursuant to Section 3007.5 shall, except as prohibited by law and subject to the approval of the parole agent, have their 50-mile radius of restricted travel increased by 25 miles after each annual review during which credits are awarded.
      (b) The total restricted radius of travel authorized shall not exceed 125 miles.
      (c) An increase in travel area made pursuant to this section shall exclude any areas within 35 miles of a victim or witness described in subdivision (f) or (h) of Section 3003 and shall not authorize travel across state borders without a travel pass.
      3007.59. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Board of Parole Hearings shall adopt any regulations necessary to carry out this article.

  3. Tom

    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)

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Tom – Copies of bills are available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

    • Janice Bellucci

      Below is the “description” of AB 884 as stated in the bill which would assign anyone convicted of any or all subsection(s) of PC 288 to Tier 3.

      Existing law requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement agencies while residing, attending school, or working in the state. Willful failure to register, as required, is a crime. Existing law establishes 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, requiring registration for periods of at least 10 years, at least 20 years, and for life, respectively, for a conviction of specified sex offenses.
      Under existing law, a person convicted of willfully and lewdly committing any lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, under circumstances that do not include the use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is a tier 2 offender and is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. Under existing law, a person convicted of such an offense in 2 proceedings brought and tried separately or convicted of such an offense under circumstances that do include the use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person is a tier 3 offender and is subject to registration for life.
      This bill would make any person convicted of any violation of willfully and lewdly committing any lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, a tier 3 offender subject to lifetime registration.

      • Bobby

        @Janice, i don’t live in Cali, but this just sounds like the same thing us here in Michigan have been fighting about since 06, and 2011 and that was finally found to be punitive and unconstitutional at least for thoughs of us that were placed on it retroactively. Good Luck Cali.

      • Mr. D

        @Janice – thank you so much for your clarification of the proposed bill. Question, if someone was originally convicted of a 288 offense but the victim was 14 or 15 at the time of the offense, would this bill therefore not impact them if it passes?

  4. ReadyToFight

    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.

    • David

      @ ReadyToFight: “More should have been done”? How are YOU making sure that more IS being done? Are you writing letters and making phone calls?? Did you attend ACSOL’s recent Sacramento lobbying day? Please be a part of the solution, ReadyToFight.

  5. Tim Moore

    Some Twitter addresses for you:
    @JonesSawyer59 (chair, Assembly PSC)
    @NancySkinnerCA (chair, Senate PSC)
    @asmMelendez (author of AB 884)
    Be factual, be courteous.

    • rob

      Would our voices even be heard?

      • David

        @ rob: Yes, your voice absolutely does make a difference! And the phone calls are easy and only take a few minutes!

        (Typically, all they ask is: Do you support or oppose this Bill? Your name? Your city or zip code?
        [All calls matter, but they definitely pay extra attention to calls from their constituent district.])

  6. Chris

    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.

  7. David

    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

  8. Roger

    We are planning to send more action alerts on SB 145 and AB 884.

    Be sure to subscribe.

  9. jesse

    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.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.