ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


CA: California Courts Temporarily Change Rules To Ease Stress On System

[ – 4/7/20]

California’s court system, the nation’s largest, announced a series of emergency measures this week to address vulnerabilities related to the coronavirus pandemic.

The 11 emergency measures include temporarily eliminating bail for defendants charged with misdemeanors and most nonviolent felonies, conducting pretrial hearings remotely, and placing new limits on evictions and foreclosures. The California Judicial Council adopted the changes Monday. It’s the policy making arm of the state’s courts.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye says the moves aim to reduce jail populations and protect Californians from losing their homes during the Coronavirus pandemic.

“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent,” Cantil-Sakauye, chair of the council, said. “And to say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.”

The most important emergency measure sets bail statewide at $0 for most misdemeanors and lower-level felony offenses. It does not apply to violent felonies or to felonies that include sex offender crimes, domestic violence, stalking, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Read the full article


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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Quote from the article:

“Times of crisis necessarily test our moral compass and remind us of the need to stand up for those most vulnerable and create greater visibility for those least empowered in our communities,” said Miriam Aroni Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor and now executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution.

That is so true but how disappointing that it is often applied with the caveat: ….except for those convicted of a sex offense.

Emergency shelter? No sex offenders. Disaster business loan? Sex offenders need not apply. Shut down most of government? Sex offenders better still register.

This is going to be an excellent measuring guide because if sex offenses don’t increase during this period it will be excellent data for legal arguments that easing restrictions have no relevance in recidivism.

Sex crimes are going up according to this post:

But the post also states: “An overwhelming majority of sexually abused children ― 93% ― are abused by someone they know and trust.”

Interesting stats given in the article. 67% were ID’d as family members and 79% of the 67% were in the same home. Meaning 33% were outside the family but in what category (which would be nice to know), e.g. teacher, clergy, LE, neighbor, et al? Also, 21% were either extended family or family members old enough to live on their own. With the basic data set provided, they should be able to break down or share if they do know which family member is standing accused or the others who are not family members. The data gathers sure seem to leave data out that seems to be desired for a full picture if they have it. Of course, if they go too deep into usable data, it might show things which have been discussed here for ages about the reality of the data being espoused WRT to who is accused of doing what.

Does anyone see the point “It does not apply to violent felonies or to felonies that include sex offender crimes,…”? Whether one is a “person forced to register who is accused of another (sex?) crime (aka a recidivist)” or a “not on the registry sex crime accused person” is irrelevant. (Sex is noted this way since some folks label a person forced to register a recidivist regardless if they are accused again of a sex crime or something else not even related to it.) Easing these restrictions during this time when sex crime occurrences may or may not statistically change are not mutually inclusive. One may try to draw a correlation if alleged sex crimes go up during eased restrictions, but that would be hard to prove and easier to disprove unless one admits to that relationship specifically (and who would other than a sadist).

People are thinking “If the restrictions are eased, then people behave better”? As if you are child hoping your parent will see your fine behavior and reward you accordingly, e.g. if eased restrictions, then less accused sex crimes? If one can take the inverse, one is saying with harder restrictions then sex crimes allegedly are accused more frequently because people behave worse?

That nature of what is mentioned with this article is the list of those alleged crimes that are NOT under easing of restrictions vs a blanket policy of easing restrictions for all. That is where the focus should be with the comments, e.g. equal protection issue as I see it, vs being on good behavior at this time to prove something.

(The same can be said for those who are DV convicts, DUI convicts, etc. It does not fly. At this stressful time when liquor stores are deemed essential, one should try to look at this WRT DV and DUI as well as alcohol/drug related instances to see if there is a correlation.)

I’m certain “sex offender crimes” include such heinous transgressions as walking the dog after dark, having a 2nd serving of pie, and filling in the crossword with ink instead of pencil.

David I don’t know how it is out in CA but crime is always going to be crime. A lot of this sex offender stuff is the methods they go about doing these things. Using an int4ernet sounds a bit of an overcast or overthrow to the sixth power. Some form of lying or decitful action has to transpir and some form of an overthrow has to come about to overtake another. Talk about vain justice.

Anyone could put this together if they use comon wisdom and understanding but it seems at the time many are so paranoid that they can’t comprehend or rationalize in all this measure of truth and understanding in all this moral saga.

Thus public attorneys will in many cases throw in the towel as they want to be winners when D.A’s want to be winners so its actually comes down to principal in this tug of war, or what did Paul say in the Paline letters… If a man thinkest….wisdom and understanding go a long way. So actually who si guilty.. The one that induces or the one that seduces? One could even go as far as telephone sex with a minor if that is way above one’s understanding.

That shows you were justice is in all this party line system of true justice.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x