ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Assembly Appropriations Committee to Consider Senate Bill 145 on August 20

The Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 145 (SB 145) on August 20, 2020 on the Assembly floor starting at 10 a.m.. The Committee will consider more than 100 bills during that hearing and seating for the hearing will be very limited. The public can view the hearing on the Assembly’s website at https://www.assembly.ca.gov/todaysevents.

If passed, SB 145 would exempt from mandatory registration individuals convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only offense requiring the person to register. Judges would retain discretion to require registration if he or she believes registration would be appropriate.

“ACSOL has supported SB 145 in the past and continues to support that bill,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We thank those who have testified in favor of the bill in the past and note that there will be limited opportunities to testify in support of or in opposition to the bill during this week’s hearing.”

Sen. Scott Wiener is author of this bill as well as the Tiered Registry Bill that was passed by the legislature in 2017 and becomes effective in 2021. The Senator has received threats of violence for his authorship of SB 145. The threats are from individuals who believe the bill will lead to or increase homosexual behavior.

Join the discussion

  1. Brandon

    What’s so frightening about liking the same sex? If that’s the sexual orientation of the individuals involved and are happy who cares. How many are involved in abusive relationships that are far worse and not a peep out of people? I hope Senator Weiner continues to stand up against the monsters of today.

  2. SR

    I hope this bill passes… That is if it stays clean and they don’t cram something stupid into it after the fact like they’ve done before.

    • LWC PianoMan55

      I have been observing the efforts of groups such as this one, CURE, Texas Voices , Women Against The Regisyry, and many others. The efforts are commendable and I applaud the changes which each group is attempting to effect.
      In May 2017 (my memory is failing, so that is give or take a year), my therapist, a LSOTP, and 3 others presented all the evidence we could in the time allowed. The subject was enacting a Residency Restriction Ordinance.
      We thought we had driven home the point and felt fairly confident that the proposal would be defeated. The discussion which followed our presentation seemed positive, against the enactment.
      To our dismay, the Ordinance passed. Following the meeting we cornered 3 City Counsel members, separately, and asked why, in the face of the statistics and opposing evidence given, did they decide to enact it. From all 3, we received the same three-word reply, “To get the votes”. One did add that he had no desire to commit political suicide.
      I served 20 years in Texas, day for day, for one offense. But, that one offense was one too many and has eaten me alive every day of the past 30 years. I am 71 years old, and because there were two victims, I must register every 90 days for life.
      I did not receive two 20 year sentences; I received life without parole, metaphorically speaking.
      I am not associated with any organizations, although I receive newsletters from some. Even though I am adept at conversing with legislators, and present well-organized, easy to read and follow, documentation, many on both sides of the now widely separated aisle, they seem amazed at the low recidivism rates and the ways in which the laws are a waste, to state in generally.
      It intimately falls on deaf ears. I finally gave up because they all fear speaking up for what they know is right and wrong because none wish to risk losing the next election.
      The problem, as I see it, is not influencing the legislatures, but changing public perception. When public perception changes, and they come to see that we are not all a bunch of irredeemable perverts who cannot be rehabilitated, I do not believe that the mood and tenor of the lawmakers will change. The public demands harsher laws, so the legis attempt to pacify their constituents by enacting useless laws. It is like The Peter Principle: people who have reached their highest level of incompetence, so in order to justify their position and jobs, begin churning out useless, meaningless rules and regulations, whether they make sense or not. They figure that at least they are doing something, even if it is wrong, hurtful, and destructive.

  3. JAB

    @JaniceBellucci, do you need us to do anything? Write or fax support for it? JAB

  4. MATTHEW

    Yet, those who have pictures of underage that are slightly younger, are still required.. That is not to say this is progress nor do am I complaining. Just frustrated I guess.

  5. Tim in WI

    100+ bills???? So many great ideas all generated by computer and software. If a law is worth having, it aughta be written by human hand.

  6. A.D.A.T.

    So if I understand this correctly, the bill moves the age of irresponsibility as a defense up to about 27. And that means a 24 year old can possess C.P. Involving a 16 yr old and most probably wouldn’t suffer the registration. Wow, that Stanford student should watch this one closely, because campus party sex just might become legal.

  7. Dustin

    It might sound reasonable in principle, but this seems a rather useless bill to me. Allowing judges to use their discretion on a case-by-case basis will not accomplish what was sought in the first place. Judges are elected and every bit as political and swayed by public opinion as the legislators accurately described by LWC PianoMan55 above. Indeed, the politics of the moment will decide far more discretionary rulings this week than justice and the search for truth will in the next ten years.

    Very few elected judges will use their discretion in favor of those convicted for or accused of sex crimes. Likewise many appointed ones, particularly if they aspire to be appointed to higher courts or don’t want such discretion to reflect on the governor or president that appointed them.

    Plus there are a good many “hanging judges” who like to impose the maximum penalty for every case that comes to them (guilty or not) for no other reason than they can. Not to mention that no state wants to reduce its registry as long as SORNA grants keep coming in. We may be able to claim a moral victory should the bill pass, but the impact on the growth rate of California’s registry population will be negligible at best.

    If this bill was a step toward abolishing the registry en totem, then I’d be all for it. But I cannot shake the feeling that supporting a change to the registry implicitly acknowledges the “need for” the registry, for which there is none. With or without this change, the registry remains the epitome of government waste – astronomical costs and administration while not providing one single benefit for registrants, victims, or society as a whole. Such amendments, tweaks, or modifications are strictly cosmetic and change absolutely nothing. Metaphorically speaking, it’s like saying your car will go faster if you paint it a different color and get better gas mileage if you add a pinstripe.

    • Russ

      I disagree. If my judge was allowed to use his discretion, I wouldn’t have gone to prison on a 3 year mandatory minimum cp possession offense. The larger problem is the prosecutors having too much power.

      • Dustin @ Russ:

        The larger problem you address would be mostly solved if judges would stop rubber stamping everything the DA puts in front of them.

      • Joe

        Why should you not go to prison for having child pornography?

        • Confused Man

          Two arguments:

          1. First amendment. Do you want the state regulating what media you are allowed to own? I don’t find this argument very persuasive, but it’s why we eliminated other smut laws. Should those go back on the books? The US has the most permissive media laws in the world, aside from CP—many of the violent B movies we enjoyed on VHS in the 80s were banned in Europe—in England these were called “video nasties” and were heavily restricted through the 90s.

          2. Even if you think the state has a compelling case for regulating some media ownership, is this something for which we should prioritize prison? If, upon investigation of CP possession, no other statutes appear to have been violated, what is the case for incarceration over probation?

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          Because we were once a free country and because seeing words and images should not be a crime.

    • NPS

      Yeah, it is useless. The judge in my case used his discretion under 290.006 for an offense that isn’t even registrable. Well, here I am registering for a non-registrable misdemeanor even after a 1203.4.

      If anything, this will just give judges a green light to force more people to register.

      • James I

        Joe:

        “Why should you not go to prison for having child pornography?”

        Because it is stupid…?

        James I

    • Will Allen

      I completely agree with your “supporting a change to the registry implicitly acknowledges” statement. However, what is the alternative? The Registries are insanely immoral. If there is a way to make them less immoral, shouldn’t it be done?

      I can think of no better example than the “tiering” that was recently done in CA. Yes, it is wonderful to reduce the burden/crimes being committed against as many People Forced to Register as possible. But, it also signifies that some people think the Registries can be “fixed” or that we can make the giant pile of feces beautiful and useful. That message is inaccurate and should always be corrected.

      Given that, I really think it would be great if all anti-Hit List organizations all throughout the country would all agree on some easily identifiable symbol that everyone would always use. If actual millions of people used it all the time, it would come to be recognized. And your average know-nothing on the street would understand there is a war and terrorism occurring within America. They would at least understand why America is such a hateful place.

      Maybe the luminaries of the various organizations could form a committee together to run a contest to adopt something? If millions of us united, there would be force. Instead, most people today think there is little opposition to the Registries. Some people might think there are a small number of anti-Registry organizations. Most people don’t even see comments from the individual crazies like me and they surely think there are few of us.

      Also, as I’ve said before, I think all communications from all the various organizations should be tagged with an anti-terrorism message. Maybe put it at the bottom of every page? And every single person could attach it to every writing. People need to see some consistent message repeatedly, for years, to understand there is real opposition and war. The organizations could run a contest for that as well. Here’s my first entry (with little effort, lol (yet)):

      Stop Terrorism!

      Sex Offense Registries have not protected anyone, aren’t needed, aren’t useful, are counterproductive, harm all of America, and put all Americans in more danger than they would be if they didn’t exist. Registries are domestic terrorism. The people who support them are domestic terrorists and/or grifters.

      Registries have been neutralized. They must be ended. Stop terrorism.

  8. Brandon

    I believe it was Judith Levine that stated, politicians And judges believe that registration is useless; but are to afraid to do the right thing. To bad they didn’t that 25 years ago before they focused way to much on sex.

    • Dustin @ Brandon

      I always found it ironic that Megan Kanka’s DEATH didn’t inspire nearly as much outrage as the fact that she was sexually assaulted. Yet, no lifetime punishments, registration, et al. for those who have killed children without sexually abusing them. I suspect if Adam Walsh’s murderer hadn’t died in prison, he’d be in society by now and not subjected to anything near what registrants have to go through.

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 *

.