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.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.