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.
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.