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

CA: Newsom signs SB 145 intended to end discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions

[latimes.com – 9/11/20]

SACRAMENTO —  Discrimination against LGBTQ people in sex crime convictions will be outlawed under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom late Friday evening.

The measure, Senate Bill 145, will amend existing state law that allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having vaginal sexual intercourse with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 years or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Currently, adults who are convicted of having oral or anal sex with a minor under those circumstances are automatically added to the state’s sex offender registry. SB 145 will eliminate automatic sex offender registration in those cases and give judges discretion to make that decision.

Newsom’s decision to sign the legislation promises to have both a state and national political impact. Along with opposition from Republicans in the state Legislature, supporters of President Trump and far-right conspiracy theorists have seized on the bill in an attempt to use the measure as a political wedge issue and rallying cry, with some falsely claiming on social media that California is legalizing pedophilia.

Assemblyman Chad Mayes, an independent from Yucca Valley, warned fellow lawmakers about the potential political consequences just moments before he voted in favor of SB 145 on Aug. 31, the final night of the state legislative session.

“This is one of those bills you will take a political hit for,” said Mayes, who left the Republican Party in 2019. “But we also know that it’s righteous and just. This is the time to step up.”

Read the full article

 

Join the discussion

  1. SR

    Nice. People eay over focused on the 10 year gap. I cant imagine any judge would give a 24 year old a pass if they did that with a 14 year old.

    • New Person

      People also don’t realize the possibility of being on the registry wasn’t removed as discretion is still within the judge’s powers.

      People like to read headlines only and don’t read the complete idea behind the law. Anyhow, it is law now and there’s no need for a PR push. Yet, I’d still push back with, “Sex between adult male and minor female within 10 years has not automatically put one on the registry in the law for ages. Why are same-sex sexual relations not able benefit from the same law? Do you not favor equality of law?”

      • M C

        Unfortunately legislatures have continually chipped away at judicial discretion over the years and that is unfortunate because legislative mandating of specific consequences tends to lead to a one size fits all approach to criminal offenses. Deviation from a normal consequence due to the particular circumstances is not often possible in situations where most people in the public would agree such deviation to be reasonable and the courts have set a precedent that they will allow the legislature make the decisions that should really be made by a judge. Its good to see legislation that gives more power to Judges to use their discretion when deciding how to apply consequences for an act.

        • Resident

          I’m glad some judicial discretion is coming back.

          Any reform is good!

        • w

          Reform suddenly became a viable path to these idiots so long as it means the registry can stay. Which is circular reform, they’re just doing it to slow down what instead needs to be STOPPED. They already admit that being on the registry makes it hard to find work, and work helps people progress and get themselves together so what ??? exactly is the purpose of being a free person who is unable to reintegrate into society?

          “Registry” and “reintegration” in practice are irreconcilable terms!

  2. Agamemnon

    And yet the Static-99 – which will be a key component in the state’s determination of registry tier – still includes a provision that marks anyone convicted of a same-sex crime as more “dangerous” than someone who commits a hetero-based crime.

    • w

      Yep, throwing people another bone to make it look like Kalifornia democraps are somehow making progress for RSOs. They’re just trying to keep their jobs another term.

      Bad legislation, a corrupt state, and a crooked system. All under their control. The firefighter bill excluded inmates convicted of sex offenses, and several other bills also do the same thing. Don’t take the bait, the whole system needs to be dismantled and if they won’t do it then YOU have to. They always talk about breaking up crime syndicates, pyramid schemes, and scam outfits.

      The supporters of the registry are the BIGGEST scammers of them ALL. They pushed a narrative and have created an untouchable system that they’re too afraid to tackle now. And this system has enabled the constant bleeding wound that district attorneys, police, and sherrifs have kept pressing the blade into. Sex offenses are the Achilles heel of the legal world. At a micro level what this bill achieved in “removing prejudism” should be applied to the system AS A WHOLE. Stop enabling this “taboo” set of crimes and its subsequent group of “taboo” convicts.

      You haven’t made REAL progress until that happens.

  3. Dustin

    So what if judges have discretion in certain cases to register someone or not? Judges are elected and every bit as political as the idiots who write these (and other) laws. Politics swing far more discretionary opinions and rulings than fairness or justice ever will, and the politics of the moment are that all those convicted of sex crimes – to include those only accused, whether convicted or not – must be screwed as hard as possible.

    The registry is extremely costly and totally worthless toward its (supposed) purpose of reducing sex crime, primarily because it is based on the false premise that registrant recidivism is high. It will never be a useful tool for law enforcement or do one damn thing for public safety. No “reform” will change that any more than painting a house built on jello makes it sturdier.

    I appreciate the efforts Janice, Chance, and all of ACSOL. Even so, I think too much effort is spent supporting mere cosmetic changes to the registry that never make any difference.

  4. AERO1

    Scott Wiener admitted that once your place on the sexofender registry you cant find a job or place to live and have a hard time reiterating back into Society hows that not punishment they said it themselves.
    People forced to register need to start documenting evertime politicians or law enforcement say the impact the register has on people once there forced to register they openly admitted its punishment.

    Good luck

  5. Bobby Roberts

    Re: CA SB145

    California does not have a “Romeo and Juliet” law, protecting cases of high school aged relationships, wherein one individual surpasses the age of 18 (even for heterosexuals); it is technically Statutory Rape for any person to have sex with a minor, even if both/all participants are minors. Even for states that have Romero and Juliet laws, the age gap maximums are usually no more than 3-5 years.

    The law pertains to the discretion of a judge to suspend the requirement of a convicted offender to have to register as an offender in cases in defined “consensual sexual acts”.

    *** There is legally no such thing as a minor legally entering in to consensual sexual activities in the State of California

    [Admitted slippery slope]: This law might be setting a type of associative precedent to challenge the Romeo and Juliet law at a later date ( with a 10 year maximum age gap) and/or District Attorney and politicians may seek a political “win” by purportedly defeating the number of registered sexual predators [by technicality, not actually]

    Keep in mind these facts:

    * it is not the case that all statutory rape offenses have mandatory jail time

    * sexual criminals have a high rate of recidivism, that is, repeating similar acts

    * previous law allowing judge discretion in relation to vaginal intercourse pertained, in practice, to cases wherein pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child for which the predator must provide financial support, and registering would preclude employment.

  6. Matthew

    Not sure how this is ” INTENDED TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGTBQ” when it is about adults sleeping with minors. What is the difference between this and straight folks? Underage is underage. I am glad for reform and I am all for ending lifetime registration as I am an RO but why the out for those crimes? Yet, CP offenses are still tier 3…

    • AERO1

      Because people who watch CP are labeled SVP’S and pedophiles there’s no way California will ever let sexofenders with cases involving children go free their scared for life.
      SB145 passing is a step in the right direction if a 18 year old senior has sexual intercourse with a 14 year old freshman in high school I don’t think he should have to register maybe with law enforcement for10 years but not have his personal information blasted all over the internet for the rest of his life thats just cruel and unusual punishment.
      I remember back in 2000 befor I was sentenced to probation the judge told me “if it was up to me I wouldn’t be sentencing you at all I can’t believe this is really happening to you”
      So yeah in my case the judge’s discretion would of saved my life 20 years ago hopefully the passing of this bill might save some outher young man’s life in the future.

      Good luck

      • matthew

        @aero You are incorrect about the SVP and Pedos. As CP offenses can be the same age group that just mentioned being in a relationship with someone. Your example is a 4 year difference not a 10 year difference.
        I think you are missing my point. If it was SVP, we would be registering every 3 months or so. Now, try the same example of 24 years old and 14 years old. Is that good?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Matthew – ACSOL will continue its lobbying efforts to ensure that CP offenses are moved from Tier 3 to either Tier 1 or Tier 2. We can’t promise when we will be successful, only that we will continue trying.

      • OTHER

        @Janice
        If successful, do you think this will also help for other non-contact Tier 3 crimes? Or will this be only for CP crimes for now?

      • Matthew

        I understand completely about trying and no promises! I think I came off worse than what I meant. We all appreciate it, I hope!

  7. Brandon

    At least a honest article in The NY Times on this now law. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/parenting/qanon-moms-misinformation.html

  8. w

    Kalifornia democraps throwing a bone instead of admitting the uselessness of the sex offense registry.

    Public safety and victim’s rights have gone too far and will continue to wreck people’s lives. Oh no wonder the state’s on fire, THEY DID IT TO THEMSELVES!

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 *

.