A criminal reform bill is making its way through the California State Senate that could automatically seal criminal records after a person has completed 2 full years out of the criminal justice system.
This new bill – SB731 – proposes criminal record relief, where records are sealed after a person has served their time, completed their probation and parole time, and spent 2 years without no new convictions, offenses or charges pending.
…
Formerly incarcerated people are more likely to experience homelessness – and homeless individuals could have a history of incarceration that’s keeping them on the streets – “so the best way to help people is with a clean start – again – with some exceptions,” the senator added.
…
“Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, lead author of the proposed legislation.
Find sex-related bills in your state
“Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,”
Same shit, different bill.
At least (as I read it), if you are able to terminate the requirement to register, then this bill could help because it says “and is required to register”.
Given how the Department of InJustice is putting even some misdemeanor registrants onto Tier 3 (which is total bullshit), I don’t see how this bull, uh I mean bill, will help most of us.
Of course no one required to register is eligible because helping them move on from their convictions obviously wouldn’t be positive for society or whatever other nonsense people want to believe.
Friggin’ Facebook to comment. Grr….
I strongly suggest everyone in California email the author of this bill to request answers why registrants are excluded. Lord know every single one of us go through exactly what the bill intends to alleviate. Homelessness in particular is one of the complaints raised – are they suggesting they want registrants homeless? If nothing else, you might get acknowledgement of the registry’s punitive nature that they laughably continue to publicly deny.
How is it civil to exclude people whose re-offense rates are low and call it not punishment? The Senator needs to put up or shut up by including all criminals. Stop peeing on citizens on the Hit List to improve their lives!!
Sooooo because I looked at 6 photos of a 16 year old over a decade ago I am not entitled to any relief. So tired of this crap
I always wait for the “Sex offenders are excluded”, and sure enough, there it is again. Laughable.
We have to see what’s in the bill, but if there’s really a hard line between 290 registration and pretty much everything else, well, I can’t say sue because I’m not a board member and they have to pick and choose what has the best chance to win.
But if I was a board member, I’d look at suing that we are blatantly being treated differently under CA law. This is absolutely ridiculous. Tier 2 and 3 are decades of having private information up on the internet while there is no strong evidence after 15 years of recidivism.
They give no information about why registration should be treated as different. Outside of the blatantly obvious, maybe it’s time to force them to prove their own point as to why it’s different.
This seems like it can be sued for equality like those early releases bills that were ignored. Them singling out a whole group of people seems like it would run awful of equal protections.
“IOW, we need you off the gov’t dole so you can find a job to pay taxes that we want to spend in other ways that are suspect but look good to the masses for political cred when elections are in play while moving the money already marked for you to another suspect way to pay for something else the masses don’t like.” They need your ethnicity to work for them except when they ethnic minority is a PFR, then the minority is screwed again.
This is a prime point in the individual risk assessment argument considering it is a blanket statement against PFRs as a whole and would seem to violate, IMO, the equal protection clause since all other peeps could use it to their advantage while PFRs are denied.
Remind me why this proposed Bill isn’t taking real, actual, verified recidivism rates into account?
Oh, it’s “feel good” legislation that also allows lawmakers to again spotlight and punish those convicted of sex offenses??
Oh, I see. That explains it. 😡🙄
Lookie look who is a co-sponsor of this bill. If it isn’t Senator Scott Wiener – the author of the Tiered Registry and the great champion for justice and all registrants.
This blanket discrimination must stop. How can it be upheld in court? no matter your charge, no matter how long ago, no matter your standing, people with sex crimes are all categorized the same, constanly discriminated against, constantly stigmatized, and constantly denied benefits of any and every program, law, or bill, and never any explaintion as to why…just because.
Animus, anyone? I think it would be prudent to be collecting all these “except sex offenders” laws and benefits. When every single person except once class of ex-offenders is singled out, it sure is tough to paint it as rationally related to anything. Animus, animus, animus.
Basically, you can be released with only probation on a misdemeanor offense, never commit ANY offense for the rest of your life, and you are going to be continually fucked by the justice and political system for ever. But if you assault an old lady with a hammer and then she dies, when you get out of prison you are good to go after 2 yrs.
What about hate crimes, California Democrats? You going to help a guy get back on his feet after he bashes an Asian grandfather’s head in? This country is so absolutely stupid that it’s hard to believe it’s not extremely ambitious performance art.
Believe it or not this bill is a move in the right direction if you notice the lead author of this Bill doesn’t say much about sex offenders and I’ll tell you why can you imagine if they said even sex offenders are eligible to have their records sealed people would of lost their daam minds but lowkey this Bill was actually designed for sex offenders who’ve already spent decades on the registry. Politicians know daam well the only thing that employers are looking for are sex offenders and that’s only because their a possible liability and a burden on the companies the lead author of this bill knows this that why when referring to sex offenders she was very careful how she used her words she said anybody who is classified as a sex offender and is “REQUIRED” to register as a sex offender is not eligible for release so basically once you have been relieved of you duty to register under californian SB384 your lawyer will ask the court to publicly seal your record.
Good luck ✌😬
Think of the economic boom if PFR’s records were sealed and were able to live life without harassment. These lawmakers can’t handle the truth about PFR. Damn tyrants all of them.
Folks, we need to be active in abolitionist groups like Critical Resistance, to make sure they include RSOs. They have some influence in Democrat policymaking these days.
@Fellow ACSOL forum readers, moderators, and contributors,
Sen Durazo gives an example of the registry as punishment, IMO.
“Anyone who is classified as a sex offender and is required to register as a sex offender is not eligible for this relief,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, lead author of the proposed legislation.
This is an example, as I read it, of how the registry is punishment. She is more than just using publicly available information to anyone. She’s taking specific information gathered, collated, and published in a certain way (a registry) for a certain intent (notifying the people) of certain people (PFRs (who are not a protected class and can’t be discriminated against)) for a specific purpose: using it in a punishing way which puts PFRs at a disadvantage where they cannot seek relief in time of need to assist in their ability to reintegrate into society.
She’s not putting boundaries in place for age, gender, parental status, etc which could be used for specific programs, but she’s actually using the registry (in her own words) to deny relief to people, i.e. punish PFRs from seeking relief through the registry. Is there a specific reason why she chose to deny PFRs through the registry? If so, what is it? Why not chose another group of people who have erred in life but are not on a registry though still have a legal history to deny relief? Why is she specifically using the registry as her source of information to deny people?
Word for word, those who are required to register is different than those who have registered. As I read it, the intent here of those who are required to register is the same as taking the data of those who have registered because PFRs would not register unless required to and the data would not be gathered otherwise because that would defeat the purpose of the registry. The old argument of what does the law say as written and how does it get used/interpreted though when not written they way it needed to be, e.g. legislative intent.
By using the registry source, IMO, she is showing how the registry is punishment against PFRs when it is used to deny PFRs essential needs in life to move on as studies have shown are critical to reintegrating into society. I believe this could be a way in legally showing how the registry is punishment when used in such a manner.
If it is concurred this could be a way and there is a solid legal foundation to sustain this thinking, then I believe it could be used to strike down (or amend) other laws in use today (which used this same language and tactics) while preventing other from coming to be. This could, IMO, open the door to PFRs needing relief and assistance without being denied by the legislature (or maybe even Congress?).
Do others here agree, have thoughts, or have published legal opinions which are for or against this line of thought?
Interesting. I obtained both a 17b and expungement in 2002! I could pass job background checks. Yet, I was pulled over once and the cop knew I was registered? I’ve just obtained a COR and been informed by the Courts (on the document) ordered me no longer to register and the DOJ has sent a likewise letter. (3 weeks after my court date). Does anyone (this wasn’t child related) have any recommendations on how to address this on my passport? Redress? I’ll definitely carry a copy of the court order and DOJ if or when!
***
This new bill – SB731 – proposes criminal record relief, where records are sealed after a person has served their time, completed their probation and parole time, and spent 2 years without no new convictions, offenses or charges pending.
***
There has to be an equal protection law here. Yet, I am taking a different route.
If SB731 has a specific exemption against registrants who have or can achieve these requirements:
And it holds, then why cannot one of us who earned a 1203.4 sue the state of CA because nowhere in 1203.4 states a blanket exception for registrants who earned the 1203.4 when it comes to one specific benefit:
Since this law was enacted before 290.007, then 290.007 is unconstitutional as it is another law that contradicts an established law. Since the registry is about sharing private information, then the dismissal of the accusation or info against the defendant cannot be used. The registry is using information that has been dismissed by the courts, which is commanded by one word, “SHALL”.
SB731 has the exception within it’s bill.
1203.4 has no blanket exception within it’s bill, but 290.007 tramples over the regaining of the civil rights provided by 1203.4.
The state cannot have it both ways.
(6) If the defendant seeks relief under this section for a felony that resulted in a sentence to the state prison, the relief available under this section may only be granted if that felony did not result in a requirement to register … pursuant to Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 290) of Title 9 of Part1.
So am I reading this right? To be excluded, the conviction must be for a sex offense that resulted in a prison sentence. So would a suspended prison sentence still qualify?