ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

California

CA: Unanimous Opposition Expressed to Re-sentencing Regulations

[ACSOL]

During a telephonic hearing marked by significant technical difficulties, more than 20 members of the public expressed their opposition to regulations proposed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that would exclude groups of people, including those required to register as well as those sentenced to Life Without Parole, from re-sentencing opportunities.  A total of 43 members of the public participated in today’s hearing.

“If the current version of these regulations is made final, we will challenge the regulations in court,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “CDCR’s proposed regulations repeat the mistake made by that agency in its regulations implementing Proposition 57.”

Dozens of lawsuits were filed challenging CDCR’s Proposition 57 regulations.  All of the lawsuits were successful, however, they were consistently appealed by CDCR up to the California Supreme Court.  That Court, in a unanimous decision, determined that the Proposition 57 regulations were in violation of the state’s constitution and ordered that the regulations be repealed.

Several of today’s speakers highlighted the fact that the legislative intent of Assembly Bills 1812 and 2942 is to expand re-sentencing opportunities and yet CDCR’s regulations would limit those opportunities.  Other speakers addressed the fact that CDCR’s exclusion of registrants is based upon the myth that registrants have a high risk of re-offense.

“CDCR needs to read its own reports which clearly state that the rate of re-offense for a registrant on parole is less than one percent,” stated Bellucci.

CDCR did not reply to any comments provided during today’s telephonic hearing.  Several of the public participants asked CDCR to conduct a second hearing regarding the proposed regulations due to technical difficulties including the inability for anyone to speak during the first 30 minutes of the hearing.

 

 

 

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s f*g amazing how those in power will literally cut out the portions of their own departments and documentation that’s contrary to what they want to do.

Let’s have CASOMB to help us with data on sex offenses.
Hmm… I don’t like that they’ve come back with these super low numbers…

Let’s have this short cut of Static-99.
Hmm… I don’t like the part of this “test” that say the data is only good for 2 years and is coded to show a decline over time. We really want that initial number to be permanent and to use it to hurt people for decades.

There’s truly a special place in hell for people who do this. Because they’re certainly not likely to see punishment in the mortal realm.

As you sound like a believer I would point you to Isaiah 10:1 “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,”
There is more, specifically a promise of punishment to come…
Frankly, I believe (with reason) that all of the California government, including CASOMB and CDCR are on the payroll of the Police Unions.

I’ve been saying for years that the problem with many researchers and those who commission studies is that they’ve already drawn their conclusions before the initial proposal is even written.

Time to separate the police unions, state funded professionals, and lawmakers. If stats prove laws are useless than abolish the laws. Every time someone in government talks its out of both sides of their mouth. However the system is rigged to keep you a slave in the name of public safety.

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.