ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org

 

California

CA: Sex offender in Marin County will be turned out on streets; unlikely allies say that’s not safe

Source: ktvu.com 8/26/21

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. – A 68-year-old registered sex offender has no time left on his stay at a Marin County hotel and his case manager is making an unusual plea for someone to house his client so that he doesn’t have to sleep in a tent under a freeway.

“The day I get released, I’m supposed to be on the street with diabetes,” said Socorro ____, whose first language is Spanish. He is a registered sex offender who served three years in prison after being convicted for molesting his girlfriend’s nieces more than a decade ago. He is on parole for another year and a half.

Then, pointing to his ankle monitor, he said: “And I have no place to charge the device.”

While there are some unusual aspects of Alvarado’s story, it’s exposed a pretty common debate over the release of sex offenders: There are those who don’t want sex offenders living near their homes and children and feel they shouldn’t receive any help or compassion for what they did in the past. And there are those on the other side, who believe that society should do everything they can to help and rehabilitate all those with criminal pasts, even those who committed sexual offenses.

However, despite these stark philosophical differences, there are at least two things these unlikely allies do agree on: Giving sex offenders stable housing cuts down on recidivism rates and knowing where they are living is better for public safety.

Read the full article

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I hope if Janice Bellucci does start suing homeless shelters i hope she starts with Union Rescue Missions in California and all homeless shelters in Orange County.
The staff at the Long Beach Rescue Mission are very rude they’ll hang up the phone in your face if you tell them you’re 290 registrants.
It’s funny because their whole organization is supposed to be about GOD and forgiveness and love thy neighbor, their so full of shiit those people are pure evil.
The Union Rescue Mission is a one of the biggest homeless shelter organizations in America, but only the California chapter doesn’t take in sex offenders.

Good luck

I have found through my personal experience and observations that many, but not all of course, Christian organizations don’t follow the teachings of Jesus who the whole religion is based upon. So I am not surprised with your statements.

Makes me think of some of the stories of how Jesus was a radical pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time and how he welcomed and forgave sinners and invited them to sin no more and follow him and his teachings

Many Christian organizations have lost their way.

Many of those same faith based orgs are also private businesses and thus, they get to set the rules to follow or are told to follow when it comes to insurance, laws, etc. Sometimes it is out of their hands.

Rescue missions are part of AGRM – Assn of Gospel Rescue Missions https://citygatenetwork.org

Btw, other missions across the nation also don’t take people forced to register. It’s a liability issue.

Last edited 1 month ago by webmaster

The liability issue statement is an excuse, not a reason. Some churches use it, too, to prevent registrants from sitting in a church service.

Completely agree @Janice

Totally agree. When is the last time you heard of a registered person causing problems in a church? I’ve only heard of random people barging in with guns and shooting people and from the news I’ve seen, none of them were sex offenders.

As approved by the Rehnquist court! It was the conservative judges upholding “the electronic list.” Generally speaking conservatism and morality and evangelicals are represented by this wing. Certain sinners are rejected thus their numbers dwindle. Just like our mortality rate and birth rate.

I find it odd that some are using the excuse that insurance can’t be obtained if SOs are admitted. Insurance companies’ decisions are based on actuarial analyses. Even a cursory examination of the data would indicate an extremely low risk.

Veritas.

Yes, you’d think the analysis would prove that out @Ed C.

However, there is also the optics of it should a person forced to register offends and the negative press that goes with it. You have to remember, rescue missions are donation driven. If donations go down because of a perceived incident involving a person forced to register, then services, etc are possibly reduced.

I do risk analysis as a part of my job, and I think it’s unlikely anyone has ever done any kind of risk assessment of sex offenders and re-offending beyond simple re-offense rates at large (with no comparison group, so you have no meaningful risk ratio associated with the unique threat a sex offender poses in any situation). If there are insurance penalties, it’s because they assume (or have calculated) a jury will be more likely to find the institution responsible for an act of abuse by a member if the jury believes the institution hasn’t done “due diligence” and screened out sex offenders—and likely awards are larger in those cases, too. In other words, insurance companies are penalizing us and institutions that might treat us fairly because we are already discriminated against. It’s deeply unfair.

Shouldn’t this be used as an example of punishment that is a direct collateral consequence of being on the registry?

The original registry did not disseminate the information and it was only the local PD that had that information. Now, that information is being used against registrants.

If the CA system is to be deemed unconstitutional, then the attack should be based upon the dissemination of information as well as re-identifying in-person reporting as no longer deemed punishment. Those two items along with the recent rulings that presence and residency restriction should signify today’s current version of the registry, even after the new tiered system, is punishment.

Big key is that CA passed the right to privacy to be added to its constitution around 1974, the right to be left alone.

Today, the registry is being used to deny access that everyone who was once in custody isn’t denied such as housing (section 8 help), shelter, job, and travel.

The Fresno Rescue Mission operates a drug rehabilitation program that takes in 290s. It is the ONLY such drug rehabilitation program in California of which I am aware. It is self-insured so there is no issue with insurance coverage. It does not bill Medicare for its services as Medicare will not provide coverage to programs that allow 290s as clients (thanks Uncle Sam). The Fresno Rescue Mission also operates a short-term housing shelter which also allows 290s. It also employs 290s as staff. The people who operate this mission are some of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. I think if insurance wasn’t an issue, you’d find many other Missions allowing 290s. I think for many of these missions, it’s business, not personal, with respect to 290s.

The problem with insurance companies is that LAWYERS are the ones who are consulted and advise (and in many cases decide) as to what is (or isn’t) “risk prohibitive”, this in respect to 290s. If there was a pathway to educate those in the insurance industry who make risk assessments about the low risk of most 290s, a great deal of these problems could be resolved. I would hope that the lawyers involved with ACSOL may have some insight as to how such an educational effort may manifest itself.

If the streets aren’t safe why not get rid of the blanket restrictions placed on registrants. A person should be allowed shelter, food, and community support regardless of their circumstances. Allow them in shelters, half way houses, or other types of organizations for people with. needs. Banishment has no place in a free society.

Don’t forget emergency shelters when hurricanes or any other natural disasters strike. Doors are slammed shut on you and you are on your own to brave the elements.

15
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.