CA Dept. of Justice Statistics Reflect Changes in Registry

The California Depart of Justice (CA DOJ) has provided statistics to the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) that reflect changes in the number of people eligible to petition for removal from the registry.  The statistics were accurate as of November 20 and were provided to ACSOL in response to several Public Records Act requests.  

According to CA DOJ, only 41 percent of registrants have been assigned to Tier 1 or to Tier 2 pursuant to the Tiered Registry Law.  Specifically, there are 15,925 registrants assigned to Tier 1 who will be eligible to petition for removal after 10 years and 22,463 registrants assigned to Tier 2 who will be eligible to petition for removal after 20 years provided that other requirements are met.

“These statistics represent a reduction in the percentage of registrants assigned to Tier 1 or to Tier 2,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “It was previously reported that 45 percent of registrants had been assigned to these tiers.”

By comparison, CA DOJ has assigned 54,269 registrants to Tier 3 which represents about 59 percent of registrants.  Of that total, the assignment of 1,594 registrants is based upon risk level and therefore these registrants can petition for removal after 20 years.  However, of that total number there are 52,675 individuals who are not eligible to petition for removal.

Individuals included in Tier 3 who are not eligible to petition for removal are those convicted of Penal Code Section 311.11 and those convicted of Penal Code Section 288(c).  The number of individuals convicted of one or more subsections of Penal Code Section 311.11 is 6,873.  Of that total, there are 5,968 convicted of possessing unlawful images in violation of Penal Code Section 311.11(a).  This number includes individuals convicted in a federal court.  The number of individuals convicted of Penal Code Section 288(c) is 1,058.

“The statistics provided by the California Department of Justice are a reminder that the Tiered Registry Law must be changed in order to increase the number of people eligible to petition for removal from the registry,” stated Bellucci.  “ACSOL will continue its lobbying efforts with the state legislature to achieve that important result.”

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not surprising at all. When early on it was stated that “majority” would be eligible for removal, that seemed very far fetched. That certainly would’ve been true under the original Tiered proposal, but not after that ONE literally corrupt senator made her demands.

If they want this to change in the positive direction, they absolutely need to to move to Tier 1 everyone that has a 1203.4 or equivalent dismissal, and everyone who have only misdemeanors whether through original conviction or 17b reduction (people with dismissed records and/or misdemeanors being Tier 3 makes zero sense when straight felonies are Tier 2). I’m willing to bet a large portion of Tier 3 includes people in this category. People who all would’ve been Tier 1 under the original proposal.

Confused. I have a misdemeanor 311.11a . I have a letter saying tier 1. Yet this says I’m tier 3? Please explain.

The main thing about Tiered Registration is that it is a start. We may be able to get rid of registration completely, but right now it is too hard to see it. The tiered system is a structure to start with, but we cannot stop moving more and more people into 1 and 2. And we should work to shorten the time in the penalty box. Constant pressure and many fronts.

It would be interesting to see IMO the calculus behind the terms of 10 & 20 years (including the risk levels) that CADOJ uses to validate these terms for each tier beyond their own arbitrary thinking with proof these are appropriate applications for the situation that is allegedly not punishing to the individual. Of course, once that is nut is cracked, the question becomes why are the terms for the punishments meted out for other convictions as they are, i.e., what is the science behind it all besides Hanson’s, et al science?

Since I don’t have it at my fingertips, are the overall number of CA registrants still decreasing as of the last data drop publicly provided for each tier and overall?

The only thing that gets me about the California Tier system is, It doesn’t hold any wait outside of California but IML does, and Because Megan’s law is international moving or traveling to another state, can put you back on the registry. It’s a very tricky situation, only time will tell how other states react to people no longer forced to register in there home state.
I personally haven’t heard any stories about people getting off and moving out of state.
One thing is for sure a California Tier system is better then no California Tiered system.