Source: ACSOL
Senate Bill 680 was introduced this week by Senator Susan Rubio (Democrat, Ontario). If the bill becomes law, it could require thousands of people not required to register in the past to register for the first time. This bill is similar to Senate Bill 1128 which did not become law during the two-year legislative session that ended in late 2024.
According to the current language of Senate Bill 680, individuals convicted of engaging in an act of intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the offender would be required to register. In addition, individuals convicted of engaging in an act of intercourse who are 21 years old or older with a minor under 16 years of age would also be required to register. Currently neither group of individuals is required to register.
“Senator Rubio was the primary author of Senate Bill 1128 which was defeated last year,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We must repeat our efforts this year to ensure that Senate Bill 680 is also defeated. Because this bill has just been introduced, there are no dates yet for hearings. Once those dates become available, we will post them on this website. All are encouraged to join us for the hearings in order to stop this bad bill.“
The current language of Senate Bill 680 does not address the issue of whether the registration requirements in that bill would apply retroactively to those convicted of the same offenses in prior years. If the requirements of the bill are applied retroactively, it is expected that more than 10,000 people could be added to the registry.
For every progress we make to reform this nonsense, there is another one moving us backward. These politicians need better things to do…
Because this bill has just been introduced, there are no dates yet for hearings. Once those dates become available, we will post them on this website. All are encouraged to join us for the hearings in order to stop this bad bill.
We’re not prepared for how dumb things are going to get. Actually, both sides ARE the same when it comes to this subject.
The first thought that came into my head was that sponsors of bills like this should be backed into a rhetorical corner where they would need to explain precisely how a bill contributes to public safety or other societal benefits. Sponsors too often get away with simply stating platitudes and waving their hands about some imagined public good. All the data are against them, and they should be forced to go on the record in committees to defend the rationale for the bill. This is just the opposite of what usually happens, where “rational law” advocates are on the defensive. If a sponsor were to proffer a justification implicating something like equal justice, they would have just walked into the registry-as-punishment trap. This bill could add 10,000 persons to the registry, leading to large financial and social costs, with no tangible benefits.