The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) met today and during that meeting, several state agency reports were presented. The reports reflect increases both in the number of petitions filed as well as the number of petitions granted. In addition, the reports reflect a decrease in the number of registrants in violation due to failure to register. Below is a chart listing those and other statistics presented during today’s meeting.
The next CASOMB meeting is scheduled for June 26 in Monterey. The meeting location, time and additional information will be available at casomb.org on a date closer to the meeting. Attendance at CASOMB meetings is in person only and cannot be accessed virtually. It is not necessary to sign up in advance of the meeting in order to attend.
|
Category |
Former |
Current |
Change |
|
Total number of registrants |
103,342 |
104,176 |
+834 |
|
Registrants in violation |
19,380 |
19,178 |
-202 |
|
Transient registrants |
6,151 |
6,106 |
-45 |
|
Petitions filed |
10,675 |
11,059 |
+384 |
|
Petitions granted |
8,534 |
8,871 |
+337 |
|
Petitions denied |
147 |
154 | +7 |
|
Petitions dismissed |
699 |
741 |
+42 |
|
Petitions pending |
1,295 |
1,293 | -2 |
|
Registrants on parole |
7,043 | 7,024 | -19 |
|
High risk registrants on parole |
3,646 | 3,651 | +5 |
|
Registrants in prison |
20,317 | 20,406 | +89 |
Looks like a net increase this round. I really hope they listen to ACSOL and others and make the necessary changes to move people into Tier 1 and 2. Anyone without a felony (original or via 17B) and everyone granted a 1203.4 and equivalent, should be Tier 1. This shouldn’t even be a debate and what the original draft of the bill was. Until this happens, I think we’ll continue seeing a net increase each quarter.
This is exactly why the legislature is trying to implement new parameters for old offenses. They can get more people onto the registry and keep collecting revenue. God forbid the registry goes away or declines to the point where cops only have a couple of people to harass. BTW, one of those petitions filed is mine!
3% are considered high risk. That means 97% of the entire state registry is not considered at risk of re committing an offense considered dangerous to another person. Yeah, that’s money and time well spent…….🤙😎
I’d love to know the facts of some of those denied petitions.
What I love about ACSOL is this process Janice created. I know it took years, but the regular communication and influence between ACSOL and CASOMB ultimately leading to the legislature, creates change. I know it is slower than desired, but changing people’s minds on this topic is extremely difficult.
I know there are many who have not been positively impacted by the changes yet, but in most states there is no change. No tiers, no petitions for removal ever, no discussion. Just more restrictions piled on creating homelessness and joblessness.
Definitions of dismissed, denied, and high risk would be helpful in understanding the stats as is. Could be footnotes to each.
it was also like 2 YEARS ago CASOMB approved or ‘went with’ changing 311 to 10 years, althouth that was a MASSIVE WASTE of time as it went NOWHERE !!!!
I have a point to consider. The Revolutionary War with England was ignited over the issue of “taxation without representation”. Those People Forced to Register (PFR) can by it’s affects claim the same disposition. We are truly taxed without representation. I told this to then Senator John Moorlach CPA. he said, “well, Robert I represent you!” Hmmm, I responded by saying, “if you got a one legged guy representing you in a foot race what are your chances of winning?” ANY voices for the rights of PFR and their families are drowned under the delusion of Public Safety. So we have no representation….so the question is after a person had finished his/her parole and/or probation should they be forced to pay taxes while on the registry? Should a refund be given back to a PFR for the years that PFR had paid taxes to their state after completing probation/parole especially if that state (ie. Florida) is NOT in compliance with the AWA for allowing a means off the registry? If just one judicial ruling were given confirming that PFR lack true representation the follow up on the taxation question could also be addressed.
Chaplain Rob