There are at least two famous quotations about roses. One of those quotations is found in the Shakespeare play, Romeo and Juliet. That quotation is long and in Shakespearean language that is difficult to understand. Therefore, it has been modified to “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” This modified version has been interpreted to mean that the names of things do not affect what they really are.
Unfortunately, that is not true when it comes to registrants and the names of the offenses for which they have charged or convicted. For example, the name of California Penal Code Section 647.6 is “annoy or molest a minor.” Violation of this offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony, and has been applied to minor acts such as calling out to a teenager “hey baby, got great tits” when she passed in front of a car at a traffic light.
Is a rude remark made about a teenager’s body annoying? Yes. Should it be considered a sex offense that requires registration for life? No! Yet that is what was required in California for more than 50 years.
Fortunately, the Tiered Registry Law in California has assigned individuals convicted of that penal code section to Tier 1 which requires only 10 years of registration. But even 10 years of registration with its collateral consequences such as underemployment and lack of housing opportunities is too long.
Back to the name of the Penal Code Section, that name includes the term “or molest a minor”. The fact is that anyone who has touched a minor, including over their clothes, would never be allowed to plead guilty to that offense. Therefore, the phrase “or molest” should be eliminated from the name of that offense.
The second quotation “a rose is a rose is a rose” is attributed to author Gertrude Stein. That quotation has been interpreted to mean that things are what they are.
So let’s take a look at the legal system that now requires a person who has been charged with a sex offense to prove they are innocent although the U.S. Constitution states that we are all innocent until proven guilty. According to the Constitution, it is the government, not the person charged with a sex offense, who bears the greater burden.
Applying Ms. Stein’s quotation to the legal system, it must be said that the current legal system as applied to those charged with a sex offense is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The solution is obvious. The government must prove in every case beyond a reasonable doubt that a person charged with a sex offense actually committed that offense.
Now let’s take a look at the requirement to register. The requirement to register punishes all who are required to register as well as their families. Punishment comes in many forms such as the inability to obtain or keep a job as well as limited housing opportunities that can lead to homelessness. The requirement to register can also result in the inability to live with your children or to have access to the internet.
Applying Ms. Stein’s quotation to the requirement to register, it is time to speak the truth. That is, the requirement to register is punishment and not the same as membership in Price Club despite Smith v. Doe decided by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 20 years ago.
If you wish to speak the truth to the U.S. Supreme Court, you have an opportunity to do so on Saturday, March 7. Join us near the steps of the Court at 10 a.m. If you are unable to join us, please consider making a donation to ACSOL.
From the instant I was accused, law enforcement treated me as if I was already guilty, and I was subsequently repeatedly asked why didn’t I just plead guilty, since I was guilty, by all I came in contact with … there was simply no presumption of innocence in the “justice” system I was exposed to, for my first, and only time …. unbelievable … I eventually accepted a plea agreement, reducing multiple felonies to a single misdemeanor, which was offered by the DA after I continued to fight the charges, which gives you an idea of the credibility of the original accusations … another truism: you run out of money, you run out of justice, and sometimes you simply have to do what’s in your best overall interests no matter how much it galls you …
100%
To be or not be in Washington, DC near the United States Supreme Court showing that Smith V. Doe has gone past its scope and it’s time for justices to stop being dopes. Sex offense laws and restrictions aren’t civil in nature and anyone worth their salt knows its punishment. Frightening and high needs to be retracted and justice for all needs to be enacted.
The big hair band of the late 80’s sang “Every Rose has its Thorn” which would make every situation that much more relevant for those PFRs who have been snagged by the thorn and an addendum to Ms. Stein’s version.
All of this is frightening.
At one time, there were a number of us who had signed binding contracts/plea agreements that stipulated that registration was NOT a requirement. We’re all aware of this.
In a wave of emotional hysteria, that provision of those agreements were wiped away by legislative fiat. Victims and advocates felt happy.
A few years ago, another legislative fiat occurred. Some of us have been relieved of the registration requirements and we were somewhat happy. Victims and advocates were less happy.
In light of the Epstein outrage (rightful in my humble opinion), I worry that another fiat may occur and our relief may be taken (again for some).
My question is what can we do? What options are there?
California 647.6 is, indeed, a strange beast. It results in the lifelong label of “child molester” even when conduct didn’t involve objectively sexual contact. In many cases, the conduct wouldn’t even be considered criminal in any other state, but interstate SORNA consequences treat it as such.
I was “lucky” my conviction occurred when I was a resident of another state, which does not register me because there are no comparable statutes (equal protection). Had I moved here AFTER conviction, though, I’d be required to register just because another state required registration.
I entirely completed my sentence (prison, probabtion, fines, fees, court-costs) 13 years after my arrest. 6 years after that, the state attorney reopened the case with a new motion. The hearing was held in my absentia with no service of process (I had ironclad proof of no service).
I was notified 3 days after the motion was granted!
The court had no jurisdiction for several reasons. … Did it matter?
NOT A BIT!!
See you March 7th on the steps of the Supreme Court!
This is in regards to parole. I have no limitations or requirements to be urine tested. I am allowed to drink and smoke pot because I have no prior charges or criminal activity to suggest a future probability of a criminal act in regards to drinking and smoking pot. I think that should be applied to other areas as well. I was charged and sentenced to a plea deal after two mistrials and one being a hung jury on 12 felony counts. I was forced to take a deal due to some corrupt actions from my appointed attorney, but that is another story. My question is “Why can we not use the same logic with parks and places to go that my have kids present like the beach! ” I have been a surfer and surfboard maker for 28 years and I have never been charged with kidnapping or a charged with a crime that happened at a beach or a park or school. My thoughts are that I have had no past criminal activity in that area so why should I be banded from my right to freely roam? But to blanket me in on something that lost a lot of its justification when the Dept. of Justice declared that “Stanger Danger” is not a real thing and over 95% of the victims in a sex crime are from someone the victim knew! I feel that it is prejudicial to include me in with others that may have done that. If someone has kidnapped a stranger from a park or a beach then there is a special condition for that person alone especially if that person has a charge of a PC 206 for kidnapping then that person should be require to have a “Special Terms” part of their parole to not go to these places! Why is this ok for drinking and smoking and not for other areas where I have no past criminality or a history of doing or of doing in such places? And a second issue is that can I retain a lawyer for my annual reviews to get off parole earlier and to help change the “Special Conditions” of my parole. This should also be applied to me wearing a monitor. I never kid napped a person from a place to be monitored?
What I find so infuriating is that our outrage and backlash over how these draconian and intentionally punitive, pile-on laws doesn’t mean anything to the media or lawmakers. During the Superbowl, Ring showed a commerical that showcased a new feature that scans for “lost pets” and the public freaked out with cries of “surveillance state!” and “this is creepy and unwanted monitoring.” Hello? The same thing is happening to us under threat of penalty, but when you try to explain it THAT way to them, It’s like water off a ducks back.
Society will never see the registry for the unnecessary evil that it really is.