The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) today approved a point paper opposing Senate Bill 680, a bill that could add 30,000 people to the California sex offender registry. Specifically, the bill could require individuals convicted of illegal intercourse (Penal Code Section 261.5), also known as statutory rape, to register for the first time if the difference between the age of the perpetrator and the victim was at least 10 years. If passed, the bill would be applied retroactively and include convictions that are 30 years old or older.
“The board wisely decided today to oppose Senate Bill 680 due to the bill’s potential significant adverse impact on the lives of thousands of individuals,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “This is the same position taken by ACSOL and many of its allies, including the ACLU.
During today’s board meeting, there was a vigorous discussion of Senate Bill 680 and the reasons it should be opposed. Reasons to oppose the bill include the fact that judges already have discretion to require individuals convicted of that offense to register if circumstances warrant registration.
Another reason to oppose the bill is the projected cost of identifying individuals convicted of that offense decades ago. According to one board member, the state government would pay a “high price” for implementation of that bill. Another board member added that local governments, such as cities and counties, would also pay a “high price” due to an increase in the number of registrations as well as monitoring many more individuals required to register.
Board members also discussed that fact that the proposed bill could overwhelm the court system for two reasons. First, the constitutionality of the bill could be challenged. Second, individuals would be required to register for only 10 years and therefore many individuals could be expected to immediately petition for removal from the registry.
Senate Bill 680 is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Appropriations Commitee on May 19. The committee hearing will be limited to announcements regarding which bills will be kept in the Suspense File and which bills will be released from that file. If a bill is kept in the Suspense File, it cannot be considered by another committee or on the floor of the Senate.
During today’s discussion of Senate Bill 680, a legislative analyst from the Department of Corrections stated that there is a $12 billion deficit in the California budget. He added that this deficit could prevent passage of bills with a large price tag. When asked about Senate Bill 680, the analyst stated that he could not predict whether the deficit would stop Senate Bill 680 from being passed.
It’s like a judge ordering you to pay $800 for a $15 parking ticket from 30 yrs ago and justifying it with, “ Well, we increased the fine last week”. Of course they can get away with this since it isn’t punitive, right? My a** it isn’t!
Great work, Janice, educating them on the consequences of this bill if enacted. It is obviously unconstitutional and wrong. But highlighting the administrative costs of executing this bill with the reality that many would petition immediately to be removed from the registry, thus negating the whole point while clogging up resources, was genius. Keep pounding the drum of rational intelligence!
Thank you Janice, for all your hard work behind the scenes. I am assuming the constitutional challenge would be due to ex post facto issues? At the very least, if these people end up in Tier 1 though, they’ll be OK. I thought it was the end of the world back when I learned I would be a Tier 1 registrant. It’s doable and relatively normal life goes on, but — in the end — I hope the Senate applies logic and shoots the whole thing down. In the end, I think they’ll be too afraid and succumb to public pressure. If it proceeds, it would be great if someone to could add the other CASOMB recommendations to the bill, to get some of the rest of us back to Tier 1.
What about CASOMB that approved changing 311 penal code posession to 10 years ? that was like 2 YEARS ago, what a waste of $$$$
Frankly, I’m not sure if Ms. Wicks is gonna care about what the experts have to say. She also has sole decision making authority here, as the appropriations chair.