I read somewhere that the new system wouldn't apply to SOs that were convicted prior to the tiered registry bill's passing (if the bill ever does pass). If that happens, and my husband still has to register for life, I will lose it. Seriously.

If the proposed tier levels are similar to the tier levels enacted in other states and California follows the other states in how these tier levels are enforced, then these tier levels will most likely be retroactive. If the tier levels are part of the AWA in California, then I know for sure they will be retroactive.

I have been busy and have not had time to read about the tier levels in California or go to the link that ThoughtAsWeak included in her post, but I will. So I don't know what California will do.

BUT, and people might get tired of me harping on this, but we have some new members and this is important: The State Supreme Courts of both Oklahoma and Ohio have ruled that the enhanced registry requirements---the tier levels---- were punitive and to apply them retroactively would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the STATE constitution. I also think Nancy Forster was instrumental in getting the Maryland high courts to rule in the same manner, but the State of Maryland is still battling it out in court.

As a result, the registrants convicted BEFORE the passage of the tier levels in Ohio and Oklahoma, reverted back to the registry requirements that were in effect when they began registering---their original requirements. So, for example in Oklahoma, instead of registering every 90 days for life, those convicted before the passage of the tier levels reverted back to registering annually for 10 years. And when they had registered for 10 years, they had to be removed according to the court decision; they had fulfilled their registry requirements that were in place before the tier levels were enacted. Oklahoma had to remove almost 3,000 registrants because of the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision.

I have explained this in very simple terms. The Starkey case in Oklahoma and the Williams case in Ohio were very important. Let's not forget Maryland also.

And here is why this is so important: I am sure there are other states that, when they enacted the tier levels, forced all the registrants to increase their registry requirements----as it was made retroactive. I am sure that some of the other State Constitutions have an ex post facto clause which makes punitive, retroactive laws illegal. So I believe that registrants in OTHER states can fight this retroactivity. But you have to file a law suit against the state to win.

If Mr. Starkey had never challenged the law in Oklahoma, most of the registrants would still be registering every 90 days for the rest of their life.

The abolishment of the retroactivity of the tier levels will only help the older registrants. The registrants convicted after the tier levels were enacted will receive no relief, BUT these states, Oklahoma and Ohio set a precedent. For the first time, a high court has ruled that a part of the registry is punitive. If more and more states get on the bandwagon, I am hoping this will start a chain reaction to give everyone in the country some relief. I don't foresee any registry changes on the federal level, but the state level is ripe for changes.

If they enact the tier levels in California and make them retroactive, you can bet your last dollar that Janice will look at the Oklahoma and Ohio cases and file a law suit against the State of California.

Let's hope they don't enact any tier levels in California.

rewdiazepam

I'm confused. Aren't the tier levels a good thing? Isn't it better to only have to register for 10 years as opposed to for the rest of one's life? Or are you saying that with the tiers will come harsher regulations regarding residency, public parks, searches, etc.?

Part of the problem with tiers, I think, is that they're often applied with a wide-sweeping brush and don't necessarily reflect the actual circumstances. Some folks like to put labels on other people so they don't have to think for themselves; it's so much easier to let someone else make an assessment and just pass it along without making individual determinations.

I cannot speak for all states, but here is what happened to me and many other registrants in Oklahoma.

I was released from prison in 2000, after serving eight years. My "crime" occurred in 1990 and I was convicted in 1992.

When I was released, I was informed that I would have to register once a year for a 10 year period, after which time I would be removed from the registry. There were no tier levels at that time. Nobody had ever heard of tier levels, just as nobody had ever heard of the sex offender registry at the time of my conviction.

Sometime in late 2007, I received a letter from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections informing me that Oklahoma had adopted tier levels. I had been placed on tier 3 and so I was now forced to register every 90 days for the rest of my life.

It is interesting to note that the tier designation only depends on the crime for which a registrant was convicted. There was no psychological assessment done, only the crime. In Oklahoma, the majority came under the classification of tier 3, which changed their registration from one a year for 10 years to every 90 days for life.

Oklahoma placed so many crimes as tier 3 eligible that over 75% of the registrants wound up on tier 3.

So, no the tier levels in Oklahoma were absolutely not a good thing. Many registrants were close to their original 10 year removal period when Oklahoma pulled the rug out from under them and just decided that the tier level laws enacted in 2007 would be applied retroactively. I went from registering every year for 10 years to registering every 90 days for the rest of my life. On June 25 of 2013, when they made a ruling in the Starkey vs. the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma Supreme Court told the DOC they could not apply the levels retroactively, so my registration requirements reverted back to my original requirement.

Now if a registrant resides in another state and currently has a lifetime obligation to register, I suppose that the new tier levels could help him if he was placed on a tier one, which registers for only 10 years in most states; tier 2 registers for 15 or 25 years depending on the state and tier 3 must register for life. If a current lifetime registrant was designated a tier 1 offender, then yes, it would change his requirements from lifetime to 10 years.

BUT that is not how it usually works. I imagine any now current lifetime registrant will more than likely be placed on tier 3.

If they conducted the classification to determine the appropriate tier for each registrant by using several factors such as age, whether he knew the victim, whether it was a violent or coerced crime, his job status, his family ties, etc., then the tier levels would be fine for most registrants. But when they base the tier classification solely on the crime, even if the crime happened 30 years ago with no reoffense, then no the tiers are just black magic.

rewdiazepam

From reading the recommendation, CASOMB is proposing tiers based on crime & risk level. Hubby would be considered as a tier 2, but in the low risk level, where he could petition to be removed after 10 yrs.

They understand that basing solely on crime, isn't effective, so they want to include the static 99 score as well.

So, it really depends on what the legislators decide when drafting the bill. We can help by sending letters to your legislators to petition to adopt the registry based on the recommendations of CASOMB.

Yeah I do not understand why you wouldn't use the static 99 to determine risk level as well as the crime.

It would also be nice if the people could "tier down". If you are a tier 2 for so many years you could go to parole board and show that you have less risk now, so they move you down to tier 1. Then a certain amount of time later you can petition to get off of it from tier 1.

They did not use the static99 in this state because of pure laziness. It was much easier to just classify by the crime which was committed. They just did not care how unscientific or unfair it is to use the crime as sole criteria for the tier classification.

They did it this way because they couldn't care less about the registrants of their families.

I re-read the entire Starkey opinion again, and Oklahoma did have a provision for changing tier levels. No, not for reducing them, but increasing them. They passed a separate law that state the tier levels could not be reduced.

rewdiazepam