Yes, it is a very good article....

Thank You for sharing this..good news. I hope more lawyers will come forward in all the states to help put through changes in the inhumane treatment and restrictions to RSO s.

Rew,

I value your opinion.

Don't you think their time/money and most importantly talent should be used fighting more than a technicality of the law as it relates to state vs. local?

I mean why haven't they attacked these movement restrictions as punitive?

At this rate all CA has to do is pass state wide movement restrictions or amend its constitution to allow local laws in some instances to trump state (WI did this) and all her fight and money has been wasted. Years down the drain.

Am I the only one wondering this?

I mean I applaud her bringing awareness. And I know these victories appear sweet on the surface but I'm afraid they will go down the drain.

Any court decision not based on a core violation of a constitutional issue can always be fixed by the legislature at the next legislative session. They can just word smith the previous law or pass a new one to get around the court ruling. They call that "closing loopholes."

One good example is that in New York State, a judge ruled that it was not illegal for a person to view child pornography on the Internet. The legislature just amended the law or made a new law the next session that spelled out exactly that viewing was illegal.

http://tinyurl.com/lby2hjj

http://tinyurl.com/nxzwt7d

But a decision like the Starkey decision in Oklahoma would be much more difficult because it was based on the fact that a punitive situation forbids retroactive application of the law. It would take a state Constitutional amendment to change a law like that.

I am sure Janice knows what she is doing. I often wonder why the retroactivity of the AWA/SORNA has not been attacked in more states, but I am sure there is a reason why Janice has not attempted that route in California.

rewdiazepam

So, yeah Ivy, you are correct in your thinking.

I would be interested to see what Aladdin has to say.

rewdiazepam

CA hasn't implemented AWA, and CA has always had the registry. From what I do know, Janice is working with criminal defense attorneys to help find the right case to fight more of the punative laws in CA.

This gentleman in the story above to me is a perfect fit.

How his life changed from being on a police only list 35 years ago to today exemplifies the difference between a registry scheme the Supreme Court ruled civil in nature 11 years ago to what it is now - punitive.

35 years ago he was registered but no one knew. His movement and residency not restricted. Now his info is public. The data, method and frequency of registering significantly different and more burdensome. As he travels in his own state from county to county and town to town he must know each set of laws governing his movement. Can he sit in a Mcdonalds in Orange County and eat a Big Mac or is he too close to a play structure? He'd like to attend a craft fair in his neighboring town - will he get arrested because it's at a high school? What about 4th of July fireworks at the park?

This is a perfect case to document how a 'good idea' (notice the quotes and sarcasm) has gone bad since 2003 when it was last reviewed.

Does the Supreme Court have an email address? I'd like to talk to them. Lol.

http://www.sbsun.com/government-and-politics/20141011/sex-crimes-convict-says-registration-has-ruined-his-career-endangered-his-life

His story.

No matter what you read, and how well the fight, it always comes back to the kids rights. What makes this fight so hard is OS like Frank and myself have hid our cases from the general public in which we worked. The public in which we came in contact with trusted us base on the work performance, never knowing our background.
Just as half of Californians most likely has had a SO do work for them, at one time or another. We have Tv, Appliance, car repair, food servicers, title , contractors, cab drivers, plumers, store clarks...ect for the last 55 years making a better life for themselfs, who was able to start life over again on the REGISTRY. The police had our addresses phone number, this new registry has stopped us from keeping the life we had for many years after being released from prison


While Bellucci believes she’s fighting for the rights of oppressed sex offenders, others say she’s endangering the state’s youth.

“As an elected official and as a mother, I’m concerned about the health and safety of our young people who don’t have a voice,” said Carson Councilwoman Lulu Davis-Holmes. Carson is one city sued by Bellucci that plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Our kids did not make the choice to be molested,” Davis-Holmes said. “I personally think we need to do more to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
People like her dont understand that child molested kids arent pulled off the streets, its most of the time family or friends not someone behind a bush. This is why the return rate is so low for SO because family members know and watch their child more closely. This is what has cause the return rates to be low not the law.


In cases like Lindsay’s, Ovitt said he was open to re-examining the lifetime registration requirement.

“If someone has gone three decades without offending, I think we need to look at that again,” Ovitt said. “Perhaps they should not be subject to the same, rigid structure that we place on other predators.

This new registration requirement will stop any SO from reaching three decades, not because they will commit another sex crime but the will commit other crimes to live, if they can not work

Lifegoneworng - I agree with what you said but the glaring difference between protecting the children and the punitive nature of the registry is that the statistics do not support at all the "protecting the children" idea. It is the hype that has been used to get these laws passed. We need to work to teach people that the stranger danger ideal is a complete fabrication and myth. And that very very few RSOs fit the scary boogy man idea that most people have of offenders.

Good article but again (preaching to the choir) they still have quotes in there that 1.8 percent re offend and then in the same sentence elude to the fact that those original offenses and the re offending were molestation - not all sex offenses are molestation. Then that jerk at the end of the article that says he has learned that sex offenders cannot be cured - cured of what? I wonder what crime in the US has the highest re offense rate, does anyone know?

:Crime Rate Graphs The Economy SHOWS CHRAPHS