Sex offender revamp in works under state bill

SACRAMENTO — California’s sex offender registry didn’t protect Chelsea King. A registered child predator abducted, raped and murdered the 17-year-old high school senior after she set off for a jog on the trails around Lake Hodges in San Diego County in 2010.

Authorities used DNA to track down John Albert Gardner III, who confessed to killing Chelsea and another teen, Amber DuBois, who had gone missing near San Diego a year before on her way to school.

Chelsea’s father, Brent King, has been fighting ever since for stricter punishments and closer monitoring of sex offenders whose victims were children. So it might surprise some that he thinks California should end its practice of requiring all sex offenders to register with authorities every year for the rest of their lives.

“Right now, we treat all sex offenders the same, and they’re not,” said King, who moved to Chicago with his wife and son after Chelsea was murdered.

Questions over which offenders should register for life and which should come off the registry are at the center of a debate over legislation to overhaul the state’s extensive sex offender registry, used by law enforcement and largely available to the public online. Many law enforcement and advocacy groups are backing the changes, but victims and their families are divided. King said he has mixed feelings about the legislation.

SB421 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would allow most sex offenders to come off the registry 10 to 20 years after they are released from prison, so long as they have not committed another serious or violent felony or sex crime.

The bill, which already has passed the Senate, would remove lifetime registry requirements for even violent offenders. Offenders who have committed rape, lewd acts with children or forcible sodomy would be able to petition the court 20 years after their release to be removed from California’s sex offender registry.

Offenders who committed misdemeanor battery, indecent exposure and felony possession of child pornography would be allowed to petition for removal from the registry after 10 years if they keep clean records.

Lifetime registration would still be required for offenders convicted of repeat felony child molestation, kidnapping with intent to commit a sex crime and second offenses of violent or serious sex crimes.

The legislation allows for a one-time purge for those whose convictions are at least 30 years old if they have kept clean records and have not had multiple serious or violent offenses that would require lifetime registration. And offenders convicted as juveniles would be required to appear on the registry for five to 10 years, depending on the seriousness of their crime.

But while some critics find it unsettling that the state would stop monitoring rapists and child molesters, the bill has support from victim advocate groups, law enforcement and academics who point to studies that have shown that the risk to re-offend drops off precipitously over the years, and that law enforcement should focus their resources on those most likely to commit new crimes.

“This fixes a really terrible problem in existing law — which is the complete failure to make any distinction between people who are classified as having a sex offense,” said Ira Ellman, a law professor at UC Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Law and Society. “To throw them into one pot where they register until they die just makes no sense.”

King agrees. He said a system that accurately identifies who is a high risk for re-offending and purges low-level offenders “could have helped” in his daughter’s case. But, allowing a child molester to come off the registry is where the bill loses King’s support. The bill is expected to have a hearing Tuesday in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

“If you rape a child when you were 25 and you are now 45 and you’re wiped off the registry, yeah no thanks,” King said. “You should never come off.”

His daughter’s killer had been convicted of molesting a 13-year-old neighbor in 2000 in an attack at his home where he sexually assaulted and beat her. That landed him on the sex offender registry when he was released from prison in 2005. Supporters of the bill say the new system would allow law enforcement to better monitor sex offenders like Gardner, instead of spending most of their time and budget processing registration paperwork in their offices.

“Right now, there is a catchall concept, and that is overworking the entire system,” King said. “I like that there is a discussion about this, but it can’t be driven entirely by statistics because even a 1 percent failure rate is terrible.”

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the state’s sex offender registry, which requires sex offenders to disclose where they live to law enforcement agencies. The 1947 state law was the first in the nation, and initially was used as a tracking tool for law enforcement.

A second registry was created as a public website in 2004 under Megan’s Law, which is named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who was raped and killed by a convicted child molester who lived across the street from her family without their knowledge. The public registry is intended to be a community notification tool and specifically states that it is not intended to be a punishment since offenders on the registry have already served their sentences.

Not all sex offenders are required to appear on the public registry, such as in some first-time offenses or in cases where the victim was a relative.

But law enforcement and scholars argue that California’s registry is so bloated — 100,000 sex offenders and counting — that it’s become unwieldy and meaningless and should be thinned out. As Ellman, the law professer at UC Berkeley, put it, California’s registry is a giant haystack hiding the dangerous needles.

“If you were to try to design a bill to reflect the data more accurately, no one should be on the registry for more than 20 years,” said Ellman, citing research that shows nearly anyone who has been crime-free for 20 years is a low risk to re-offend, regardless of their original offense.

“Legislators are moving the ball in the right direction, even if they aren’t moving the ball as far as it should go,” Ellman said.

The state is one of four in the country that requires sex offenders to register with local law enforcement each year, within five days of their birthday, for life no matter how many decades they are removed from their last sex crime. California’s registry includes 650 sex offenders whose last convictions were in the 1940s and 1950s, according to data compiled by the California Sex Offender Management Board. About 22,000 people have been on the registry for more than 30 years.

Law enforcement agencies say they spend two-thirds of their budgets for sex offender supervision on the registration paperwork sex offenders are required to complete. That’s time spent in an office that could be used to monitor high-risk sex offenders in communities, the Los Angeles district attorney’s office argued.

One longtime advocate for registry reform is Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, who is chair of the California Sex Offender Management Board. Another supporter is the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

“We believe that the resources currently allocated to managing lifetime registrants could be more effectively used by focusing on those at the greatest risk to re-offend,” wrote Sandra Henriquez, executive director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

One sex offender, a 40-year-old man who asked that his name not be included out of fear that he would be targeted, said each time he has moved, his Facebook feed is filled with people warning that he is in their neighborhood. He was convicted as a 19-year-old in El Dorado County for having unlawful sex with a 15-year-old.

“I have to Google search who hires sex offenders,” the man said. “I didn’t have a rich dad who could get this taken care of. When this happens, you are at the mercy of public opinion.”

An 88-year-old woman in Fremont said the bill the Legislature is considering is her last hope to help her 37-year-old grandson. The woman asked that her name not be included in fear that her grandson would be identified. She said her grandson is a heavily medicated schizophrenic who was convicted 15 years ago of battery on a child after he knocked over a store display while drunk and put his hand up the skirt of a 17-year-old clerk attempting to pick up the mess.

Now, in failing health, she said she can’t move into a retirement home because her grandson would have no place to live.

“After 15 years, isn’t that long enough for what the offense was?” she asked.

Equality California, the LGBT advocacy group, is sponsoring the bill. Rick Zbur, executive director at Equality California, wrote in a letter supporting SB421 that LGBT people have been “targeted and often entrapped on charges” that required lifetime registration as a sex offender for “engaging in same-sex contact when that action was criminalized in the past.”

“California’s registry has gone too long without the benefits of reform,” Zbur wrote.

But not all victims agree. Michelle Morales, a 28-year-old sex abuse victim from Woodland Hills in Los Angeles County, said the registry should be for life and include anyone who commits a sex offense. As a child, she was repeatedly molested over seven years by her mother’s boyfriend. She didn’t report it to police until she was 25, but was able to work with police to record the man confessing to his crimes.

Just because a person on the registry doesn’t have a new conviction doesn’t mean they haven’t committed a new offense, she said.

“It may just mean that there is a victim who hasn’t come forward yet,” Morales said. “Staying on that list could save someone a lifetime of trauma.”

SOURCE

11 thoughts on “Sex offender revamp in works under state bill

  • July 10, 2017 at 8:21 am
    Permalink

    Some common sense and then some paranoia driven assumptions but it is good to see that at least facts are being thrown into the mix. If everyone was a suspect for what he/she might do, then the entire population would be on some kind of registry. The only person who says they have never done anything wrong could be included in a class of liars. Fortunately as humans we have the ability to recognize when we have done wrong and the ability to correct that action. It is unforgiveness that is driving much of this ‘scare’.

    Reply
    • July 10, 2017 at 9:23 am
      Permalink

      Somehow many countries have jumped on the bandwagon that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend and are less worthy of forgiveness. Apparently, if you commit a single non-violent sex offense, you are more dangerous to society than a person who is convicted of murderer, arson, aggravated battery or drunk driving. I guess my brain must be faulty because I do not see it.

      Reply
  • July 10, 2017 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    ” Morales said. “Staying on that list could save someone a lifetime of trauma.” ” So this thought process is maddeningly frustrating to me.
    For the love of mercy, could someone tell me how does being on a list protect anyone? I was abused as a child, the list wouldn’t have prevented it.
    Let’s put every potential terrorist on ‘a list’ and apparently we’ll have no more terrorism. Let’s put every drunk driver on a list and apparently that will prevent further dangerous driving, etc, etc.
    At best it is hell for those who actually are trying to lead law-abiding lives beneficial to society, and at worst, it does nothing for protecting anyone except maybe political careers.
    If a person really wants to hurt someone else, no list, no sign in a yard, no prohibitions, no notification processes, not even the dreaded GPS monitoring, is going to stop it.
    Thank you for allowing me to vent.

    Reply
    • July 10, 2017 at 9:33 am
      Permalink

      Les,

      I think that registration can and should be a part of probation and parole for all violent crimes — whether sexual or non-sexual — in nature. I think it is common sense to keep track of the people that have already committed a violent offense. But, lifetime registration is extreme for most offenders — and all of the additional restrictions on the lives of sex offenders that have been added in recent years are punitive and a clear violation of ex post facto principles.

      Most states already require ALL felons to register and re-register anyway. Why is that not sufficient for sex offenders?

      Reply
      • July 10, 2017 at 12:02 pm
        Permalink

        Probation and parole already keep track of their offenders and they even have their own public registry display with the dept of corrections where you can search for offenders that are currently serving a sentence. But why must it be post sentence for some ? That I don’t agree. If someone was that dangerous then give them a longer sentence “BUT” via the courts with due process and not by the government’s hand. The government can pass punishing and sentencing laws, but the government cannot sentence you. That’s why we have courts for and have due process. Once someone finishes their sentence, then they shouldn’t be subject to anything – period!. If they re-offend, you punish them again to an appropriate sentence in accordance with the law. Nobody should finish a sentence and then the government gives you another sentence without due process. It is ridiculous and tyrannical. It is punishment in the guise of a regulatory scheme.

        Reply
        • July 10, 2017 at 12:51 pm
          Permalink

          Yes, that is true Debbie, which makes it redundant to have a separate system just for sex offenders. It consumes valuable time, funds and resources that could be used to actually prevent new crimes instead of persecuting reformed sex offenders!

          Reply
        • July 10, 2017 at 1:10 pm
          Permalink

          What I am having a difficult time comprehending is how a law in one part of the country can be found unconstitutional and yet not unconstitutional in other parts of the nation? Aren’t we all supposed to be one people, one nation under the same laws? When we can observe daily just how fouled up the nation is in so many areas of life, it’s no wonder sex offender laws are so confused and lacking in purpose.

          Reply
      • July 10, 2017 at 1:43 pm
        Permalink

        I appreciate the reply, but it doesn’t address the nature of the question.
        The misconception that i struggle with is the logic that a registry PROTECTS anyone. And this is the logic often used to fuel the fire for the registry and other things that are actually punitive as you noted.
        So, just clarifying, my post wasn’t so much about whether a registry (PRIVATE – for law enforcement) is useful, isn’t at all the question. the question that maddens me is, how does it PROTECT anyone? Having John Doe’s name on a list somewhere doesn’t protect against John Doe performing an illegal act. The fact that recidivism exists at all for any criminal who has their name on some registry, shows that this logic isn’t sound.
        Other arguments for having a registry (public or private) are fine, happy to hear them, but this argument that a registry ‘offers protection’ in any way needs to be attacked so it will stop being used and considered as valid arguments in news posts or by legislators.
        Thanks for comments – I’m just clarifying the original question.

        Reply
  • July 10, 2017 at 9:10 am
    Permalink

    California is headed in the right direction. Most offenders should not automatically be required to register for life. That does not allow a first time offender to ever have a normal life again. Shouldn’t people be given a second chance? If the offender was your friend or relative, wouldn’t you want them to have an opportunity to live a normal life, free of the burden of lifelong registration — and all the indignities, fears and restrictions that go with it? I think 20 years is long enough to show that most offenders have committed to good behavior. Naturally, there will be exceptions. But society should not punish an entire class of citizens just because SOME in that class choose not to learn from their past. I agree that offenders who are guilty of REPEAT felony child molestation, REPEAT kidnapping with intent to commit a sex crime and REPEAT offenses of serious sex crimes should be required to register for life. That makes sense. If they did not alter their behavior after their first offense, they are very unlikely to do so after their second offense and they do not deserve to be free of the registry. However, I think that if the offense involved forcible rape, use of a weapon (even as a means of intimidation), striking, beating or physically harming the victim, a first-time offender should be required to register until they have been free of sex-related or non-sexual violent offenses for a minimum of 20 years and have completed sex offender treatment and therapy designed for violent sex offenders. I also think that if an offense resulted in permanent injury, maiming or death of the victim that the offender should remain on lifetime registration, even if they are a first-time offender.

    Of course, when I speak of registration, I mean ONLY registration — not all of the other requirements that states have added in recent years. I do not think those on the registry should be subjected to proximity and residency restrictions of any kind unless it was stipulated in court during their sentencing.

    I also do not think anyone should be subject to ANY legislation that burdens them in any way unless the law was enacted prior to their conviction for an offense that the law covers. Individuals in such a circumstance should be removed from all registries everywhere immediately — regardless of the nature of their offense.

    Reply
  • July 10, 2017 at 9:55 am
    Permalink

    It would appear that some offenders are more capable of expressing common sense that many of our “do-gooder” legislators. We must keep the pressure on until the truth sinks in and live lives that are exemplary to our message. It’s not easy but can be done. I find myself angry at every new offense ‘plastered’ across the TV screen. Those offenders are not doing any of us any favors.

    Reply
  • July 11, 2017 at 2:00 am
    Permalink

    Thrown in one pot says it all as far as Florida. I may be a RSO but I’m afraid of any repeat Predator just like anyone else. My crime is not even a crime in several States. Florida will have jurisdiction over me until I die. Lawyers tell me to move. Lawyers just say forget it. Your stuck. Lawyers just say shut up and be compliant. Florida is the worst and years behind California in human rights laws.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *