A Sex Registration Horror Story

[goldcatt]

What a few people (a minority thankfully) on this thread seem to have forgotten is we are a nation of laws. If the man was following the law as it was explained to him by the very people charged with making sure he follows it, what difference does it make what he did? He already paid his debt for that crime and did nothing to merit further punishment.

Don't like the laws? Lobby to have them changed. Don't like what this guy may or may not have done? You're entitled to your opinion and you certainly don't have to hang out with him. But the rules are the rules. People who follow them deserve to live without harassment.

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

.

Regardless, if the man was following the rules as they were explained to him, all I can say is WTF? Don't these detectives have anything better to do?

Don't detectives have anything better to do that keep tabs on sex offenders? I sure as heck hope not!!!

 

[Madeline]

If the cops had kept tabs on sex offenders, we would not have the horrible case of Anthony Sowell, who is charged with killing 11 women here in Cleveland and suspected of killing as many as 60...or the horror show of JC Dugard, kept as a prisoner in her kidnapper's back yard for 18 years.

We need a more sensible approach to sex crimes. No, the 20 year old found having sex with a 16 year old is not a wretch we need to execute. The public urination cases are a joke. But some sex crimes (insert reference to the RCC here) are life altering for the victims and we do not seem able to confine these monsters so they don't hurt anyone else.

 

[goldcatt]

If the cops had kept tabs on sex offenders, we would not have the horrible case of Anthony Sowell, who is charged with killing 11 women here in Cleveland and suspected of killing as many as 60...or the horror show of JC Dugard, kept as a prisoner in her kidnapper's back yard for 18 years.

We need a more sensible approach to sex crimes. No, the 20 year old found having sex with a 16 year old is not a wretch we need to execute. The public urination cases are a joke. But some sex crimes (insert reference to the RCC here) are life altering for the victims and we do not seem able to confine these monsters so they don't hurt anyone else.

The Sowells and Dugards of the world are the ones I was referring to earlier when I said some should never, ever get out. Those are the predators and the ones we should be focusing on, not the guy who couldn't make it to the rest room or the 20-year-old with a younger girlfriend. Or in this case, the guy who already served his time and is reporting to police and doing what he is told he needs to do.

 

[Douger]

Joes murkin !
An exemplary example of the murkin nightmare !
Steroided Nazi freaks harrasing a homeless sex offender who sleeps in a garage "once in a while".
Vuht un kuntree.

 

[dilloduck]

Joes murkin !
An exemplary example of the murkin nightmare !
Steroided Nazi freaks harrasing a homeless sex offender who sleeps in a garage "once in a while".
Vuht un kuntree.

May as well stone them and be done with it.

 

[editec]

Add me to the list.

Me, too.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

One of the requirements for most people out on parole is to maintain a residence and a job.

What is your basis for that statement? It is simply not true.

It is true in Oregon where Alli Babba and I live, and where she is part of the enforcement process on children's abuse matters.

I notice it is not a requirement in California, but California does require few things Oregon does not. In Oregon you don't have to have a travel pass in state, like you do in CA. CA does require that if you change jobs you must notify your parole officer in three day.

At the time of release in California, like in Oregon, all the rules of probation/parole are listed in a form you must sign. In both places you must meet with the probation department within 24 hours of sentence, release, and the conditions are spelled out in the form before signing, and IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PAROLEE/PROBATIONER TO MAKE SURE HE IS CLEAR ON EACH CONDITION OF PROBATION/PAROLE.

 

[editec]

The laws that are designed to protect are sometimes skewed beyond belief.

I no of someone who was a respectable businessman and part time charity volunteer, one time he was on the back nine of the golf course and had to go whizz, afraid he could not make it to the bathroom, he went in the woods, well a lady about 300 yards away saw him stading behind a tree, she could not see a stream or anything, only saw him walk behind a large pine tree in the woods, the man now has to register as a sex offender, she called the police and then he admitted it 1 hour later to them at the clubhouse, that is what he got for his honesty and having a busybody lady who could only guess what he did......


.

Something similar happened to a friend of mine about 40 years ago.

Drunk, he stopped in an dark alley (it was night) to take a piss.

Now?

Now he's a sex offender.

I have absolutely no problem going after sexual predators, but sometimes our blind justice system is way TOO blind.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

To many of our zero tolerance laws are really zero brain laws.

 

[dilloduck]

anyone have stats on the male/female ratio of offenders?

 

[westwall]

I wonder what his crime was? I find it interesting that that was left out of the discussion.

Oh . . . I see . . . You find it "interesting," eh? Yesssss . . . . I suspect that others will find it interesting as well . . . verrryyyyy interesting . . .

Why, it almost sounds as if he's trying to HIDE something . . . Yes . . . that's it. He's HIDING something. What could it be? What COULD it be?

To tell you the truth, I don't even know what it was. Probably 288a - sex with a child under 14.

Does that make a difference to you? Do you feel that, the worse the crime, the less we have to abandon legal and moral standards in dealing with the convicted person? I know that a number of people here actually do feel that way. Are you one of them? Apparently so. Let's see - under 14. Would it make any difference to you if we were talking about a fully developed, very provocative and very friendly 14 year old female or a four year old boy? If it was a four year old boy, how would you feel about getting together a lynch mob?

Frankly, - no, I'm not going to stoop to that level . . . let's go on to the next point.

If you did the crime you have to live with the consequences. If you didn't then you should fight like hell to clear your name.

And what consequences would you be willing to stand for? What is happening to Joe here? That seem fair to you? Oh, wait a minute - "fair" doesn't enter the picture once we have a conviction for a sex crime. I forgot. How about a lynch mob? Is that a "consequence" you would be willing to live with?

I simply do not understand people like you.

Gee George I don't know. Don't you? I mean if the man was convicted of statutory rape but the girl was romantically involved and they were later married I think that would have a distinct slant to the issue. If the man was convicted of kidnap and rape and was released after serving 6 to 10 years but was classified as a high level risk to offend that would be another matter too...now wouldn't it?

You can get as high and mighty as you want but if the perp is a pedophile he is not going to change his stripe. He will offend whenever he gets the opportunity to do so. I have NO sympathy for pedophiles.

I believe any thinking person would have little sympathy for a serial violent pedophile, or a serial rapist who was let out because there was no legal way to keep him in prison. Don't you?

Sexual predators are the lowest of the low. The fact that some people try to defend these monsters is astonishing to me. How about the victims of these predators? How about the victims to come because these creatures are not kept in prison where they belong?

Are there cases where there are people who have been classified wrongly due to a screwed up legal system? Absolutely! But I can quite easily guarantee you that there are far more victims created because the legal system did not keep these monsters in prison.
Just look at the Phillip Garrido case for a most recent case. One family lost their daughter for 18 years and the now woman J.C. Dugard had two children by the asshole.

This perv had been convicted by a jury and sentenced to 50 years for a violent rape in Reno NV. He was released after 10 years and within months had kidnapped the then 11 year old J.C. How much pain should she and others like her have to suffer so that maybe one criminal is actually rehabilitated?

I say none.

 

[westwall]

One of the requirements for most people out on parole is to maintain a residence and a job.

What is your basis for that statement? It is simply not true.

I regret to inform you but you are incorrect. A verified residence is ALLWAYS a condition of parole. Employment is not, but a residence absolutely is. I colored the relevant section so you could more easily see it.

§ 63.4. General conditions of parole.
If parole is granted, the parolee shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) Report in person or in writing within 48 hours to the district office or suboffice specified by the Board and not leave that district without prior written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(2) Live at the residence approved by the Board at release and not change residence without the written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(3) Maintain regular contact with the parole supervision staff by:

(i) Reporting regularly as instructed and following written instructions of the Board or the parole supervision staff.

(ii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of one of the following:

(A) Arrest.

(B) Receipt of a summons or citation for an offense punishable by imprisonment upon conviction.

(iii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of a change in status including but not limited to employment, on the job training and education.

(4) Comply with municipal, county, State and Federal criminal statutes, as well as the Vehicle Code and the Liquor Code (47 P. S. § § 1-101—9-902).

(5) Additionally:

(i) Abstain from the unlawful possession or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. § § 780-101—780-144) without a valid prescription.

(ii) Refrain from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons.

(iii) Refrain from an assaultive behavior.

(6) Pay fines, costs and restitution imposed by the sentencing court in accordance with the instructions contained in the Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole form.

 

[westwall]

To many of our zero tolerance laws are really zero brain laws.

This I absolutely agree with. Governement has no brains so classifies everything to the lowest common denominator. Innocent people suffer because of it. Mildly guilty people suffer from it. But too often the worst of the worst prosper because of it.

 

[goldcatt]

One of the requirements for most people out on parole is to maintain a residence and a job.

What is your basis for that statement? It is simply not true.

I regret to inform you but you are incorrect. A verified residence is ALLWAYS a condition of parole. Employment is not, but a residence absolutely is. I colored the relevant section so you could more easily see it.

§ 63.4. General conditions of parole.
If parole is granted, the parolee shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) Report in person or in writing within 48 hours to the district office or suboffice specified by the Board and not leave that district without prior written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(2) Live at the residence approved by the Board at release and not change residence without the written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(3) Maintain regular contact with the parole supervision staff by:

(i) Reporting regularly as instructed and following written instructions of the Board or the parole supervision staff.

(ii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of one of the following:

(A) Arrest.

(B) Receipt of a summons or citation for an offense punishable by imprisonment upon conviction.

(iii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of a change in status including but not limited to employment, on the job training and education.

(4) Comply with municipal, county, State and Federal criminal statutes, as well as the Vehicle Code and the Liquor Code (47 P. S. § § 1-101—9-902).

(5) Additionally:

(i) Abstain from the unlawful possession or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. § § 780-101—780-144) without a valid prescription.

(ii) Refrain from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons.

(iii) Refrain from an assaultive behavior.

(6) Pay fines, costs and restitution imposed by the sentencing court in accordance with the instructions contained in the Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole form.

Don't know what your source is (ahem) but as an FYI conditions of parole are the province of the States (or the Feds, in the case of a Federal crime). Therefore, every State's requirements are different. There is no one "Always".

You cite a section of a statute without a link or any information on the jurisdiction it comes from. But the OP was clear we are talking about CA laws.

Not that it matters in the context of this thread, I hope you are aware there is a big difference in legal status between a parolee and a registered sex offender and nowhere was it stated Joe is on parole. But for future reference ....jurisdiction matters.

 

[Immanuel]

I will call him "Joe" (not his real name). Joe is 55 years old. When he was in his 30's, Joe was convicted of a sex crime - the type of sex crime that requires him to register with the police department under California's sex registration law (Penal Code, Section 290).

Joe is a transient - a homeless person. He has no address to give the police. In cases such as that, the law requires the person to register every 30 days at the police station nearest to where he most normally is located. Joe faithfully did that.

In November of law year, Joe's driver's license expired. He went to DMV to get a new one. DMV asked him for an address. He said he did not have one. They told him he had to give them one or they would not renew his license. He said, "Well, I do have an address where I get mail." He was told to put that address down, and he did - indicating on the DMV form that it was a "mail only" address.

A month or so ago, a Sheriff's detective whose job it is to monitor sex registrants in the area, ran a routine check on Joe. As part of such a check, the detective contacts DMV to see whether or not any current address have been listed there by the registrant. He found the address which Joe had given DMV as a "mail only" address.

The detective went to the address. He was told by the guy who lived there, that Joe only used the address to receive mail. He also told the detective that sometimes he lets Joe sleep in the garage in return for doing yard work. When asked how often Joe slept in the garage, the homeowner said, "once a week or so."

Armed with this information, the detective sought, and obtained, a felony filing against Joe for violation of PC 290. What might that violation be? The detective located an osbscure California Department of Justice rule which says that if a person stays at one location as little as once a week, they must designate that address as their residence address, and register it at the local police station. Since Joe was registering as a transient, and had not listed the mail only address as his residence, he was in violation of the law according to this detective and the DA that filed the case.

Anyone smell anything here? Joe was doing everything he could to comply with the registration law. He had no knowledge of the "once a week" rule. He thought he was doing everything right. Joe was not trying to hide anything from anybody. Too bad.

Oh, yes - since most sex crimes are strikes in California, Joe is looking at a minimum of 32 months in state prison if he is convicted.

Joe is upset. So am I.

Good. He shouldn't be out in the first place.

You have no idea what he was charged with. Maybe it was public nudity for walking from his bathroom to his bedroom in the buff in the middle of the night and some prude saw him through the window and called the cops?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The laws that are designed to protect are sometimes skewed beyond belief.

I no of someone who was a respectable businessman and part time charity volunteer, one time he was on the back nine of the golf course and had to go whizz, afraid he could not make it to the bathroom, he went in the woods, well a lady about 300 yards away saw him stading behind a tree, she could not see a stream or anything, only saw him walk behind a large pine tree in the woods, the man now has to register as a sex offender, she called the police and then he admitted it 1 hour later to them at the clubhouse, that is what he got for his honesty and having a busybody lady who could only guess what he did......


.

Something similar happened to a friend of mine about 40 years ago.

Drunk, he stopped in an dark alley (it was night) to take a piss.

Now?

Now he's a sex offender.

I have absolutely no problem going after sexual predators, but sometimes our blind justice system is way TOO blind.

I didn't even know the sex offender lists were around 40 years ago.

Immie

 

[Kyleigh Maria]

Perhaps one might want to walk in the shoes of law enforcement or adult corrections for a mile or two. If "Joe" goes out and commits a crime against a person (as many many MANY offenders have done even after "paying their debt"), can you imagine the public outcry? Why wasn't Joe kept track of better? Why was Joe allowed to roam the streets? Why didn't anybody know Joe spent one night a week in a garage? And if they did know, why did they allow it? It's against the law!! Joe is a sex offender and he should have been monitored more closely.

All of a sudden, we have another victim, people lose their jobs and once again, it's the fault of EVERYBODY else but Joe. I realize some cases are extreme, but I doubt you'd think so if Joe was staying in YOUR neighbor's garage. We can probably all state a case of where the system overreacted, but I'm betting 98% of sex offenders are labeled that for a good reason.

 

[westwall]

What is your basis for that statement? It is simply not true.

I regret to inform you but you are incorrect. A verified residence is ALLWAYS a condition of parole. Employment is not, but a residence absolutely is. I colored the relevant section so you could more easily see it.

§ 63.4. General conditions of parole.
If parole is granted, the parolee shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) Report in person or in writing within 48 hours to the district office or suboffice specified by the Board and not leave that district without prior written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(2) Live at the residence approved by the Board at release and not change residence without the written permission of the parole supervision staff.

(3) Maintain regular contact with the parole supervision staff by:

(i) Reporting regularly as instructed and following written instructions of the Board or the parole supervision staff.

(ii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of one of the following:

(A) Arrest.

(B) Receipt of a summons or citation for an offense punishable by imprisonment upon conviction.

(iii) Notifying the parole supervision staff within 72 hours of a change in status including but not limited to employment, on the job training and education.

(4) Comply with municipal, county, State and Federal criminal statutes, as well as the Vehicle Code and the Liquor Code (47 P. S. § § 1-101—9-902).

(5) Additionally:

(i) Abstain from the unlawful possession or sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs and abstain from the use of controlled substances within the meaning of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (35 P. S. § § 780-101—780-144) without a valid prescription.

(ii) Refrain from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons.

(iii) Refrain from an assaultive behavior.

(6) Pay fines, costs and restitution imposed by the sentencing court in accordance with the instructions contained in the Conditions Governing Parole/Reparole form.

Don't know what your source is (ahem) but as an FYI conditions of parole are the province of the States (or the Feds, in the case of a Federal crime). Therefore, every State's requirements are different. There is no one "Always".

You cite a section of a statute without a link or any information on the jurisdiction it comes from. But the OP was clear we are talking about CA laws.

Not that it matters in the context of this thread, I hope you are aware there is a big difference in legal status between a parolee and a registered sex offender and nowhere was it stated Joe is on parole. But for future reference ....jurisdiction matters.

What you say is correct and I pulled from the PA (which maybe you're familiar with?) PC. I couldn't find a single state where a known residence was not a condition of parole however. And yes the sex offender registry is different from a parolee, I was merely referring to the OP's assertion that proof of residency was not a condition of parole.

Here is the link.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/037/chapter63/chap63toc.html

 

[dilloduck]

I don't wany any ex offender living any nearer to me than a sex offender. How about a registry and living restrictions placed on all of them ?