Changes in Sex Offender Registry: Reflective Essay

With respect to adults, my stance on SB 384 is in support of the legislation. Sex crimes are a controversial and sensitive topic among most of the population in the United States. The severity of the crime is a crucial factor that determines the fate of the accused, as well as the accuser. Should someone who has been convicted of numerous child rapes face the same consequences as an 18-year-old that slept with a 17-year-old? It’s a difficult concept to grasp when one must define it legally. It is said that one should not compare the hardships that people face to one another, but in order to fulfill the constitutional right of due process, legally defining legislation must be written in a way to protect victims and determine the appropriate punishment for guilty predators. However, it’s still important to consider protecting the falsely accused or ones that committed very minor sex crimes even though it was consensual, such as the previously mentioned 17 and 18-year-old. Enforcing the 3-tier system in SB 384 will separate the morally good from the corrupt.

One of the main reasons to incarcerate someone is not only to protect any victims, but it should also be to rehabilitate the person so they can become a functioning and beneficial member of society. It is understandable that many would want to see those convicted with minor crimes punished for a long time, but is it right to sentence them to a life of discrimination if they do not re-offend for several decades? Again, it depends on the severity of the crime. Having 3 tiers of severity, or “gradation”, assists those who truly repent their past actions and punishes those who are clearly ill-fit to return to society. The Law Office of Vikas Bajaj, APC makes a valid argument in support of SB 384. “To make matters worse, most of the people on the registry were convicted of low-level offenses and haven’t committed a crime in years. Police and law enforcement agencies tend to spend most of their time completing paperwork for and focusing on these low-level offenders. This prevents them from spending time focused on high-risk and potentially dangerous offenders.” (Bajaj) The legal process is sometimes underestimated regarding the amount of time that is required to successfully convict an accused offender. This does not mean that low-level offenders should just be given a “slap on the wrist” to save time but creating sex registration tiers will save time as well as keep a watchful eye on low-level offenders. This gives law enforcement the chance to focus on high-risk offenders, as stated above.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Adult offenders that have committed minor sex crimes are given the chance to redeem themselves and seek assistance to help them from reoffending and having to register for another decade. Now, ten years is a long time to be on the registry, but the magnitude of a sex crime cannot be forgotten. If an offender has committed a non-violent sex crime and is required to register for the rest of their life, then they may progress to committing violent crimes since they “would have nothing to lose”, aside from prison time. It would provide a way out and would set a goal that they can work to achieve. Lifetime registration cuts all hope of ever returning to a normal life. They would not have to worry about their status affecting many important things such as applying for a job and renting property.

Lifetime registration for all offenders also does not prevent sex crimes from occurring. It may help a bit, but it also greatly affects the amount of work for law enforcement. Laura Arnold, a Riverside deputy public defender, brings up a valid point during an interview with Kelsey Brugger, author of the Independent article “Changes are Coming to California Sex Offender Registry: A New Approach Will Consider Severity of Crimes”. “It’s like putting a GPS on every shark in the ocean because one might attack a swimmer, said Laura Arnold, a deputy public defender in Riverside and expert on sex offender registration laws. “Does it make the public safer? Probably not,” said Arnold, who was in Santa Barbara this week for a law seminar.” (Brugger) I find this analogy accurate. Focus must be given to the more severe cases while keeping the low-level offenders on the backburner, so to speak. It steers the focus onto the high-level offenders while giving a chance at redemption to the low-level accusers. Hopefully, the victims of sex crimes can see this rationale despite the possible, understandable feelings of wanting to see their offender suffer for the rest of their lives.

Although SB 384 gives convicted offenders a chance at a normal life, the most important factors that must be kept in mind are the potential victims that it can help, most importantly the victims of serious and heinous crimes. The Law Office of Vikas Bajaj is quite right in saying that priority must be given to the more serious cases. This is also the main argument from the SB 384 Senate Floor analysis which states that “Law enforcement cannot protect the community effectively when they are in the office doing monthly or annual paperwork for low-risk offenders. when they could be out in the community monitoring high-risk offenders” (Kennedy). I believe the California Legislature drafted language that will truly be beneficial to victims that need the most help. It’s quite unfortunate that there are so many sex offenders that it gives law enforcement a difficult time, but SB 384 will weed out the most dangerous offenders and law enforcement get them off the street.

With respect to minors, I agree with SB 384. It can be simplified to one major factor, and that is the fact that minors still have a significant amount of time to develop before reaching an age where they can face greater consequences if they were tried as an adult. Minors who have committed a tier-one crime would only have to register for half the time of an adult, 5 years, but their age is also indicative of a potentially normal future if they respond to rehabilitation during incarceration.

Simply locking up minors and making them register for life immediately sets them up for a long life of discrimination and hardship. It also takes away any hope of them growing up to be a functioning member of society. They will grow up thinking that there is no point in rehabilitating themselves if it will not help them with the mistake they may have made. However, severity of the crime will still determine how difficult their future may become. This shows an even greater need for SB 384, minors that made a mistake or were charged with a minor sex offense can have a chance to clear their name before reaching an age that hinders their future.

According to the book “Sexual Victimization…” (Author), most statutory rape convictions are not even based on predatory sexual acts, they usually involve two teenagers or one teenager and one young adult, such as a seventeen- and eighteen-year-old, which is technically illegal. It is true that the introduction of age spans may have helped teens who have consensual sex, but it not enough once a case is brought to trial. Nicole Pittman, author of the SacBee article, “Why kids don’t belong on sex offender registry”, makes a solid argument. “Sex offender registration laws stigmatize and isolate the very children they were meant to protect, ensuring their youthful indiscretions follow them into adulthood. Names, photos, and addresses are often made public, leading to vigilante, stigmatization, and severe psychological harm.” (Pittman) As Pittman states, this puts morally innocent minors at risk and does more harm than good. The three-tier system in SB 384 gives minors a chance at a normal life while keeping psychopathic or morally corrupt minors accountable for their crimes.

In the case of J.C. v. The People of California, a minor was ordered by the Juvenile Court to register as a sex offender for life for the crime of performing a lewd act upon a child that was less than fourteen years old. J.C. tried to appeal this decision by stating that “lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Source) The California Court then goes on to describe their rational based on not only the defendant’s age but also on his reoccurring offenses and likelihood of reoffending. J.C. comes from a terrible upbringing that included severe abuse and neglect, which is common in the ever-growing foster system. At 12 years old, he forcibly sodomized a five-year-old and was placed on probation and put in the custody of his mother. He then violated said probation a year later when he was caught molesting his disabled sister, a minor. J.C. would then spend the next few years going in and out of treatment programs but to no avail and would be caught reoffending once again. After being given several chances, the juvenile court had no choice but to commit J.C. to the Division of Juvenile Facilities for a maximum of ten years.

The defendant J.C. is a prime example of why S.B. 384 would be beneficial in regard to juvenile sex crimes. Due to his abusive childhood and lack of a stable environment, it is safe to assume that mental illness is a definitive factor in his case. However, because of his continued re-offenses, he would earn a spot in either Tier 2 or 3 and be required to register for a minimum of 10 years to life. The bill would enable law enforcement to focus on juveniles such as J.C. while giving more leeway to minor sex offenders.

I believe SB 384 goes far enough and encompasses the issues with life-long sex offender registration. Offenders convicted of vile sex crimes that put the life of a minor in danger would still be punished adequately while offenders that have successfully rehabilitated themselves can attempt to return to society.

As previously stated, it can be difficult to draft language that resolves a complex issue such as life-long sex offender registration, especially regarding issues that may be of no concern to the general public. In the Los Angeles Times article “Criminal justice leaders seek to end lifetime registry for low-risk offenders in California”, Patrick McGreevy talks about 64-year-old Frank Lindsay, who was convicted of sexually touching a 14-year-old girl forty years ago. According to McGreevy, he has not committed a crime in forty years but was required by law to stay on the registry. Most may be happy with that due to the nature of his crime, but how long is long enough to prove that one has truly rehabilitated themselves? Forty years is certainly a considerable amount of time. McGreevy then describes how Frank Lindsay’s life has been affected by his conviction after all these years. “The listing cost him a business and sustainable livelihood, subjected him to death threats, prevented him from visiting his daughter’s school, and resulted in injuries when he was attacked by an angry, hammer-wielding stranger who broke into his home after seeing his name on the registry…” (McGreevy) Lindsay then goes on to describe how bitter it can make someone. Yes, his crime was abhorrent, but Frank Lindsay deserved a chance at redemption for his good behavior instead of a wall keeping him from full rehabilitation. The passing of SB 384 can help the small population of sex offenders who truly want to repent for their minor crimes. If it was passed during Lindsay’s youth, he might have lived a better life after being taken off the registry after a decade if he did not re-offend. Now it is too late for Lindsay, and the public must recognize these types of situations and give minor offenders a chance without disregarding the seriousness of the crimes and validity of the victims.

The same argument can be said for minors. Minors who commit sex crimes should be punished, but second chances should still be given to those that can completely rehabilitate their behaviors. The focus should be given to juveniles that continue to re-offend and are resistant to rehabilitation. SB 384 makes it easier for law enforcement to tend to said juveniles.

According to the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA), the bill also allows more money to be appropriated to programs and services for juvenile victims. They state, “This means hope for thousands of Californians who were put on the registry as children…It is not only a humane policy, it is cost-effective. California spends $140 million a year to register youth, yet the 2017 budget only designated $46,000 for victim’s services and prevention.” (Henriquez et al) The point of enforcing sex crime laws is to bring justice to any victim affected by said crime. An effective system is certainly necessary to keep track of the offenders, but more money should be allocated to aiding the victims, while the registration system should be analyzed to keep costs down but keep track of the most dangerous and likely offenders. SB 384 goes far enough to bring justice to victims and offenders of all ages.

There have been significant changes to SB 384 since it’s passage in 2017. One of the most notable is the assignment of child porn convictions to Tier 3, which is an automatic life-long registration requirement. The general public may be fine with that since the viewing of child porn is heavily frowned up, and for good reason, but Janice Bellucci, a writer for the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, makes some interesting arguments against this. “First, empirical evidence clearly states that those convicted of a CP offense are very unlikely to re-offend. Second… those convicted of a CP offense have not and will not commit a violent or contact offense. Third, there is a fundamental lack of fairness, logic, and rational thinking in requiring an individual convicted once of a non-contact, non-violent offense to register for the same period of time as an individual convicted of multiple violent offenses. (Bellucci) This is a fair point and shows the cons of the changes to SB 384.

This change greatly influences the impact of mandates of SB 384 by putting consensual minors at risk of lifelong registration. As stated previously, minors who engage in sexual acts, despite consent from both parties, can be legally required to register for life if convicted. However, that is only if they were brought to trial. Parents can help in preventing this from happening since they are usually the ones who alert law enforcement thinking it will help protect their child. It’s a fine line but consenting minors should not be treated the same as violent offenders.

While not a direct change to the bill language itself since the 2017 version of SB 384, it is interesting to note that the bill helped homosexual men who faced discrimination and were required to register as a sex offenders for life. SB 145, the old name for SB 384, amended the current law at the time which contained discriminating language against gay men. It stated that if an eighteen-year-old male had sex with a seventeen-year-old female, a judge had the discretion to have leniency. If it was the same situation but with two males, the eighteen-year-old would be required to register for life. “The bill was critical for LGBTQ people…-including gay men who had been unfairly targeted and entrapped by homophobic police from before Stonewall until the present day. Fortuitously, the legislation was later revived as SB 384…and was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.” (Ocamb) This is a highly significant and timely change in the civil rights world, so it is understandable as to why there is much support. The hope coming to deserving individuals on the registry and proactive law enforcement becomes active January 1st, 2021.

Work Cited

1. Bellucci, Janice. “Janice's Journal: The Path Forward for CA Tiered Registry (SB 384).” ACSOL, all4consolaws.org/2017/09/the-path-forward-for-ca-tiered-registry-sb-384/comment-page-1/
2. Brugger, Kelsey, et al. “Changes Are Coming to California Sex Offender Registry.” The Santa Barbara Independent, 29 Mar. 2019, www.independent.com/2018/02/15/changes-are-coming-california-sex-offender-registry/.
3. Campos, Lorena. “New Law Reforming California's Sex Offender Registry Is a Great First Step.” California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 10 Oct. 2017, www.calcasa.org/2017/10/new-law-reforming-californias-sex-offender-registry-is-a-great-first-step/.
4. McGreevy, Patrick. “Criminal Justice Leaders Seek to End Lifetime Registry for Low-Risk Sex Offenders in California.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 18 June 2017, www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-sex-offender-registry-20170618-story.html.
5. Ocamb, Karen. “Democrats Incur LGBTQ Wrath over Sex Offender Registry Bill.” Los Angeles Blade: LGBT News, Rights, Politics, Entertainment, 6 Sept. 2019, www.losangelesblade.com/2019/09/06/democrats-incur-lgbtq-wrath-over-sex-offender-registry-bill/.
6. Pittman, Nicole. “Why Kids Don't Belong on Sex Offender Registry.” Sacbee, The Sacramento Bee, 13 Oct. 2017, www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article178572756.html
7. Richards, Tara N., Marcum, Catherine D. Sexual Victimization: Then and Now.. [VitalSource Bookshelf].
8. “Sex Offender Registration in California - Senate Bill 384.” Law Office of Vikas Bajaj, APC, www.bajajdefense.com/sex-offender-registration-in-california-senate-bill-384/.