The United States has waged war on its very own citizenry.  We the people cannot let this continue.  We the people cannot let the corrupt politicians of this great country register people like animals or property.  We the people cannot devolve into the dark history of this country's past, and the world's past, by demonizing and marginalizing our own people.  We the people cannot let the discrimination challenges of our past be forgotten and to be relived by generation after generation.  We the people must stop injustice for those that have made mistakes, paid the price, and are moving forward with their lives.

These draconian laws are not only effecting the millions that are subject to this un-American regime, but is also alienating and subjecting the millions of family members, including children, to the bullying, harassing, vigilante type of injustice that so many of our history have had to be exposed to.

The facts and empirical evidence is clear as the nose on the politicians faces, the registries are failures and costing the tax payers billions of dollars that all the experts state should be used for programs or policies that are effective, not wasted on feel good legislation that does nothing for public safety and only increases the power of these corrupt power hungry politicians.

Facts,

1.      California Department of Corrections 2015 Outcome Evaluation Report; An Examination of Offenders Released in Fiscal Year 2010‐11. Of the total 8,989 released offenders, 0.34% were reconvicted of a new sex crime. [pp. 30-31 Table 13-14] https://sites.cdcr.ca.gov/ccjbh/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/CDCR2015EvaluationOutcomeReport8-25-2016.pdf [visited November 15, 2018].

2.      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB); “After  about  eight  to  nine  years  offense‐free  in  the  community,  people  who  have  committed sexual offenses and are assessed as average or above‐average risk to reoffend pose no greater risk of committing a new sex offense than any other type of  offender.” [p. 9]. http://casomb.org/pdf/2017_CASOMB_Annual_Report_uploaded_7_16.pdf [visited December 11, 2018].

3.      CASOMB Educational Pamphlet WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW About CALIFORNIA’s SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY Other Hard Facts, Data, and Visuals; “Criminal offenders with no prior sex offense history are rearrested for a subsequent sex crime more often than low risk convicted sex offenders. Expenditures of registry programs include: [] local law enforcement efforts to register offenders including paperwork and computer entry of records [] compliance efforts to verify residence addresses of registrants [] prosecution for registration violations [] technological improvements to build and maintain online registries [] updating and connecting registry systems with other databases[] When quantifiable costs are summed, they are estimated to range from $10 billion to $40 billion nationally per year. These costs could be reduced if the registry did not try to track everyone for life.” [p. 12]. http://casomb.org/pdf/CASOMB_Education_Pamphlet.pdf [visited December 8, 2018].

4.      Patrick A. Langan et al.; Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994; BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003): Re-arrest “Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, [] The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%.” [p. 1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf [visited November 15, 2018].

5.      Criminal Recidivism in Alaska; Alaska Judicial Council January 2007; Recidivism in Alaska Executive Summary: “Sexual offenders were the group least likely to be convicted of the same type of offense that they were convicted of in the 1999 sample.” [p. 8].  “Offenders whose 1999 felony charges resulted in conviction of a Sexual offense were among the least likely to be re-arrested, have new cases filed, be re-convicted, or return to custody.” [p. 12].  http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/1-07CriminalRecidivism.pdf [visited November 15, 2018].

6.      Dr. Karl Hanson Declaration in United States District Court for the Northern District of. California. Civil Case No. C 12 5713. Filed 11-7-12:[1] “Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of re-offending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an “out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as “low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14 years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39. Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40; Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18. Based on this research, criminal justice and recidivism experts recommend that “rather than considering all sexual offenders as continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better served when legislation and policies consider the cost/benefit break point after which resources spent tracking and supervising low-risk sexual offenders are better re-directed toward the management of high risk sexual offenders, crime prevention, and victim services.”.  Dr. Karl R. Hanson Declaration https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/024_hanson_decl_11.7.12.pdf  [visited November 24, 2018].  Also see, Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014).

7.      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014: “Time for a change: Under the current system, many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result, law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers now in the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” [p. 12-13] http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_End_of_Year_Report_to_Legislature_2014.pdf  [visited November 15, 2018].

8.      California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) - Statement on Assembly Bill 201 1-6-16  “Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the world [Dr. Karl Hanson] has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk assessment instruments (cf. www.SARATSO.org ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2 percent.” [p. 2].  “It is worth noting that none of the statements and arguments made by proponents and supporters of this Bill and none of the Analysis provided by the Assembly Committee on Local Government have made any reference to these highly credible authorities.” http://www.casomb.org/docs/CASOMB_LetterRegarding%20AB201_1-7-16.pdf [p.4] [visited December 15, 2018].

9.      California Sex Offender Management Board 2016 Video presentation; with several of the leading California expert’s testimony of facts along with the fallacies of the California registration scheme, see http://www.casomb.org/ [visited April 13, 2018].  Complaint pp 4 ¶ 12.

10.  From Justice Policy Institute: “Registries and notification have not been proven to protect communities from sexual offenses and may even distract from more effective approaches.  Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with SORNA.” [p 1].  http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf  [visited November 15, 2018].

11.  National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America: Abstract: “The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.”  https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350  [visited November 15, 2018].

12.  U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Are Sex Offenders Dangerous? Abstract: “The results of the research indicate that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders were not rearrested for another sex crime. This finding is surprising given the way in which DNA collection, registration, and notification policies have come about. Research would indicate that robbers may be better candidates for DNA collection, registration, and community notification than sex offenders.”  “The extension of sex offender policies to nonsexual offenders appears unjustified and would have little effect on preventing future sex crimes. The results indicate that policies can be founded on misconceptions, and these misconceptions not only have financial consequences, but also can affect the likelihood that the policies enacted will achieve their goals. Policy makers need to become better informed on the issues they subject to far-reaching and costly legislation.https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203427 [visited November 15, 2018].
[1] The case was followed up at Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014).

PLEASE join us today and send a clear message to the California legislature, and to the federal government, that WE THE PEOPLE are not going to be bullied into giving more power to these corrupt politicians in their attempt to keep the people down for their financial or political gains.  Sign this petition today and make a difference for the millions effected, including their families and especially their kid's lives.

WE THE PEOPLE have the power for change, lets make it happen.