Registered Sex Offender and The Uneven Application in California Courts
What started out as a supposedly narrow concept, designed to protect the public from dangerous sex offenders, has turned out to be a catch-all
sex offense net and powerful tool generating convictions for sex crimes. There seems little regard for fact-finding. There is no attempt to ascertain the truth of what actually happens in the underlying case. Justice and protection of the community are buzz words, not the overriding goal.
In California, there is no standard practice on ordering lifetime sex registration -it differs widely among Courts - in cases where the law does not require it. Penal Code Section 290 brought a sigh of relief to many parents and partners of forcible and unwilling sex victims.
An older man seeking the attentions of a prostitute picks up a nice looking girl on the street. She has been plying her trade for a year now. She is 17 + years old, high heels, short skirt and looks like she is at least 20+. They strike up a relationship and the customer sees her at least 2 or three times, during which time they engage in sexual activity.
The girl severely questioned by the prosecutor admits to sex with the man. The D.A.'s office files 3 sex charges: 1) sex with a minor 2) oral copulation 3) digital penetration.
This example does not involve a 40 something year old man having sex with a 10 year old, or even a 14 year old. The age of the participants makes it murky, doesn't it? And here is where the prosecutors can sometimes abuse their powers. "With great power comes, great responsibility."
What to do? In People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, the California Supreme Court said, "We perceive no reason why the Legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old, as opposed to those who are convicted of voluntary intercourse with adolescents in that same age group, constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'…who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders," the Supreme Court explained."
Not all sex offenses require registration if convicted under California Law. For some offenses, it is discretionary. The prosecutor may insist on registration as part of any plea agreement because he or she believes the
offenses need lifetime sex registration.
However, that's the problem. The prosecutor tends to focus on the offense, not the offender. Neither does the prosecutor make an attempt to get at the actual facts of the case. The prosecutors will always argue that the heaviest hand is the most appropriate resolution to the case without considering the reality of the situation e.g., whether the defendant actually is a danger to the community.
In some cases, there should be no prosecutorial discretion allowed where a person's livelihood is threatened, especially where there is no evidence the defendant is a danger to the community. This would include lack of evidence of prior acts, no force, and no psychiatric evidence. A heavier burden should be placed upon the prosecution to look at the facts of the case rather than a abusing discretionary power by requiring registration in every case. Sex offender registration is a lifetime obligation and it can and will ruin a person's life.
When under investigation or charged with a sex offense that requires sex registration you can trust the expertise of Gold, Leftwich & Wagner. Let the firm with over 80 years of combined experience analyze your situation and prepare the defense you deserve,
contact Gold, Leftwich & Wagner to discuss your case now. Do not wait until you appear in court.