BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
9
2
6
SB 926 (Beall)
As Amended: March 17, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Penal Code
AA:sl
CHILD SEX CRIMES:
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 111 (Alquist) - Ch. 479, Stats. 2005
Support: American Association or Marriage and Family Therapy;
California Police Chiefs Association; California
Protective Parents Association; Child Abuse Listening
Mediation; Child Abuse Prevention Center; Consumer
Attorneys of California; Crime Victims United of
California; Restorative Justice International; Santa
Clara County District Attorney; individuals
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children; Taxpayers for
Improving Public Safety
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD ONE OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS PERIODS FOR PROSECUTING
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageB
SEX CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST A CHILD BE LENGTHENED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to extend one of the statutory
limitation periods for prosecuting sex crimes committed when a
victim was under the age of 18, from any time up to the victim's
28th birthday to any time up to the victim's 40th birthday.
Criminal Statute of Limitations Generally
Under current law , statutes of limitations for the commencement
of criminal actions generally are based on the term of the
sentence, the type of offense, or the nature of the victim, as
specified below.
Prosecution for a crime punishable by death, life
imprisonment, life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, or the embezzlement of public
funds may be commenced at any time.<1> (Penal Code �
799.)
Prosecution for crimes punishable by imprisonment
for eight years or more, as specified, and not
otherwise covered must be commenced within six years
after commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 800.)
Prosecution for crimes punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison or as a jail
felony, as specified, must be commenced within
three years after commission of the offense.
(Penal Code � 801.)
Prosecution for crimes involving fraud, breach of a
fiduciary duty, embezzlement of funds from an elder or
dependent adult, or misconduct by a public official
-----------------------
<1> Punishment for murder, attempted premeditated and
deliberate murder, kidnapping for purposes of robbery,
extortion, or certain sex offenses are punishable by life in
prison. (Penal Code �� 190 and 209.)
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageC
must be commenced within four years after discovery of
the crime or within four years after completion,
whichever is later. (Penal Code � 801.5.)
Prosecution for crimes involving elder or dependent
abuse must be commenced within five years after
commission of the offense. (Penal Code � 801.6.)
Prosecution for misdemeanor crimes involving
molesting a child under the age of 14 years or sexual
misconduct with a patient must be commenced within
three years after commission of the offense. For most
other misdemeanors, prosecution generally must be
commenced within one year after commission of the
offense. (Penal Code � 802.)
Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes
Current law provides that the prosecution for a felony sex
offense subject to mandatory sex offender registration, as
specified, must be commenced within 10 years after commission of
the offense. (Penal Code � 801.1.)
Current law provides that the prosecution for inducing a minor
to pose in connection with the production of a representation of
sexual activity involving a minor, must be commenced within 10
years of the date of production of the pornographic material.
(Penal Code � 801.2.)
Statute of Limitations for Felony Sex Crimes against Minors
In addition to the 10-year statute of limitations applicable
above, current law authorizes a criminal complaint to be filed
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageD
in specified child sex crime<2> cases as follows:
A. If the crime is alleged to have been committed
against a person when that person was under the age of 18,
prosecution may commence any time up to the victim's 28th
birthday (Penal Code � 801.1); or
B. Within one year of the date a person of any age reports
to a California law enforcement agency that he or she, while
under the age of 18 years, was a victim of a sex crime, as
specified, if all of the following occur:
1. The limitation period specified in
Section 800, 801, or 801.1, whichever is later,
has expired;
2. The crime involved substantial sexual
conduct, as specified, excluding masturbation
that is not mutual; and,
3. There is independent evidence that
corroborates the victim's allegation.<3> If the
victim was 21 years of age or older at the time
of the report, the independent evidence shall
clearly and convincingly corroborate the victim's
allegation. (Penal Code � 803 (f).); or
C. Within one year of the date on which the identity of the
suspect is conclusively established by DNA testing, if both of
---------------------------
<2> The applicable sex crimes are: rape (Penal Code � 261);
sodomy (Penal Code � 286); child molestation (Penal Code � 288);
oral copulation (Penal Code � 288a); continuous sexual abuse of
a child (Penal Code � 288.5); and forcible sexual penetration
(Penal Code �� 289 and 289.5 (under prior law), as specified
(Penal Code � 289.5).
<3> Current law provides that no "evidence may be used to
corroborate the victim's allegation that otherwise would be
inadmissible during trial. Independent evidence does not
include the opinions of mental health professionals." (Penal
Code � 803 (f)(3).)
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageE
the following conditions are met:
1. The crime is one that is subject to
mandatory sex offender registration, as
specified; and,
2. The offense was committed prior to
January 1, 2001, and biological evidence
collected in connection with the offense is
analyzed for DNA type no later than January 1,
2004, or the offense was committed on or after
January 1, 2001, and biological evidence
collected in connection with the offense is
analyzed for DNA type no later than two years
from the date of the offense. (Penal Code �
803 (g).)
This bill would amend Penal Code section 801.1 to increase
the base period for prosecuting a sex crime against a
victim under the age of 18, from any time up to the
victim's 28th birthday, to any time up to the victim's 40th
birthday.
This bill would provide that its provisions shall only
apply to crimes that were committed on or after January 1,
2015, or for which the statute of limitations that was in
effect prior to January 1, 2015, has not run out as of
January 1, 2015.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageF
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageG
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageH
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
Current law . . . allows the prosecution for certain
egregious sex crimes against children to be commenced
any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday. Well
documented medical literature demonstrates that
victims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) need more time
to report their abuse to law enforcement. Ample time
to report will prevent perpetrators from waiting out
the statute of limitations to avoid prosecution and
prevent further acts of CSA. Sexual predators have
shown high rates of recidivism. SB 926 will give
victims more time to report their abusers to law
enforcement, which will allow law enforcement to stop
sexual predators from continuing to abuse children. .
. .
. . . Numerous surveys and studies show that CSA
victims do not report their abuse until decades later,
if ever. Only 12% of the child sexual abuse cases in
a nationally represented survey of 4,008 American
women were ever reported to authorities. This study
mimicked earlier studies of a lack of reporting of CSA
by the general population. Several studies show that
more than 90% of abuse is never reported to any form
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageI
of authority or social agency. As many as 33% of
women and 42% of men never report childhood sexual
abuse.
. . . CSA is not reported by victims for a host of
reasons. These include,1) threats of harm to a victim
or victim's family; 2) children often do not recognize
the wrongfulness of the conduct especially when the
perpetrator is someone they know and trust; 3) victims
are often ashamed and embarrassed; 4) they fear that
they will not be believed; 5) they suppress the
memories of the abuse because it creates so much pain
and they would rather forget; and 6) in some very few
cases, they repress the memory which is later
recovered when triggered by some event or situation. .
. .
. . . Numerous studies have documented both the
immediate and long term physical and psychological
injuries and harm that results from the abuse of a
child. . . .
. . . Sexual predators show a high propensity of
reoffending:
(There are) numerous studies documenting this
propensity in sexual offenders:
"?Perpetrators of child sexual abuse remain at risk of
reoffending long after the abuse occurs. 'Inducing a
child to have sex does not depend on any overwhelming
physical or sexual prowess but rather on verbal
manipulation-an ability that, of course, does not
recede with normal aging' Robert Dickey et al., Age as
a Differential Characteristic of Rapists, Pedophiles,
and Sexual Sadist, 28 J. Sex & Marital Therapy 211,
213 (2002)."
"?Unlike most violent offenders, child molesters do
not "age out" of criminality. Hanson analyzed data
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageJ
from 4,673 sexual offenders and found that the
'recidivism rate of the extra-familial child molesters
showed relatively little decline until after 50.' R.
Karl Hanson, Recidivism and Age: Follow-Up Data from
4,673 Sexual Offenders, 17 J. Interpersonal Violence
1046, 1045 (2002).
"Studies with longer follow-up periods find
substantially higher rates of recidivism, and reaffirm
the fact that molesters pose long-term risks of
reoffending. A study by Hanson et al. tracked 197
convicted child molesters, most of them for more than
fifteen years, and found that 42% were convicted of a
subsequent sexual and/or violent offense. R. Karl
Hanson, Long-Term Recidivism of Child Molesters, 61 J.
Consulting and Clinical Psychol. 646, 648 (1993).
2. What This Bill Would Do; Current Limitations "Windows"
As explained above, this bill would change one of the statutory
limitation periods for prosecuting child sex crimes, from up to
the victim's 28th birthday to up to the victim's 40th birthday.
This time period is only one limitations period applicable to
sex crimes, including sex crimes against children. The law
currently provides four statutory "windows" for commencing
prosecutions of sex crimes.
The first window is the general limitations period
for prosecuting sex crimes, which is 10 years from when
the crime was committed.<4> (Penal Code � 801.1 (b).)
The second window, which this bill proposes to
change, applies if the crime is alleged to have been
committed against a person when that person was under
the age of 18, in which case prosecution may commence
------------------------
<4> This limitations period was established by AB 1667 (Kehoe)
(Ch. 368, Stats. 2004.)
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageK
any time up to the victim's 28th birthday.<5> (Penal
Code � 801.1.).
A third window allows that when the 10-year
limitations period has lapsed, a criminal complaint may
be filed within one year of the date a person of any
age reports to law enforcement that they were a victim
of a child sex crime, if a) the crime involved
"substantial sexual conduct", as specified;<6> and b)
there is independent evidence that corroborates the
victim's allegation, which must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence if the victim is 21 years of age or
older at the time of the report.<7> (Penal Code � 803
(f).)
A fourth window is available at all times: a
criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the
date on which the identity of a suspect is conclusively
established by DNA testing in sex crime cases if the
------------------------
<5> This limitations period was established by SB 111
(Alquist) (Ch. 479, Stats. 2005.)
<6> "Substantial sexual conduct" for purposes of this section
cross-references Penal Code Section 1203.066 (b), excluding
"masturbation that is not mutual." "Substantial sexual conduct"
is penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or
the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object,
oral copulation, or masturbation of either the victim or the
offender. (� 1203.066 (b).) "Masturbation of either the victim
or the offender" means "any touching or contact, however slight,
of the genitals of either the victim or the offender." (People
v. Chambless (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 773 [defendant touched girl's
vagina and made her touch his penis].) Mutual masturbation
shown where defendant rubbed Vaseline on a boy's penis. (People
v. Lamb (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 664, 678-679.)
<7> This limitations period was established by AB 78
(Alquist)(Ch. 235, Stats. 2001) and amended by AB 1667
(Kehoe)(Ch. 368, Stats. 2004).
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageL
DNA is analyzed in a timely manner, as specified.<8>
(Penal Code � 803 (g).)
3. Operation of and Public Policy Behind the Statute of
Limitations; Policy Questions Raised by This Bill
The statute of limitations requires commencement of a
prosecution within a certain period of time after the commission
of a crime. A prosecution is initiated by filing an indictment
or information, filing a complaint, certifying a case to
superior court, or issuing an arrest or bench warrant. (Penal
Code � 804.) The failure of a prosecution to be commenced
within the applicable period of limitation is a complete defense
to the charge. The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and
may be raised as a defense at any time, before or after
judgment. (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 13.) The
defense may only be waived under limited circumstances. (See
Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367.)
In 1984, the California Law Revision Commission published a
series of recommendations to revise the statute of limitations.
The impetus for reform derived from numerous changes made to the
statute by the Legislature - there were 11 legislative
enactments amending the felony statute of limitations in 14
years. The Commission commented, "[t]his simple scheme has been
made complex by numerous modifications . . . the result of this
development is that the California law is complex and filled
with inconsistencies." The Commission described the rationale
of the statute:
The statute of limitations is simply a societal
declaration that it will no longer pursue a criminal
after a certain period of time. The period selected
may be somewhat arbitrary but still achieves
society's purpose of imposing an outside limit that
recognizes the staleness problem, that requires that
crime must come to light and be investigated within a
reasonable time, and that represents the point after
----------------------
<8> This limitations period was enacted by AB 1742 (Correa)
(Ch. 235, Stats. 2000.)
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageM
which society declares it no longer has an interest
in prosecution and seeks repose.
The three principal policy reasons for felony limitations
statutes include:
Staleness : The statute of limitations
protects persons accused of crime: (i) from
having to face charges based on evidence that
may be unreliable, and (ii) from losing access
to the evidentiary means to defend against the
accusation. With the passage of time, memory
fades, witnesses die or otherwise become
unavailable, and physical evidence becomes
unobtainable or contaminated.
Prompt Investigation : The statute of
limitations imposes a priority among crimes for
investigation and prosecution. The deadline
serves to motivate the police and to ensure
against bureaucratic delays in investigating
crimes.
Repose : The statute of limitations
reflect society's lack of desire to prosecute
for crimes committed in the distant past. The
interest in repose represents a societal
evaluation of the time after which it is
neither profitable nor desirable to commence a
prosecution.
These principals are reflected in court decisions. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that statutes of limitations are
the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal
charges. (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 122.)
There is a measure of predictability provided by specifying a
limit beyond which there is an irrebutable presumption that a
defendant's right to a fair trial would be prejudiced. Such
laws reflect legislative assessments of relative interests of
the state and the defendant in administering and receiving
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageN
justice. More recently, in Stogner v. California (2003) 123
S.Ct. 2446, the Court underscored the basis for statutes of
limitations:
Significantly, a statute of limitations reflects a
legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no
quantum of evidence is sufficient to convict. And
that judgment typically rests, in large part, upon
evidentiary concerns - for example, concern that the
passage of time has eroded memories or made witnesses
or other evidence unavailable.<9>
Members and the author may wish to discuss this bill in the
context of these broader policy considerations, including:
WOULD THIS BILL AFFECT THE AVAILABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF
EVIDENCE IN CHILD SEX CRIME CASES AND, IF SO, HOW?
WOULD THIS BILL AFFECT THE REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION OF CHILD
SEX CRIME CASES AND, IF SO, HOW?
WOULD THIS BILL AFFECT THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF CHILD SEX
CRIME CASES AND, IF SO, HOW?
4. Changes to the Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes Against
Children
In the late 1980s, lawmakers across the country became
increasingly aware of the issue of child sex abuse. "The
problem of sexual abuse of children has, over the past two
decades, increasingly preoccupied our nation's pundits,
academics, and parents, and communities have begun to turn to
legislation to assuage their fears and protect their children.
As laws requiring registration by sex offenders have become
commonplace, some legislatures have also sought to redress
sexual crimes that have long gone unprosecuted, either because
the victims had repressed their memories of the abuse or
---------------------------
<9> Stogner, supra, 123 S.Ct. at 2452 (citations omitted).
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageO
because the victims had been afraid to come forward."<10>
The California Legislature reflected this national concern.
In 1989, AB 782 (N. Waters) established a new maximum
limitation period for criminal complaints by a child under the
age of 18 for specified sex offenses. In 1993, AB 290
(Boland) (Ch. 390, Stats. of 1993) was enacted to provide that
a criminal complaint may be filed within one year of the date
of a report to a law enforcement agency by a person of any age
alleging that he or she, while under the age of 18 years, was
the victim of sex abuse under specified circumstances.
Subsequent legislation expanded these provisions.<11> As
explained above, during this period additional "windows" for
prosecuting child sexual abuse were created and expanded.<12>
In addition, California enacted legislation in the 1990s to
revive otherwise expired child sexual abuse cases to apply the
newly extended limitation periods to these old cases.<13>
These revival provisions, however, were struck down in 2003 by
the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v. United States,
supra. In Stogner, the Court ruled that a law enacted after
expiration of a previously applicable limitations period
violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive
a previously time-barred prosecution. The Court concluded
that the statutory provision threatened the very kind of harm
that the Ex Post Facto Clause seeks to avoid. The Court noted
that the statute deprived the defendant of the "'fair warning'
that might have led him to preserve exculpatory evidence," and
warned that "a Constitution that permits such an extension, by
allowing legislatures to pick and choose when to act
retroactively, risks both 'arbitrary and potentially
--------------------------
<10> 117 Harv. L. Rev. 268 (November 2003), THE SUPREME
COURT, 2002 TERM: LEADING CASES: 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
2. EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.
<11> See AB 25X (Andal) (Ch. Ex. 46, Stats. 1994).
<12> See AB 78 (Alquist) (Ch. 235, Stats. 2001); AB 1742
(Correa) - Ch. 235, Stats. 2000.
<13> AB 2014 (Boland) (Ch. 130, Stats. 1996); AB 700 (Alby)
(Ch. 29, Stats. 1997).
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageP
vindictive legislation. . . .'"<14>
In 2005, SB 111(Alquist) (Ch. 479, Stats. of 2005) created the
limitations window that allows specified sex offenses alleged
to have been committed when the victim was under the age of 18
to be commenced any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday.
This provision went into effect January 1, 2006. It is this
provision this bill would change, to any time prior to the
victim's 40th birthday.
Members of the Committee and the author may wish to discuss the
impact of the Alquist bill from 2005. In addition, members may
wish to discuss how this bill might affect pressure to prosecute
cases, and how evidentiary concerns would affect the prosecution
of very old cases that are not time-barred, where the passage of
time has eroded memories, made witnesses unavailable, and where
DNA evidence is not present.<15>
5. The Legislative History of Age 28
Establishing the age of 28 years as a separate statutory bright
line for one statute of limitations period for prosecuting
childhood sex crimes occurred with the passage of SB 111
(Alquist) in 2005. That measure was co-sponsored by the
Attorney General's Office, which at the time argued that tying
the statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases to victim
age reflected the most recent understanding of child sexual
---------------------------
<14> Stogner, supra, at 2449-2450 (citations omitted).
<15> "A member in government service shall not institute or
cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or
should know that the charges are not supported by probable
cause. If, after the institution of criminal charges, the member
in government service having responsibility for prosecuting the
charges becomes aware that those charges are not supported by
probable cause, the member shall promptly so advise the court in
which the criminal matter is pending." Cal. State Bar, Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 5-110 Performing the Duty of Member
in Government Service.
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageQ
abuse, and how victims respond to their abuse.
If one looks at the surveys of adults . . . , one
finds that a large percentage had never disclosed
abuse before being surveyed, and the average age of
the respondents is 40. On the other hand, there is
evidence that when 18-21 year olds are surveyed, they
are quite likely to continue denying abuse. . . .
(T)hese surveys (can) show how common it is for
reporting to occur much later than the current
ten-year cutoff requires.<16>
The department cited the research set forth in an amicus brief
submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the American
Psychological Association and others in a 2003 case involving
the prosecution of a child sex abuse case<17>:
Most childhood sexual abuse is never reported. Only
12% of the child sexual assaults in a nationally
representative survey of 4,008 American women were
ever reported to authorities. All of the incidents
consisted of substantial sexual conduct between the
molester and the victim . . . that involved the use
of force, or the threat of force or coercion. This
low rate of reporting is similar to that found in
earlier studies of the general population. . . .
One reason few cases of sexual abuse are reported to
law enforcement is that large percentages of victims
never disclose the abuse to anyone. Another
national survey . . . questioned 3,220 American
women, and found that 28% of women who had been
---------------------
<16> See Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of SB 111
(Alquist), April 19, 2005.
<17> The case was Stogner v. California (2003) 123 S.Ct. 2446,
in which the Court struck down California statute which intended
to revive otherwise time-barred child sex abuse prosecutions
based on ex post facto grounds. The Stogner decision itself is
unrelated to the issues presented by this bill as before the
Committee.
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageR
sexually assaulted as children had never told anyone
about the assault prior to the survey, "not mothers,
best friends, or husbands." These women had kept
their abuse a secret for an average of over
twenty-five years. Among all women who disclosed
their abuse, nearly half waited more than eight
years to do so.
Other surveys find similarly high rates of secrecy,
and men are just as likely as women - if not more
likely - to keep childhood sexual assault a secret.
Moreover, surveys underestimate long-term secrecy
because many abuse victims who have not disclosed
abuse to loved ones also fail to disclose to a
surveyor.
Unfortunately, even when children muster the courage
to tell trusted adults about sexual abuse, or adults
otherwise learn of the abuse, the adults often fail
to report the offenses to law enforcement. For
instance, mothers hearing their children's complaints
of sexual abuse often feel ambivalent about
contacting authorities; they often feel inadequate,
they may doubt the child, and they may fear or
distrust the police and social services. They also
may feel pressure from family members, friends, and
the abuser to keep the abuse a secret. . . .
The reasons victims delay reporting childhood sexual
abuse to authorities, if they report the abuse at
all, are numerous: (1) offenders often threaten
their victims to remain silent, including threatening
to harm or kill the victims or their loved ones; (2)
children may not appreciate the wrongfulness of the
conduct, particularly when victimized by a trusted
adult; (3) victims often are ashamed of what has
transpired; and (4) victims often fear that they will
not be believed, and are afraid of the consequence of
disclosing the abuse. These factors are not
exclusive and, in many cases, a combination of
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageS
factors will influence the victim's decision not to
reveal the abuse.<18>
As part of this Committee's consideration of SB 111 in 2005, the
analysis of that bill asked if "the unique nature of childhood
sexual abuse, and the unique vulnerability of child sex abuse
victims, warrant an extended statute of limitations as proposed
by this bill." As passed by this Committee, the age in the
bill was 30, which was proposed when the bill was introduced;
the bill subsequently was amended to age 28 in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
Nine years after the passage of SB 111, members may wish to
consider:
DOES THE UNIQUE NATURE OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE, AND THE UNIQUE
VULNERABILITY OF CHILD SEX ABUSE VICTIMS, WARRANT A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS PERIOD LONGER THAN WHAT WAS ENACTED 9 YEARS AGO?
IS 40 YEARS OF AGE A MORE APPROPRIATE AGE-BASED LIMITATION
PERIOD FOR THESE KINDS OF CRIMES THAN 28 YEARS OF AGE?
WOULD 30 YEARS OF AGE, AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY SB 111 AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN 2005, BE A MORE APPROPRIATE
AGE-BASED LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR THESE KINDS OF CRIMES THAN 28
OR 40 YEARS OF AGE?
6. Background: Sex Offenders and Recidivism
One of the preeminent researchers in the area of recidivism,
especially of sex offenders, is Dr. R. Karl Hanson, a Senior
Research Scientist at Public Safety Canada. In a court
declaration filed in 2012, Dr. Hanson summarized his research as
follows:
---------------------------
<18> Brief of amici curiae American Psychological Association,
National Association of Counsel for Children, American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and California
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children in Support of
Respondent in Stogner v. California, supra, dated February 19,
2003 (citations omitted).
(More)
SB 926 (Beall)
PageT
My research on recidivism shows the following:
1. Recidivism rates are not uniform across all sex
offenders. Risk of re-offending varies based on
well-known factors and can be reliably predicted by
widely used risk assessment tools such as the
Static-99 and Static-99R, which are used to classify
offenders into various risk levels.
2. Once convicted, most sexual offenders are never
re-convicted of another sexual offence.
3. First-time sexual offenders are significantly less
likely to sexually re-offend than are those with
previous sexual convictions.
4. Contrary to the popular notion that sexual
offenders remain at risk of reoffending through their
lifespan, the longer offenders remain offence-free in
the community, the less likely they are to re-offend
sexually. Eventually, they are less likely to
re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an
"out of the blue" sexual offence.
a. Offenders who are classified as low-risk by
Static-99R pose no more risk of recidivism than do
individuals who have never been arrested fora
sex-related offense but have been arrested for
some other crime.
b. After 10 - 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 Tor a sex-related
offense but have been arrested for some other
crime.
(More)
c. After 17 years without a new arrest for a
sex-related offense, high-risk offenders pose no
more risk of committing a new sex offense than do
individuals who have never been arrested for a
sex-related offense but have been arrested for
some other crime.
5. Based on my research, my colleagues and I recommend
that rather than considering all sexual offenders as
continuous, lifelong threats, society will be better
served when legislation and policies consider the
cast/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.<19>
***************
---------------------------
<19> Appendix D, A Better Path to Community Safety Sex Offender
Registration in California "Tiering Background Paper" (2014)
California Sex Offender Management Board. (emphasis in
original).
(More)