As promised, here is the SOSVA commentary on a few of the bills we listed last night. Check out the full text of these bills and feel free to send us comments or other talking point on these. You can find the full text of these bills at Richmond Sunlight (http://www.richmondsunlight.com/) and/or the Virginia Legislative Information System (http://leg1.state.va.us/lis.htm).
* HB 1862 (
SOSVA Response: This bill was brought by Del. Shannon last year but died in appropriations last year, likely because of a hefty price tag and no positive impact. During the 2008 session, Del. Shannon noted that registration is “easy” and there is no reason for offenders not to do it unless they are hiding something. This is not the case.
- Registration is a complex animal. An FTR is not necessarily an intentional refusal to register - it can be a result of not fully understanding or complying with the myriad of registration requirements. Requirements include reporting change of employment status within 3 days and reporting and change of email or IM or chat iD within 30 minutes (even though the State Police have no mechanism for doing that).
- Pending bills (see HB1898 and HB1928) will add even more wrinkles to the registration process, creating even more opportunities for offenders to not be in compliance. If an FTR was clearly the result of an RSO going underground and trying to evade detection, well, that would be a different story. However, that is not the case. Registration isn't simply showing up once a year or even four times a year. Let's not set former offenders up with a felony and/or probation/parole revocation because the system is out of control.
- It’s important to remember that so-called “violent” offenders (over 90% of all registered offenders in
- This is a very costly bill. The fiscal impact of this bill is extensive given the current budget crisis: Fiscal Impact: State Adult Correctional Facilities: At least $505,619 (19 beds), Local Adult Correctional Facilities: At least $71,106 (7 beds).
- Note that although the Adam Walsh Act requires states to raise the FTR penalty to a class 6 felony, we would lose only $400,000-$450,000 by NOT complying with AWA at all – less than we would spend on this bill alone!!
* HB 1898 (
This is the critical piece of the bill: (proposed sections in italics) - A person required to register shall register, and as part of the registration shall submit to be photographed, submit to have a sample of his blood, saliva, or tissue taken for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) analysis and submission to the DNA databank to determine identification characteristics specific to the person, provide electronic mail address information, any instant message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information that the person uses or intends to use, any telephone number the person uses or intends to use, immigration status information, submit to have his fingerprints and palm prints taken, provide information regarding any professional or occupational license held by him, his place places and physical job site locations of employment including volunteer work, and provide motor vehicle, watercraft and aircraft registration information for all motor vehicles, watercraft and aircraft owned or regularly operated by him.
SOSVA Response: Um, other than “horse hockey”? Well, to begin with, the summary of this bill claims that the changes are being made to comply with the AWA, however, this bill goes substantially further.
- While we have no issue with requiring a telephone number as long as it isn’t published (frankly, I thought they already did), the requirement to include any number an offender intends to use is ridiculous and not required by AWA. I’m wondering what this means and how it would be enforced. If and offender visits a relative’s home and uses the phone, would it be assumed that since he visits frequently he obviously intended to use that phone at some point? It’s just vague and allows for bogus arrests.
- Employment is already required by the SOR and is published online, despite massive evidence that this severely impairs the ability of sex offenders to find and maintain jobs. This bill goes a step further by requiring in person reregistration for changes in physical job sites. Has anybody even given this the tiniest bit of thought? While this will not represent an imposition on some offenders, many other will find it absolutely impossible to comply. Consider those who work construction, a variety of trades, and road work. These (mostly) men change physical job sites often – sometimes several times a day. How, exactly, will this be defined? It is not defined in the bill itself, so again, we are relying on law enforcement to make this decision.
- AWA does require information regarding professional or occupational licenses, so there’s no argument there. It’s a ridiculous requirement, but we have no specific argument against it.
- We have not been able to locate a requirement in AWA regarding immigration status. Given the Bush administration’s war on immigration/immigrants, I wouldn’t be surprised. However,
- Every single time we add requirements to the registration process, we are increasing the likelihood that RSO’s will slip up, serve prison time, and increase their frequency and duration of registration. These mistakes, even if unintentional, are all viewed as a Failure to Register. Offenders don’t necessarily know that requirements have changed as there is no mechanism in place to alert them. Some of these demands are ambiguous and will be very difficult follow.
* HB 1928 (Lewis) - SOR - Provides that any person who is required to register on the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry be required to submit his Internet Protocol address as well as the currently required email address, instant message or chat name, etc. The bill also requires that the person reregister and submit to be photographed within three days of any significant change in his appearance.
SOSVA Response: Shall I say “horse hockey” again?
- Many people have dynamic IP addresses. Others don’t even know what an IP address is.
- Excuse me while I go on a rant, here. What, exactly, is a “significant change in appearance”? Is it shaving your head or just a haircut? If an offender gains or loses weight, at what point does it become “significant” – at 10 pounds, 20 pounds, or 50? If the offender doesn’t shave, at what point does the stubble become a beard? Is it a new tattoo or the removal of an old one? What about a monstrous pimple on the nose, a black eye, a rash? Where is the line? Of course, there is no qualifying this requirement – it will be solely up to law enforcement to decide. We know how that will go.
- Again, every requirement increased the likelihood of a felony mistake.
* HB 1962 (Mathieson) – Removes all judicial discretion regarding registration of sex offenders.
SOSVA Response: Although this is really more of an administrative issue, SOSVA is offended. It is very rare that judges attempt to allow an adult offender to avoid registration. The law states “shall register” not “may be required to register”, so it is a non-issue. This bill is just intended to clarify that no way, no how will judges EVER be able to exercise discretion. Remind me again why we have judges? We could just have juries (or just convict based on the charge) and be done with it. Our legislature yearly removes judges’ power.
* HB2225 (Marsden) - The State Police shall publish on the publicly available Internet sex offender database and mail to all persons for whom registration is required the text of all general laws affecting such persons solely because of their inclusion in the Registry. The State Police shall publish and mail the text of all such laws upon their enactment, if such laws are emergency acts, or upon the adjournment of the reconvened session following the regular or special session at which such laws were enacted.
SOSVA Response: This bill would add a section in Chapter 9 of Title 9.1 (the section related to the SOR). This bill is almost identical to HB2511 which inserts a section into 9.1-907. It would require that registrants be informed about changes in laws related to registration. Our only concern is those offenders who are not required to register for life. Once they are off the registry, they won’t receive notification regarding changes in restrictions such as those related to residency, proximity to schools, recreation centers, etc. We would encourage Virginians to suggest to their legislators that this should not only pass but should be expanded to include those who have completed registration. Please note that this will have a fiscal impact although no statement has been filed. I would guess that the provision for mailing RSO’s may be removed if this is to pass.
* HB2511 (Marsden) - As soon as practicable following the enactment of any laws of the Commonwealth that change offender registration requirements in the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry or affect the rights or liberties of offenders who are required to register, the Department of Corrections or Community Supervision shall give written notice of such enactment to each offender who is required to register. (actual proposed section)
SOSVA Response: This bill inserts a section into 9.1-907, the section that deals with Failure to Register. It would require that registrants be informed about changes in laws related to registration. We’re not clear why it is being placed there. HB2225 requires the VSP to publish this information and mail offenders while this bill places the burden on DOC and does not include any online publication. We would support either bill but a notification process should include both online and written announcements.
* HB2361 (Gilbert) - Requires juveniles of any age convicted of a “sexually violent” offense or homicide to register as a sex offender. Requires expulsion from school of juveniles required to register for sexually violent or homicide offenses.
SOSVA Response: Del. Gilbert is following up on Sen. Stuart’s failed bill from last year with one requiring all juveniles down to age 12 to register.
- This bill has NO LOWER LIMIT but only includes “sexually violent” offenses. This would seem to be good, right? Just the worst offenders get listed. However, we know that almost all offenses in
- Our schools with their general paranoia and zero-tolerance policies are, for the most part, already expelling these kids. Why do we need a law to require it? My guess is that even with the overriding fear and disgust schools feel in the face of a sex offender, some schools have made the decision that given the facts and circumstances, some kids would not be expelled. Please, do we really believe that schools aren’t expelling kids if they have even the a minute level of concern of the safety of their students? Most schools are expulsion-happy. Why take the decision away from school administrations and school boards?
* HB2274 (Poindexter) - Requires that the Internet SOR information include a "wanted" notation for a person who is wanted for any crime. Currently, the "wanted" notation is only posted for a person who is wanted for failing to register.
SOSVA Response: The intent of the SOR has always been to publish ONLY offenses related to registration. If we open the registry up to these “wanted” notations, all other offenses will soon follow.
Only one of these bills has a Financial Impact Statement that claims an impact (see statement for HB1862). HB1898 and HB1928 add requirements to the SOR, but their Fiscal Impact Statements note that the impact "cannot be determined." Logically, if requirements increase, violations will increase, and more local and DOC bed space will be required. A consequence of an FTR is more frequent in person reregistration and address/employment verifications by state police. In some cases, an FTR can result in an extension of the duration of registration. Clearly there will be a fiscal impact - don't be fooled that "cannot be determined" means there won't be one.
We encourage readers to contact their legislators or all legislators on relevant committees with their thoughts on these bills.
