Where to start?

• This bill would impact ALL offenders of every type and risk. It would include everyone from a teenager having consensual sex with a younger teen to a child rapist and everything in between.
• HB2344, passed last session, prohibits more serious offenders from being on school property. HB233, as it currently reads, prohibits loitering near school property for all offenders.
• There is no empirical evidence that proximity approaches are effective in reducing sexual assault against children. There were no convictions for “loitering” on school property from 2004-2005 in Virginia (the only year this data was reported) and many states have noted that they have had no sex offenses by registered offenders within their “safe” zones around schools, parks, recreation centers, etc.
• Best practices in corrections indicate that engaging the former offender in healthy community activities benefits the offender and their successful reintegration in the community. This bill would prevent access to athletic, educational, recreational, and cultural opportunities. In addition, this bill prevents the former offender from being actively involved in his/her children’s lives and appropriate family activities.
• If this bill MUST pass, it should be amended to simply “loitering”. If people have a reason to be one of these places, they should be allowed to be there!
• Three different dates for the application of this bill will be a logistical nightmare for police as they are forced to respond to every known offender present on sites where banishment is imposed for certain offenders. This wastes resources as police devote time to low-risk offenders instead of focusing on those who require greater supervision by virtue of their offense and risk.
• The retroactivity of portions of this bill SHOULD be unconstitutional if not for the current sentiment that retroactivity is okay for sex offenders …
• 92% of all new sex offenses are committed by people not already on the Sex Offender Registry (see Jacob Wetterling Foundation as one source). Dept. of Justice statistics indicate that approximately 90% of all sex offenses are committed by a family member or family acquaintance. Legislation targeted at those already on the registry and focused on “stranger danger” are not effective in reducing sexual abuse and assault.
• These are LIFETIME prohibitions. No offender can get past them regardless of their offense, their risk to the community, and their ability to demonstrate that they won’t reoffend.

Isolating, disenfranchising, and effectively banishing former sex offenders without regard for their risk is not good policy. These policies do NOT protect children who are in more danger from Uncle Joe or their soccer coach! Not only do they NOT PROTECT children, they DAMAGE the lives of the children and even grandchildren of former offenders.

The Fiscal Impact statement for this bill notes that in addition to FY05 (as noted above), there were no arrests for loitering near schools in FY06 or FY07 either. Apparently, former offenders aren't spending their time lurking at schools, yet we feel the need to expand the law. There may be some prospective sex offenders hanging out there (ones who aren't on the registry so they can't be regulated) ... or some drug dealers ... or some drunk drivers ... or a psychotic guy with a baseball bat ... or some cockfighters or somebody worse hanging out, but that seems to be ok.

Wouldn't it just be a better idea for people/police to pay attention to anybody who seems to be loitering/lurking near kids for no apparent reason? Or to look out for unknown adults approaching kids whether to solicit sex or sell them drugs or suggest they might join their gang? Maybe parents should/could supervise their kids at the recreation center and not just "drop them off" as this law would require.

This law would actually prevent parents from providing necessary supervision for their own children thereby increasing the risk that something could happen to them.

Laws can't fix every problem they are meant to address, but at the very least, they shouldn't CAUSE harm.

Sen. Blevins,

I'm sure you mean well by proposing this bill, but I can't agree more with the posts of L. Lawless. I have seen no research that has shown that REGISTERED sex offenders commit crimes at any public recreastional facility of community center. I have, however, read reports that indicate a higher potential for a sex offender to have successful reintegration into society (without offening) if he/she has a community of support. This law will have the opposite affect.

As L. Lawless indicates, it is more likely that an unknown person will commit such a crime. This law will in no way keep our children safer, and as stated, could have more of an adverse affect.

These kinds of laws are proposed by lawmakers who do not do any research. If they did they would not propose laws that do more harm than good. Yes, our children need to be protected, but our legislators have failed to study the issue and find out the facts. Instead they propose laws that they hope will draw attention and gain votes. It is shameful to propose laws without doing the homework first. This particular bill has the potential to create a situation where our children will be at greater risk. Why would our lawmakers want to do that?

Such a bill is discriminatory and only serves those who propose it to feel good about themselves for doing something.

Sex offenders operate within their own circle of influence the majority of the time. The City of Chesapeake is behind this bill and it should be killed in committee as it serves no good purpose. There are infinitely better places for legislators to put their energy.