Sex offender; prohibits proximity to children's museums. (HB919)

This came about because somebody advised the Discovery Museum (a place for very young children and their parents) that sex offenders had been seen sitting on nearby benches on the Downtown Mall. If I'm reading this bill correctly, offenders could still sit on those benches as long as they didn't contact any children. Nobody could prove that they were sitting there with the "purpose of having contact." Other parts of this statute prohibit "loitering" within 100' of a school. It would seem that "loitering" would be more appropriate for this bill if they are trying to prevent people from sitting/lurking on the benches.

I'm also guessing that they NAME the museums in the bill since the Discovery Museum can by no stretch of the imagination be considered an actual museum.

Stupid bill all around given the myth of stranger danger, low recidivism rates, and the fact that children are accompanied by their parents to such places.

The forever should be removed from every law out there. There should be a time frame given to all laws. Everbody makes mistakes and should have the right to redeem themselves.

STOP THE MADNESS

We suggest that if the homeless bill passes ALL homeless RSO's in Virginia camp out in the parking space of their district's Delegate or Senator or even move onto their local VSP Barracks property and pitch a tent. Then the VSP will know their comings and goings. Remember some VSP Barracks are 1, 2 or 3 hours away from some RSO's homes/locations, so how is a homeless person suppose to be able to get to and from their homeless spot to a VSP Barracks when they have no transportation? If this is the direction Virginia wants to go in then they need to fund homeless shelters for Registered Sex Offenders across the state. Currently NO homeless shelter in Virginia will accept a RSO.

I agree with LD. everyone should be given a time frame to redeem themselves and the "forever" should be removed.

Not really, L.L. The bill provides that the sex offender "... shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of the premises of any children's museum." So if the guy is sitting on the bench outside the museum, he could be arrested if some cop thinks that his purpose was to have contact with a kid.

I am less concerned about whether the guy gets convicted, but I am quite concerned about whether he gets arrested and held in jail (because he is supposedly a dangerous sex offender, remember) for a month or two until a preliminary hearing can be held, or for 6 months before a trial in the Circuit Court on the felony.

Lloyd, what is the legal standard for determining "for the purpose of having contact"? For that matter, what is the standard for "loitering"? Is it a matter of arrest first and figure it out later? With a bill last year, one committee voted for a bill with the idea that the case law would get developed over time (in the absence of a clear definition in the bill itself).

I agree with Mary. FightBack.