Sex offender registry; placement of certain juveniles required. (SB372)

Introduced By

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Placement of juveniles on the sex offender registry. Provides that juveniles adjudicated delinquent for an offense for which registration on the sex offender registry is required and who are 12 years of age or older at the time of the offense shall be required to register. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/08/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087732792
01/08/2008Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/10/2008Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
01/23/2008Continued to 2009 in Courts of Justice (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

Linda writes:

Wow...yes, by all means lets fill up the registry with teenagers who have consensual sex!! Fill it to the brim..ruin their lives forever!!! Take away any court discretion, why not just sentance them to death...after all isn't that what the foaming at the mouth public want...legislators who willingly will kill their children in the name of tough on crime bills??? Heaven help you all.

L. Lawless writes:

This is more obscene than almost anything any juvenile offender ever did. This is a response to the Adam Walsh Act that Virginia legislators don't seem to understand is seriously flawed law.

The mantra with sex offender legislation is "If it saves just one child." How many children's lives will be destroyed with laws that impose a lifetime of shame on children and their children and even grandchildren? We are moving to a time when no offe nder can get off the registry, so we are sentencing these kids to 25 years to life on the Sex Offender Registry.

Other proposed bills this session would prohibit access to rec centers, parks, etc for life. These laws would apply to these CHILDREN as well.

Who are we protecting again?

cvllelaw writes:

The biggest flaw in the Sex Offender Registry is that it assumes that all people convicted of a particular crime are alike. They aren't. Some -- and this is particularly true of juveniles -- do NOT need further tracking. Some do. The Code provision as is it written now permits a judge to do exactly what a judge is supposed to do -- to make an individualized determination of the need for this person to be put on the registry. We need more steps in that direction, not fewer.

Misty Rhodes writes:

What about a 9 year old repeated sex offender who chewed his 3 year old brother's testicals until they were black and blue and molested his 2 year old half brother and his 4 year old sister. No child is safe around him. This child already has a police record and will be turned over to the State. He should be taken out of society for years of counseling but our State only offers outpatient care. At the age of 9 he has already been a sexual preditor for years and I pity his future victims.