Sex offenders; prohibiting proximity to children. (HB172)

Introduced By

Del. Brenda Pogge (R-Williamsburg)

Progress

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

Description

Offenses prohibiting proximity to children.  Removes the language "when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2000" from the language of the statute prohibiting proximity to children that specifically prohibits loitering within 100 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a primary, secondary or high school. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/06/2010Committee
01/06/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101031D
01/06/2010Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/12/2010Impact statement from VCSC (HB172)
01/12/2010Introduced bill reprinted 10101031D
01/13/2010Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
02/09/2010Impact statement from DPB (HB172)
02/16/2010Left in Courts of Justice

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I'd be curious to know why that language was included in the first place. Surely there was some reason why that date was put in there.

L.L. writes:

There used to be some reluctance to retroactively institute additional restrictions/punishment on offenders. Now, they are routinely doing so.

SC writes:

This constant trend to retroactively include people who have paid their debt and are not "predators" has got to be unconstitutional. Not everyone on the SOR is a predator and I'm sick of lumping everyone in the same category. It is a burden on our law enforcement and subsequently puts more children at risk because it if forcing law enforcement officers to focus on safe people who have been unfairly labeled. It creates a public hysteria, which in itself, creates an even greater threat than the majority of the people on that register. If someone is a true threat to our children, then keep them in jail (after fairly evaluating them), then we will know they are not in a position to hurt anyone.

L.D. writes:

If the children are true concern how do you think these laws affect them. There are some sex offenders who are not predators. They have managed to put their lives back together and have normal famalies. Their children have to go to school everyday and wonder who is going to see their fathers face on the internet. Who is going to confront them today. Stop lumping all offenders as the same. If you want to protect all the children try making laws that will protect them as well. better yet make the current laws fair. Nobody should have to pay the price for someone elses mistake or crime. Most of these new laws are the result of someone else's crime, but all sex offenders have to pay the price. So lets stop spending millions of dollars on monitoring everybody and put some of the money towards helping the other children get their lives back. Give the sex offenders who can and have proved themselves a chance to be removed from the registry.

L.L. writes:

With the proliferation of these proximity laws, we are going to need signs proclaiming "sex offender free zone." How else will these guys know when they are within 100' of a prohibited place? With signs, the sex offenders can stand nicely just outside the border. These are stupid laws and are wholly ineffective if the goal is to prevent sexual reoffense. They are also all but unenforceable with the variety of provision and dates. They only serve to make former offenders constantly worry about being in the wrong place. TRUE PREDATORS are not deterred by these lovely "sex offender free" zones. C'mon people.

L.L. writes:

According to the Circuit Court Automated Information System, there have only been two convictions in the past four years for violations of loitering laws or laws related to being on school property for these offenders. With well over 16,000 registered offenders, a .0125% offense rate hardly seems like a problem to me. Why go back further in time to try to "catch" more people?