Sex offender registry; if person 18 must register if convicted of consensual sex with 15 year old. (SB1409)

Introduced By

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Sex offender registry.  Requires registration when a person 18 years of age or older is convicted of engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with a child 15 years of age or older. Registration will also be required for someone convicted of the federal crime of video voyeurism. Portions of the crimes against nature statute are moved from the regular registry to become classified as sexually violent offenses. Juveniles over the age of 13 adjudicated delinquent of a registerable offense on or after July 1, 2005, must register; however, their information is not required to be published on the Internet. Under current law the court has discretion in requiring registration for such juveniles. Passport and immigration information is added to the registration information that an offender must provide. Photographs will be taken at the time of physical verification by the authorities rather than every two years. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/18/2011Presented and ordered printed 11102306D
01/18/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/19/2011Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
01/20/2011Impact statement from VCSC (SB1409)
01/21/2011Impact statement from VCSC (SB1409)
01/26/2011Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/26/2011Committee substitute printed 11104744D-S1
01/26/2011Rereferred to Finance
01/27/2011Impact statement from VCSC (SB1409S1)
02/08/2011Left in Finance


Rickey Moore writes:

I think someone should ask the State Police what they think they should be doing with their time, rather than taking photographs to enhance a registry that, in reality, serves little purpose towards protecting anyone.

robert legge writes:

There really is a "Crimes against nature" statute? Is that like polluting a stream or something?

L.L. writes:

So, an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend has to register as a sex offender. Sensible policy. Across the country, there are efforts to broaden the age difference required for registration, yet this new senator thinks we should decrease the required age difference necessary to ruin a young man's life.

Sex Offender Issues writes:

This is just insane, IMO. So are you saying if two consenting adults have sex, they will be on the registry, and also, instead of trying to help and protect kids, you are now wanting to scar them for life? Sounds like you are running with the sex offender moral panic of today to make a name for yourself. I could be wrong, but only you know for sure.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

So basically this bill is removing the leeway that a judge has. Right now it's up to a judge to determine whether a minor needs to register as a sex offender. This bill says that, no, a judge has no say in it—it's required, end of story. That doesn't make much sense to me—we have judges for a reason. Is the current arrangement problematic in some way?

daniel writes: writes:

The sad fact is Mr. Stanley He doesn't deserve to be addressed as senator won't bother to read any of these comments. And unfortunately I suspect no other Legislator will either? They only pander to special interest and who has the most money.The only Virginia Congressman to Take a Stand for Sex Offender Issue's is Congressman Bobby Scott. And Yet when these politicians run for office where are we? where our are our voices? They Are Silent so ultimately we are to blame.

stephen writes:

I agree with daniel, it's time we all unite against this scum, together we can send them packing. We need to all meet together on a sunday when everyone is off work. Look for my name, stephen, if you agree you want to meet together, contact Mary at RSOL OF VIRGINIA. I'll let her know to collect the names.

C.P. writes:

Whether or not Mr. Stanley reads these comments is moot. He doesn't care about negative comments. His mind is made up and set like concrete. I agree with WJ---why have a judge? I guess that Mr. Stanley feels that judges cannot be trusted-ergo a need for zero tolerance.
Photographs---every 2 years isn't enough? What next - full body holograms? The State Police have their hands full in Richmond taking care of the registry system as it is.

Shelomith Stow writes:

What a totally preposterous bill; this proposed legislation would criminalize young people who may not be using the best judgement but are no where near meeting the standard for being labeled and registered as sex offenders, which, as I remember, has something to do with being a threat to the community. Of course, the registry, no matter whose name is on it, does nothing to protect the community or prevent future crime--actual crime against actual children. And speaking of children, labeling a 13 y-o a sex offender and making him register, even if it isn't public, has to be way at the top of the list of how to turn a basically normal kid into an outcast and possibly even a danger to himself and others.

Susan Caperton writes:

Isn't so sad our government is so set on labeling people. Everyone has their issues and I can guarantee that many of the people making these laws have their own skeletons in the closet.

Labeling someone for life is one of the worst possible things one could receive outside of a jail sentence. Isn't it a shame there is no mercy or redemption.

We have a totally sexualized culture but we expect everyone to be perfect.

These laws are like Minority Report. Arrest them or harass them before they do the crimes to cleanse society.

Notice it is Republicans putting these bills out there. I used to be one, until I realized their lock em up and throw away the key mentality was horrible.

They say they are constitutionalists, but not when it comes to sex offenders. It is a very slippery slope.

J. Tyler Ballance writes:

Have you noticed that every time Virginia elects another evangelical-leaning Republican, (who, by the way, promises "less government") as soon as they are in office, they try to pass more laws, usually involving criminalizing sex, that give government more power to ruin lives, and/or lock people away for longer periods of time.

Fortunately, there remains some Republicans and Democrats in our Assembly, who will not stand for such rampant stupidity. One has to wonder how such an obviously flawed attempt at legislation, was allowed by his Party leadership; unless perhaps they secretly wanted Mr. Stanley to look like a buffoon.

L.L. writes:

Tyler, I wondered that as well. Unless Cuccinelli is so certain that any sex offender legislation will pass, thus putting a feather in Senator Stanely's cap before the November election.

Mary writes:

This bill originated from the AG's office.
This bill was significantly amended when the sub-committee heard it.
They removed the addition of 13 year olds from having to register even if the judge says they don’t.
The RSOL of Virginia then pointed out that the addition of two crimes to become registerable offenses retroactively and the re-classification of one crime from non-violent to violent would add people who are not listed today, make them lifers all of which would cost the State tons of money. We also pointed out those three changes would have to be challenged as unconsitutional if any more ex post facto laws were passed here in Virginia.
They amended these three portions of the bill to be for convictions from July 1, 2012 and on instead of retroactive.
These amendements are acceptable.
There are few other concerns we will work on when it gets to the House.

Susan Caperton writes:

I think they should not require any information they are not going to use. For example, how are they going to use passport and immigration information. They are not prohibiting international travel so they don't need to collect it.

I think this is a very slippery slope and I do not trust the government to protect this information.

Mary writes:

Should have been 6 separate bills to be debated and considered correctly.
Died because the $50,000 impact statement was not factual at all.
Becoming Adam Walsh Act compliant is NOT worth the financial cost and it does not make society safer at all.
In December 2010, Texas reported it's not the way to go,
(Pages 13-19)

Dan writes:

I agree with L.L. What about this issue?

patricia writes:

how can you make someone register as an sex offender when there is no sex between the people there was no sex charge but you still have to register what is this all about please someone get back with me or call at 757 735 1477