Commercial vehicles; person required to register with Sex Offender & Crimes Against Minors Registry. (SB807)

stephen writes:

Would of been better if they encluded dope users and dealers. guess it's OK with Mark if they drive high, guess he can't let all the drunks have the fun of killing kids. maybe at the red lights the bus driver can teach the kids how to roll up pot.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Stephen, if your last few comments here are any indicator, you are perhaps the least effective activist I've ever encountered. You take somebody who has introduced a bill that you support, impugn his motives and morals, and do so in such a way that makes everybody think you're a jerk. For example, I oppose a lot of Del. Obenshain's agenda, but now you've got me sympathizing with him. You're achieving precisely the opposite of your intended goal.

stephen writes:

waldo, sorry if you don't agree with me, but the statistics clearly show that drunk drivers and drug dealers are a larger threat than these sex offenders are, but yet their never listed on bills to protect kids, makes a person feel the bill is pure grand standing, and the writer to cowardly to take on drunk drivers and drug dealers.

Mary writes:

The RSOL of Virginia has contacted Senator Obenshain’s office about SB807 to inquire what inspired the bill. We were told that a school district somehow hired a registered offender as a school bus driver. We pointed out that current state laws prohibit any registered offender from working for a school district so if this occurred it’s because the school district did not follow current law and school district procedures.
The RSOL of Virginia supports the portion of SB807 that prohibits registered sex offenders from driving school buses. But, the RSOL of Virginia does NOT support the portion of the bill that includes ANY passenger-carrying commercial vehicles. We’ve asked for an amendment removing that portion OR if they will not remove that portion to make it anyone with any felony conviction instead of continually targeting registered offenders by limiting their employment options when the recidivism rates for Sexual assaults are the lowest of ANY other crime.

Rickey Moore writes:

I agree with Mary 100%. We already have existing laws that cover the contingency of a sex offender driving a school bus. I do not see how this affects any other commercial passenger vehicle, that carries adults.

I would think that the sentencing Judge would have established the rules concerning the offenders post-release prohibitions, at the time of commitment. If it wasn't written, it didn't happen. Ergo, if a sex offender manages to become employed, and it doesn't go against the Judge's decision, then this would be a clear case of ex-post-facto infringement of the US and VA constitutions to later decide that he may not have this job. The Supreme Court of Ohio has already ruled against this type of action, such as turning over our non-violent convictions into violent ones

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/ohio_supreme_court_strikes_dow.html

Save the Virginia taxpayers more money and legal grief.

L.L. writes:

Every time a school district makes a mistake in complying with current laws (and common sense), we have to endure a new law that is even broader than the original.

Bob writes:

The proposed legislation makes GOOD SENSE regarding sex offenders not obtaining a commercial driving permit for a school bus. However, there already exists a law preventing sex offender’s employment within the school system.

If the Virginia School System does not follow the proper protocol/law and hires a sex offender, then write a Bill where the school employee, principal, and the superintendent serve 25 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.

I’m certain such a Bill focusing on School Administrators responsibility would get you a response from school officials “how draconian and unreasonable”. Yet, nearly every piece of sex offender legislation I have read is ill thought, useless, and a gross misuse of my tax dollars. The Bills seem seeded with political re-election intent and lack any legitimate understanding of short and long term consequences associated with implementing.

How can some of the most intelligent people serving Virginia legislation not have access or seek out 20-30 years of sex offender studies and data? The sex offender population has the lowest recidivism rates of any criminal group in the nation. If Virginia is truly trying to protect society, then why did legislators change all sex offenses to violent offenses and then place everyone on the website?

Where is the legislation that mandates individual risk analysis for each individual’s offense? By including everyone on the registry, of which all are classified as violent, the large numbers mask the very few who are truly a danger. If people are NOT a risk to society, then take these people off the website and leave the ones on who are. In doing so will save a substantial amount of fiscal resources and better protect society from the few who are truly dangerous.

In this proposed Bill, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to deny someone with a sex offense the ability to obtain passenger-carrying commercial vehicles. As currently written, this proposed legislation protects absolutely no one and duplicates existing school employment legislation.

SB807 specifically targets to deny the very livelihoods of drivers (“taxpayers”) simply because they are legislated to register as a sex offender in Virginia. The proposed Bill will deny the livelihood(s) of anyone who is trying to gain legitimate employment, pay taxes, and pay rent to have an address to register! The proposed legislation will cost tax payers precious funds, for no other reason but to deny another sector of employment for anyone required to register as a sex offender.

This legislation offers absolutely no value to protect society; it’s wrong, and fiscally expensive. I request “and passenger-carrying commercial vehicles” be removed from the second and fourth lines of the proposed Bill.
Virginia legislation has created a sub-human class of people for which Virginia has a long history of doing.

I am struggling/troubled as to specifically why this Bill was even introduced and after reading the lengthy burden of registration requirements, I can’t grasp any good value in this Bill and it duplicates existing legislation already in place.

Mary writes:

This bill was "tabled" for the year and a letter is being sent to the Virginia Crime Commission to look into this issue.