NH- N.H. House bill seeks to ease sex offender registry rules

It appears one lawmakers questions the other suggesting only personal reasons for the bill. The more I think about his comment the more egregious I think it is, here is why.. If lawmakers are willing to listen to victims of crimes to frame laws, why should they not listen to those affected by the laws they enact especially when the laws -as in this case- are unjustly destroying the lives (after the fact) of those the laws are applicable to?

2-9-2009 New Hampshire:

PORTSMOUTH — House Bill 110, sponsored by state Rep. Jennifer Brown, D-Dover, would allow a sex offender on the lowest tier of classification to petition the court to annul their record after three years. A second bill, HB111, asks that tier one offenders not be required to register as sex offenders.

"I sponsored the bill to get tier one off the list because it's made up of only misdemeanors," Brown said. "In 14 states misdemeanors are not on a public list."

Brown said tiers one and two are not on the list in Massachusetts. "When people go on the Internet they are looking for someone who kidnaps and rapes kids," she said, "not a person who had sex with their underage girlfriend."

When the bills were heard Jan. 27, Rockingham County's Deputy Attorney Tom Reid suggested Brown's son was the reason she filed her bills. Brown admits her son is a tier one registered sex offender.

"He was 20, in college and he didn't have sex with anyone," Brown said. "It's so stupid that he's even considered an offender."

Brown said her son talked to someone in an Internet chat room who said she was 15 or 16. "He cut off the conversation. Six months later he saw her and talked to her," she said. "They were meeting at McDonald's. He was confused that she was saying she was 14 now when she should be 16. He decided to sort it out when he met her. He parked in a space to see if she drove in, because then she'd be 16."

It was a set-up, Brown said. No girl, only police waiting for him. "They consider him driving to McDonald's the intent to commit a crime," she said. "It was a sting and totally unfair."

Police initially charged her son with two felonies even though he left without even trying to meet the girl, Brown said.

"If it was a real girl he would have been able to go in, ask for her ID, buy her a burger and leave and not broken the law," she said. "Now, he's required to register and can't get a job. He faces the same problems a high-level sex offender would."

State Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, co-sponsored HB111. She said the bill is about "two people who had consensual sex and she was too young."

"It involves nothing felonious," Pantelakos said. "We would never include a rapist or someone who hurt a child in such a bill. This is about not letting a mistake ruin the rest of your life. This is about a person who has turned their life around, might be married and have a family. They can't go to any of their kids' games or events. This is about people unlikely to re-offend."

Strafford County Attorney Thomas Velardi said the Legislature should stop changing and weakening the laws every year. "It's getting harder and harder to prosecute those who do not register because often they don't even understand the changes or aren't aware of them," he said. "If you want to protect people, have a law that can stand up. Stop poking holes in it and making it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs."

Claire Ebel, a lawyer for the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said group is in favor of both bills. "They are both good bills," she said. "In regard to annulment, a person is found guilty of a sexual assault between two consenting individuals, but the victim is under the age of consent."

In legal terms, Ebel said, consent is not possible under age of 13, which was formerly called statutory rape.

"There can't be any force or date rape drugs involved," Ebel said. "You're not serving the public by putting him on a list where the crime is that sexual act was consensual but the individual was not old enough. It was an unwise act, but doesn't rise to the level of this."

Sex offender lists offer a false sense of security, according to Ebel.

"You see there's no one in your neighborhood, but most assaults are committed by a person known to the child, a family member or a friend," she said.

Ebel said the presumption of tier one offenders is that the act was not violent and the person is unlikely to offend again.

"Why take away his life and livelihood," Ebel asked. "He can't attend a school activity or take his child to a park."

Ebel said such steps for a tier one offender are Draconian if that person turned his or her life around, has a job, a family and lives in a stable environment. "If you're sentenced to jail and you get out, it's considered that you've paid your debt to society, but for this crime your debt is never paid. You're always on a list." ..News Source.. by Karen Dandurant