Bill further restricts sex offenders

While the points made by RSOL are valid that is not how one fights such legislation. "Woe is me," type arguments get nowhere. Apparently proximity laws are currently in effect, and the intent is to expand them, so one must ask WHY? Has there been a increase in crime? Has there been some other problem with current proximity laws? If none are true why is this necessary, laws are not made "just because we can" there has to be a reason behind them. Using children as a pretext for some other personal gain (voter support) is wrong. Not one of those proposing these changes explains why they are necessary, excepting as it seems, just because we can..

2-14-2010 Virginia:

The measure would bar those who committed crimes involving juveniles from living within 500 feet of places children frequent.

RICHMOND -- Legislation that would further limit where sex offenders can live and expand the list of convictions that activate those restrictions has drawn the ire of civil libertarians and advocates of reforming those laws.

Still, Del. Clifford "Clay" Athey, the sponsor of the bill, believes toughening existing laws is a necessary step "to protect the most vulnerable citizens."

If enacted, Athey's House Bill 1004 would bar individuals ordered to register as sex offenders for crimes involving a juvenile victim from living within 500 feet of multiple places children are known to frequent.

It would add school bus stops, community parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, public pools and private, parochial and Christian schools to state law, which applies to day care centers, public schools and adjoining public parks.

The Front Royal Republican's bill would also restrict a wider of range of sex offenders.

Under current law, only those convicted of serious offenses -- rape, sodomy or object sexual penetration coupled with crimes such as abduction and malicious wounding -- against certain minors face residency restrictions.

There were 16,238 offenders registered as of Dec. 1, according to the Virginia State Police.

The lawmaker's stricter proposal worries American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.

"It's one thing to limit someone's mobility, to prevent them from going to certain places," Willis said. "It's another thing to restrict where they actually live ... There are real legal constitutional questions involved in such a restriction."

Other residency bills passed in Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana were later ruled unconstitutional, he added.

Athey, an attorney by trade, said he has taken those concerns into account. His legislation could withstand a court challenge, he said.

The lawmaker said he narrowly defined his proposal to target those who have abused children.

"The unique nature of these types of crimes tips the balance towards increasing this sort of scrutiny," Athey said.

In 2007, he introduced a bill to lengthen the residency buffer between sex offenders and children to 1,000 feet. It passed the House of Delegates but did not clear the Senate.

Mary Devoy, of Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, said that although the bill is different from the one drafted three years ago, it still has negative consequences for those listed on the registry.

She said Athey's bill, if passed, would lead to more homeless sex offenders.

"The purpose of the registry was to list the most dangerous violent repeat offenders. That's not what it's become," Devoy said.

Instead, nonviolent offenders, including teenagers and adults who send explicit messages via cellphone, can find themselves listed alongside rapists.

And they'll also have a difficult time finding a place to live if the bill passes, she added.

Even if sex offenders don't have a roof, a bill filed by Charlottesville Republican Del. Rob Bell would clarify that they must register where they reside.

Another Bell bill would ban certain sex offenders from being within 100 feet of any children's museum in the state.

And a measure from Del. Sal Iaquinto, R-Virginia Beach, would add language to the law code clarifying ambiguities about when offenders are required to register.

As of Friday, each of those measures was on track to pass in the House alongside Athey's legislation.

Regardless of the final outcome this year, Athey said he considers improving sex offender legislation important, and he will continue to advance such bills.

Although they may have noble intentions, Willis said lawmakers who back legislation that further penalizes sex offenders "tend to ... react by their emotions and react in a politically opportunistic way. That's the unfortunate trap that sex offender laws fall into." ..Source.. Roanoke.com