Posting #187 – SB635 A Great Bill That Needs Your Support!

Update:

• On January 28, 2010 SB635 was passed by the Senate Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
• On February 1, 2010 SB635 was passed by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee with a 13 to 0 vote and a small amendment.

The Original Bill (SB635) stated:
The State Police shall develop and maintain a system for making certain Registry information on persons convicted of an offense for which registration is required publicly available by means of the Internet. The information to be made available shall include the offender's name; all aliases that he has used or under which he may have been known; the date and locality of the conviction and a brief description of the offense; his age, current address and photograph; and such other information as the State Police may from time to time determine is necessary to preserve public safety including but not limited to the fact that an individual is wanted for failing to register or reregister; however, the information to be made available, while it may include the address of the offender's employer, it shall not include the name of the offender's employer or company title. The system shall be secure and not capable of being altered except by the State Police. The system shall be updated each business day with newly received registrations and reregistrations. The State Police shall remove all information that it knows to be inaccurate from the Internet system.
The Amendment (SB635S1) States:
The State Police shall develop and maintain a system for making certain Registry information on persons convicted of an offense for which registration is required publicly available by means of the Internet. The information to be made available shall include the offender's name; all aliases that he has used or under which he may have been known; the date and locality of the conviction and a brief description of the offense; his age, current address and photograph; and such other information as the State Police may from time to time determine is necessary to preserve public safety including but not limited to the fact that an individual is wanted for failing to register or reregister; however, the information  [ to be made available, while it may include the address of the offender's employer, it shall made available shall  ]  not include the name of the offender's employer or company title. The system shall be secure and not capable of being altered except by the State Police. The system shall be updated each business day with newly received registrations and reregistrations. The State Police shall remove all information that it knows to be inaccurate from the Internet system.

• On February 2, 2010 SB635S1 Constitutional reading dispensed with a vote of 40 to 0.
• On February 3, 2010 SB635S1 was read on the Senate floor for second time and the amendment was agreed to.
• On February 4, 2010 SB635S1 was read on the Senate floor for third time and passed by a vote of 40 to 0.
• On February 25, 2010 SB635S1 was heard by the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee (the toughest Sub-Committee for a Sex Offender Bill).  The RSOL of Virginia spoke in support of SB635 and the Sub-Committee “laid the bill on the table” for the day with plans to speak to other Delegates about it.
• On February 26, 2010 SB635S1 was tabled permanently by a voice vote, its dead for 2010.
• The RSOL of Virginia will attempt to get a similar bill proposed for the 2011 Virginia General Assembly.     We will NOT give up on this extremely important bill.                                 
  All of your phone calls and e-mail’s in support of SB635S1 got it through the entire Senate with a vote of 40 to 0. Great job everybody!

By:  RSOL of Virginia
Date:  01/19/2010

Virginia Supporters,

Good news!!!!!

Senator Marsden has filed one of the two RSOL of VA bill’s for the 2010 session.

It REMOVES the employer/company name from being publicly posted on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry. The Federal Adam Walsh Act/SORNA requirements mandate that the employer address must be publicly posted but NOT the employer/company name. So why would Virginia go beyond the AWA requirement?

This is a GREAT bill!!!! SB635

To view it on the General Assembly site:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb635

To view it on the Richmond Sunlight site AND leave comments:
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/sb635/

This is one of two bills we have been promised.

Please, please, please ask your one Delegate and your one Senator to SUPPORT this bill.

Explain to them that employers will be more willing to hire RSO's if their own company's name is not listed. Explain that having the employers name listed as it is today not only deters employers from hiring RSO's but actually has caused thousands of Virginia RSO's to loose established employment either because of a stranger or potential customer calling that employer and shaming them for hiring an RSO or from vengeful co-workers demanding a company get rid of an RSO because they aren't "comfortable" working in the same building.

We will make things better!

RSOL of Virginia

Marsden Bill Moves Forward, February 17, 2010:
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=337757&paper=63&cat=104

General Assembly Bill Would Remove Employer Names from Sex Offender Registry, February 16, 2010:
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-va-sex-offender-bill-change,0,5941056.story

Opinion: Employers Should not be Marked for Offenders, February 16, 2010:    http://www.newsleader.com/article/20100217/OPINION01/2170305

Bill Protects Employers of Sex Offenders, February 15, 2010:
http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2010/02/15/news/doc4b7958701d8c3651100894.txt

                       

1st Response to Posting #187
From: James Endicott
Date:  01/20/2010

Dear Senators of the Courts of Justice Committee,

As a small business partner, I commend Senator Marsden for introducing SB 635.  Listing business names and addresses on the Commonwealth’s sex offender registry is counterproductive for a number of reasons:

1. Small businesses are interested in hiring qualified personnel legally permitted to work in the Commonwealth.  Most citizens included on the registry possess skills that are beneficial to small business.  Small business development and growth should not be frustrated by state law should the business choose to hire a sex offender.  To the best of my knowledge, the Commonwealth does not place this burden on business when hiring any other citizen with a criminal background.

2.  Businesses seeking qualified out-of-state employees are disadvantaged since sex offenders registered in Virginia must contend with more stringent requirements than those imposed by some other states and the federal government.  Some offenders classified by other states as not violent are automatically reclassified in Virginia as violent.

3.  Small business reputations are critical to their growth.  A business owner may choose to employ a less-qualified individual because it fears its name and address appearing on the sex offender registry.  In today’s difficult economy, customers discriminate based not just on quality and price, but on all issues perceived as forming the business reputation.  Listing business information on the sex offender registry is an unnecessary addition of discrimination against businesses that choose to employ a highly-qualified person who has previously committed a sex offense.

4.  The sex offender registry categorizes a very high number of offenders as violent, simply due to the nature of their offense, not as the result of a professional analysis of their threat to society.  Some of these offenders have been convicted of Internet solicitation, having never touched a child, yet they are categorized as violent.  Neither business owners nor the public can reasonably use the current sex offender registry as a public safety tool.

Senator Marsden’s bill is a welcomed beginning to changing Virginia’s sex offender laws so they do not adversely, and unnecessarily, affect the Virginia business community. 

Thank you for your support of SB 635.

James Endicott

                       
2nd Response to Posting #187
From: Charles
Date:  01/20/2010

Dear Senator,

Please support SB 635, filed today by Senator Marsden.

I have been very fortunate to be employed by the same employer for over 6 years.                                         
During that time, our office has received a few "anonymous" letters and calls voicing concern on my employment as a registered offender.  However, my boss is extremely  supportive and is clearly aware of my past.  She stands by my side, and for that I am grateful.

With the passage of this bill, employers will be more willing to hire RSO's if their own                  company's name is not listed. Having the employers name listed as it is today not only deters employers from hiring RSO's but actually has caused thousands of Virginia RSO's to lose established employment, either because of strangers or potential customers calling that employer and shaming them for hiring an RSO, or from vengeful co-workers demanding a company get rid of an RSO because they aren't "comfortable" working in the same building.

I am available to speak further regarding this bill, if you so choose.  It would be my honor.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Charles

3rd Response to Posting #187
From: Jeff
Date:  01/27/2010

Dear Sir or Madame,

Please support this piece of legislation because it is a good for the families of Va. who have convicted offenders in them. 

The law should not cause problems to those who are targeted by those laws, but workable            solutions.

If the State police know where we are as offenders then that is all that is needed. 

Many Employers frown upon hiring anyone that will have their name out publically in a bad light. Thus it is hard to be a valuable part of society if we can not get hired because an employer         does not want their name listed on a website for Sex Offenders.

Thank You.

Jeff

4th Response to Posting #187
From: Chuck
Date:  01/27/2010

Dear Senators:

I write in support of Senator Marsden's bill SB 635 to remove the employer's name of any sex      offender from the sex offender registry (SOR).  The inclusion of the employers name goes        beyond the federal requirements of the Adam Walsh bill.  Indeed, the employer is being         punished without ever having committed a crime!

With modern technology, anybody can Google a name from their Smartphone and find the          employers name of any sex offender.  Consequently, employers are reluctant to hire any     offender whose name might be associated with the registry.  [As an aside, these impromptu    background checks are a violation of  Chapter 23, Title 19.2, Dissemination of criminal history   record information under the Code of Virginia.]  Just yesterday, I picked up an employment        application for a crew member position at McDonald's.  In addition to the semi-standard felony question of the application was an additional question reading "Are you or have you ever been a sex offender registered with any federal, state or local government agency, including any           listing on a public website?"  I can only imagine why the potential employer would have this question on the application.

Let's be fair.  Employers are unlikely to hire a sex offender if the employers name will appear on the SOR.  Further, employers are more likely to discharge an employee once the employer     discovers their name on the SOR.  To believe otherwise is naive.  I am personally aware of several federal EEOC complaints alleging the very fact that the person was wrongfully terminated following the employer's discovery of their name on the SOR.  Moreover, numerous offenders are trying to get their lives turned around and find themselves unnecessarily sabataged by the system.  Finally, with our imperfect justice system, the current inclusion of employers names on the SOR victimizes innocent people all over again.

Let's be practical.  If sex offenders are unemployed, the residents of Virginia will pay.  Increased unemployment costs.  Increased medical costs through free clinics.  Increased costs to the             Virginia State Police to locate homeless offenders. etc, etc.  Virginia residents are paying these costs now for a sizeable population of offenders (i.e., 16,600 offenders in Virginia).

Get educated before making decisions.  Dr. Richard Wright (Editor) and the combined experts   in the field recently published Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions (2009, Springer Pub., New York).  [As an aside, the RSOL group of Virginia recently distributed numerous copies of this book to varied legislators.  Alternatively, your local library can retrieve this book for you through interlibrary loan.]  This book is invaluable when making decisions regarding laws affecting sex offenders and non-offenders.

Thank you for supporting this bill

Respectfully,

Chuck

 

5th Response to Posting #187
From: Bobby
Date:  02/23/2010

Dear Delegates,

I would like to express support for the passage of SB 635 Removal of the Employer/Company    Name of an Offender from Being Publicly Posted.  In my judgment current law punishes                employers, adds to the invisible or collateral punishment of offenders and makes it more likely that Virginia Taxpayers will be bearing additional costs of unemployment benefits and expenses   for public shelters.  Current law also punishes the families, children and persons close to               offenders and I see no empirical evidence of any benefits to the citizens of Virginia.

For all these reasons I urge that you favorably support SB 635.  Thank you for your leadership    and consideration.

Bobby

6th Response to Posting #187
From: Mary Ann
Date:  02/24/2010

Dear Delegates of the great Commonwealth of Virginia,

I am requesting your help in passing SB635. There are more than 17000 Registered Sex                 Offenders (RSO) in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The great majority of RSOs are nonviolent one time offenders who have paid for their mistakes and are trying to rebuild their lives.       Removing the RSO’s Employer name off of the RSO Registry is a positive step in the right                 direction. Listing the employer name is not part of the national Sex Offender Registration and     Notification Act. Listing the employer name has not only punished the RSO but also the    employer. Many employers are friends and family of the RSO.  Their employer has shown          compassion, trust and confidence by employing them. Studies have shown how important            gainful employment it is to long term success and greatly reduces the recidivism rate.

SB635 is good for employers looking for the most qualified employee, and yes this employee      could be a RSO. The Commonwealth will still have all of the employer information on their              records it just does not have to be publicly available. Many RSO’s have lost gainful         employment simply because of the harm listing their place of employment has caused their employer.  Why should the employer be scrutinized and punished for hiring a good employee?   This bill is a win-win for all. The employer, the employee, their family and the Commonwealth   of Virginia. Everyone should be able to support themselves, their families and to contribute by           paying taxes which support us all. Unemployment results in loss of self worth and the ability to         support your family. The costs of unemployment is then placed on the rest of us to support the    families of the unemployed by providing food stamps and other social services.  Remember we are talking about 17000 people!  They want and deserve the opportunity to be gainfully         employed without negative consequences to their employers.

I am grateful to the Virginia Senate for passing SB635 with a 40 – 0 vote. Clearly the Senate has done their homework and knows the right thing to do. We are now counting on you to do the       right thing. Vote YES to SB635

Sincerely,

Mary Ann

 

7th Response to Posting #187
From: Sheila
Date:  02/24/2010

Dear Virginia Delegates,

Please pass SB635 it is a good bill.  Remember the many businesses that would like to consider   hiring Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) and other offenders but may not because they have been sentenced to public notice as to who they hire with their Business name listed on the Registry,  the addresses is all that is necessary to full fill the law requirements of the Registry.

More Businesses would be willing to helping and hiring RSO and other offenders giving those     on the Registry the ability to provide for themselves and their families and also helping by                 paying taxes, which are very much needed by all that are able to work and find employment.

Think of the thousands of Businesses that may want to help those on the Registry and the               Commonwealth of Virginia by helping employing  RSO, but do not for fear of financial loss due to their Business names listed on the Registry when the Businesses were not sentenced to be   listed on the Registry.

Also passing SB635 protects all Virginians not just RSO and not just Businesses that hire them      it protects all Virginians giving more Virginians the ability to find employment, to provide for themselves and their families helps all Virginians.
If someone needs to know the information about those on the Registry it is available for them to find out the addresses not the Businesses names will remain on the Registry if you pass SB635 .

It is my hope that you will pass SB635 vote YES.
Sincerely,

Sheila

 

8th Response to Posting #187
From: Reverend Todd
Date:  02/24/2010

Dear Delegates,

Three years ago, WTKR TV investigative reporter ___________ decided to do an expose' on sex offenders and where they work.  He focused on one sex offender, whose name escapes me at   the moment, who worked for _____________ Restaurant in Norfolk.  The reporter decided to         call the restaurant manager to complain that he had a registered sex offender working for him.  While on camera this "reporter" talked to the General Manager and asked him what he was          going to do about this "dangerous" employee.  The General Manager promised to look into it.  The  WTKR reporter followed up on the story later with a sense of satisfaction that the        employee had been terminated.

I have a major problem with this WTKR reporter as you can probably tell. This is not the first    time he has used his position to "out" a registered sex offender.  Each time he does one of his investigative reports he starts with the State Police registry to troll for his story.

Oddly enough, __________ restaurant is not a family restaurant, so his reporting was bogus        when he classified it as place frequented by children. It’s an adult theme restaurant.

But the most troubling thing about this story was that the young man in question had been             convicted of a sexual offense with his underage girlfriend who ironically enough was now his            wife! .... A person who he was trying to support with his restaurant job.

SB635 makes good sense. 

It is sponsored by Senator Marsden who I believe is the former Director of Juvenile Justice.One would think with his background in Public Safety he would be considered an authority on the subject.

Please support SB635 and help prevent predatory reporting.

Thank you for your consideration.

Reverend Todd

9th Response to Posting #187
From: Erin
Date:  02/25/2010

Delegates,

I implore you to support SB635 which removes the employers name from the sex offender           registry.

This bill removes the shame and burden that employers currently carry by employing a                registered sex offender. They should not be penalized for their willingness to give someone a   second chance to redeem themselves. If a registered sex offender can find stability in his/her life, it is a win/win situation for them, the members of their family, the citizens of Virginia, and                 law enforcement because it helps them monitor their progress.

We have employers who are willing to help these people and we should not shame the                 employer by setting them up to be ostracized.

I would just like to remind you that there are thousands of worthwhile lives who would benefit   from a registered sex offender being able to find employment.  Those thousands have the desire to reform themselves by living up to their responsibilities and become productive citizens of our state. 

I truly believe all citizens, not only in Virginia, but across the country would feel less    threatened seeing a former offender redeem themselves by being productive, rather than seeing     them roam aimlessly because they are outcasts and unable to work.  That will only breed    mental and physical disability and exacerbate an already desperate situation.

Please...please vote "yea" for SB635.

Erin