RSOL of Virginia
Reform Sex Offender Laws
Seeking Justice and Safety for all Virginians

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the
silence over that by the good people
-Martin Luther King Jr.

 

 

 

 

 

Today is
This Site was last updated Sunday, March 7, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posting #191 – HB967 Legislation from Delegate Chris Peace- Mechanicsville

Update:

  • On January 29, 2010 HB967H1 was passed 21 to 0 by the House Counties, Cities and Towns Full-Committee.
  • On February 1, 2010 HB967H1 was read on the House floor for the first time.
  • On February 2, 2010 HB967H1 was read on the House floor for second time and engrossed by the House.
  • On March 2, 2010 HB967H1 was heard by the Senate Full Committee on Local Government skipping the Sub-Committee. The RSOL of Virginia was prepared to speak against HB967, but there was no need to.
  • Delegate Peace submitted a substitute, totally re-writing HB967 to be identical to a bill by Senator Hanger SB338.

SB338 States:
1.  That § 15.2-2291 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 15.2-2291. Assisted living facilities and group homes of eight or fewer single-family residence.
A. Zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight individuals with mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental disabilities reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. For the purposes of this subsection, mental illness and developmental disability shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or other residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.
B. Zoning ordinances in the Counties of Arlington and York for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight  [ aged, infirm elderly  ]  or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home assisted living facility or residential facility in which  [ aged, infirm elderly  ]  or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.
C. Zoning ordinances in the Cities of Lynchburg and Suffolk for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than four aged, infirm or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or residential facility in which aged, infirm or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.

  • All of your phone calls and e-mail’s in opposition to HB967’s amendment adding registered sex offenders resulted in the bill being rewritten.         
    Great job everybody!

 

Date:  02/02/2010

Delegate Peace,

Today we discovered the amendment to HB967 we would like to know who proposed the amendment.

HB 967 Residential facility; meaning to include assisted living facility and group homes, http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb967

Until this bill was amended on January 29 and became HB967H1, we would not have given it a second though. But on January 29 the following in red was added:

A. Zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight individuals with mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental disabilities reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. For the purposes of this subsection, mental illness and developmental disability shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401 or any offense for which a sex offender is listed on the registry pursuant to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act 9.1-900 et seq.). No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or other residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.
B. Zoning ordinances in the Counties of Arlington and York for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight aged elderly, infirm or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home assisted living facility or residential facility in which aged, infirm or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code. For purposes of this subsection, disabled persons shall not include those currently engaged in the illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401 or a registered sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act9.1-900 et seq.).

We find HB967H1 extremely troubling in that it would ban ANYONE listed on the Sex Offender Registry from receiving the care and services they might need to live, recoup or age with dignity.

While we believe that the homes and facilities in which care is given should be apprised of the individuals status as being listed on the Sex Offender Registry, this type of care is a right we should extend to all citizens within a civilized society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the elderly is a responsibility not a luxury.

Anyone who has been in an auto accident, suffered a sports injury, a brain injury, a stroke, had a hip or knee replaced, paralysis, lost a limb or even received an organ transplant would be ejected by their healthcare provider from their hospital and into a rehabilitation or assisted care facility near their home.

What about those who are aging in their 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. They shouldn’t be in an apartment or home alone or perhaps their spouse is unable to care for them. That citizen should be able to move into an assisted living facility alone or with their spouse to live out their last years with dignity. This bill has just outlawed any married Registered Offender from entering such a facility with their spouse. Now the spouse will have to make the decision do they get the care they need or do they stay with their spouse.

Assisted care facilities deal with and are equipped to deal with those who are acting inappropriately or placing other residents at risk. Many have Alzheimer’s and are confused and combative. These problems are a given and the caregivers are equipped to cope with them.

The facilities then in question are the assisted living facilities where little care is needed and supervision is limited. These facilities already have the right and responsibility to move those in need of more intensive care to other facilities where that care can be given. To totally ban Registered Sex Offenders from these facilities without providing another option for them is shameful. Virginia’s homeless shelters have already banned Registered Sex Offenders and now possibly rehabilitation and assisted living facilities, what’s next hospitals? The only alternative is for Virginia to provide rehabilitation and assisted living facilities where RSO’s and their spouses can receive the same quality of care and there are enough facilities throughout Virginia that they can stay in their current community. Until those facilities are built and ready to serve these citizens, this type of legislation should not even be proposed.

This bill virtually ensures that some elderly or mentally handicapped person will be left to die in the streets of Virginia if he/she has no family to look after them in their old age.

Would you really prohibit a man or woman from the care they need simply because they made one mistake which they had paid for decades earlier? We should hope not.

The unreformed offenders by this age would still be in jail or under the care of the SVP treatment center. So this bill only punishes those who have already paid their dept to society. Do we now pass laws simply out of fear without conscience? What damage has 9-11 really done to us?

Not only is this bill now appeasing the paranoia of the general public, it condones it.

We once lived in a country where equal protection under the law was a constitutional right, do we need to amend this to include, unless we are scared with no reason?

Do not turn our country, our state into the Land of the outcast, and the home of the scared.

Our Bill of Rights is not something to be given up lightly, once you do, we will find ourselves upon a slippery slope of human rights violations that will be the undoing of our great country. The country my husband fought for in the first Iraqi war. I will not go quietly as political ambitions do not outweigh the importance of freedom.

Thus far we have purposefully avoided making any references to the Holocaust, but the parallels are becoming too much to ignore. I cannot help but reflect upon the chapter in Schindler’s List called the Liquidation of the Ghetto. During that chapter the sick and infirm were euthanized to spare them the horrors to follow. Our belief is that if this bill were to become law that it should be amended to allow for State Sponsored Euthanasia. This at least is more dignified and humane than to force one to die in the streets, alone and cold. You may think this a bit melodramatic, but I ask you to consider how inhumane this bill has become?

Virginia’s Registered Offenders are currently told where they can live, where they work, where they can be, and now where they die. What could be next? Where they can be buried? Don’t worry, the Federal laws are already addressing that. They are trying to ban the registered from being buried at Arlington Cemetery, we expect more in the future.

Please withdraw the amendment to HB967H1.

RSOL of Virginia

*We have learned from Delegate Peace that Chip Dick with the Realtors Association proposed the amendment.

We need you to write to your Delegate and Senator and to the sponsor of this bill Delegate Chris Peace, DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov asking them to remove the amendment that added Sex Offenders.
It already made it through the House without us knowing about it. It still has to go to the Senate.

On February 3, 2010 the RSOL of Virginia met with a Delegate who is a member of the House Sub-committee on Counties, Cities and Towns that allowed the amendment.

We asked the Delegate if anyone questioned the amendment when it was proposed. He responded, "No, when the amendment was proposed to add sex offenders, we all said that sounds reasonable and it passed".

We then asked the Delegate, now that he understood what the amendment actually would do, would he have still voted for it, he replied "No, I would not have". He also informed us that since the Bill was being read for the third time later that afternoon, that it was too late to be stopped by the House. It would be up to the Senate to stop this terrible bill from being passed.

On the afternoon of February 3, 2010 HB967H1 was read for the third time and passed the House 98 to 0 as a block vote.
*A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.

This Bill MUST be STOPPED in the Senate!

 

1st Response to Posting #191
From: Erik
Date:  02/02/2010

Dear Delegate Peace,

It is very troublesome that you would even consider denying an elderly offenders right to live out   his remaining days in an assisted living community with a little bit of dignity.  Their crimes may        have been committed decades ago or may also have been a misdemeanor. 

However, in your opinion, if that individual is on the registry, he should be "opted-out" of            receiving the assistance he/she needs.  I would consider this to be cruel and unusual. 

What if this individual had a stroke, Alzheimer’s, or was unable to fend for themselves? What    would you then do?  Put them on the street?

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your stance on this addition to HB967. 

Sometimes our legislators just go way too far!!!

Erik


2nd Response to Posting #191

From: Mike  
Date:  02/02/2010

Delegate Peace,

A moment of your time please. 

The RSOL of Virginia representatives a large group of citizens in this state. 

If this bill had been law last year a good friend of mine would have been dead 6 months sooner   than he was because he would not have been allowed to be in an assisted living establishment.  Might not have been important to you but at his funeral yesterday the church was full of over 200 or so people who loved him. 

When words are added here and there in these bills that you are responsible for I wonder if you think of the consequences.  I also wonder if you honestly feel that they provide a greater good for    the Commonwealth.

In conclusion I would add that constantly putting more and more restrictions on registered sex    offenders is truly counterproductive.  We as group are working hard to go unnoticed and conform to society.  Many of us have families and are simply trying to do the right thing.  And yes, even a great many of us have worked through counseling to help develop safe relationships with our victims.  It is possible and that is what anybody would want is to heal from the damages our         choices have caused.

I ask you to think about this the next time you want to put more restrictions on us.  We have        families that are already suffering because of us try not to make it worse. 

Thank you for reading this,

Mike

3rd Response to Posting #191
From: Mike #2
Date:  02/02/2010

Dear Delegate Peace,

I am writing to ask you to reconsider the amendment that has been added to your bill, where an   elderly, sick, or disabled citizen in Virginia will not be allowed to enter a home or care facility for needed medical care and living assistance just because they are a registered sex offender.

What purpose does this serve? Who does it protect?

Have we become so callous that we no longer consider those who have been convicted of a crime in their lifetime to be unworthy of any care or dignity in times of sickness or death?

How is one type of crime any worse than any other?

If you are going to legislate against sex offenders, why not murderers and drug dealers? Surely,    these murderers and dealers are just as much of a safety threat as a sex offender. All crime is sin,     and all sin is the same in the eyes of God.

Also, once time has been served as punishment for a crime, who are we to continue to judge that person ? Is political gain so important that our legislators have come to this age of passing sex offender laws just to get re-elected by playing on the electorate's fear of the sexual predator ? Most  sex offenders represent little to no threat to anyone in society.

For the very small percentage that is a threat, they are mostly confined already to institutions or prisons.

I ask you to remove this amendment from your bill in the name of humanity and common sense. Please don't let others steal your agenda of your noble original intent of this bill.

Mike

4th Response to Posting #191
From: James
Date:  02/02/2010

Dear Delegates,

HB 967, as amended with “or any offense for which a sex offender is listed on the registry pursuant to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act (§ 9.1-900 et seq.)” 1) is in direct opposition to widely-available research and 2) decreases public safety with no justification.  For citizens of the Commonwealth to have to defend against such biased legislation is unreasonable.

HB967 seeks to enhance policy that is already completely ineffective in reducing sex offenses and sex offender recidivism.  Minnesota Department of Corrections researchers found that residence restrictions had no effect in reducing recidivism.  In 93% of the cases, no direct contact with a child victim occurred within 1 mile of the offender's home.

Citizens of the Commonwealth should not be led to believe that this legislation will enhance public safety generally or protect families specifically.  Neither is true.  Code of Virginia § 15.2-2291 is   more “failed by choice” legislation described in Dr. Richard Wright's book, Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions.  That single source reveals:

1.  An empirical relationship between housing instability and criminal recidivism has been documented.

2.  Available evidence does not suggest that residence restrictions will reduce sex crime recidivism or protect children.  Most registered sex offenders do not reoffend…

3.  Residence laws greatly diminish housing options for sex offenders.

4.  When residence restrictions are enacted, the results quickly become evident.  The number of registered sex offenders in Iowa who could not be located more than doubled, damaging the reliability and validity of the sex offender registry.

5.   …housing laws resulting in instability and subsequent disengagement from family and community have the potential to increase rather than to deter criminal recidivism.

6.  Legislation should encourage sex offenders to find housing that doesn’t lead to family separation or relocation, creating unintended consequences for offenders’ family members including financial hardships and job and school disruption for spouses and children.
A recent study of legislators found that 78% of the politicians believed that sex criminals will      almost surely reoffend.  The reality, as reported by Department of Justice, is that new sex crimes were more than six times more likely to be committed by other types of criminals than by previously identified sex offenders.

 …all [emphasis added] of the politicians interviewed by Sample and Kadleck acknowledged that the media were by far their primary sources of information about sex offenders.  I respectfully ask that you put aside the painfully evident bias presented in the amendment to HB 967.  Please remove the amendment and begin consulting with experts when developing sex offender policies so they improve, rather than degrade, public safety.

Sincerely,

James

5th Response to Posting #191
From: Erica
Date:  02/03/2010

Dear Delegate,

The context of HB967H1 has just been brought to my attention.  This is a violation of human       rights. I am shocked and saddened that legislators of our state and our great country could create and propose such unspeakable measures as what is laid out in this bill.

It is frightening to think that we have people in position that are modeling the mindset of Nazi     Germany.  Is it true that history is going to repeat itself by re-establishing that horrific time in our history, only this time in the United States of America?  This type of proposal is inhumane and      is based on ignorance and hysteria.

I am asking you to please vote NO on HB967H1.

Thank you,

Erica

 

6th Response to Posting #191
From: Fred and Jan
Date:  02/03/2010

Dear Delegate Peace,

The amendment inserting "sex offender" is a fear-based insertion, and is discriminatory against sex offenders. Blacks and other minorities have had to deal with limitations on what facilities they   could use and what housing they could move to. This discrimination is based upon irrational fear.

Empirical evidence, rather than fear, shows that there is less chance of a sex offender reoffending than any other crime. There is not a problem with sex offenders reoffending. Any new offense would statistically not be from a offender, but from a non-offender. 90% of future offenses are from those not on any sex offender list. 93% are known by the victim. This 93% consists of family,   friends and people in romantic relationships. This 93% does not include strangers.

This law is discriminatory and distracts from the real threats. Sex offenders are not a homogeneous group but the group consists of those with many different convictions. Those that are serious            offenders and a real problem to society should be banned separately. They should not even be   released and their cases should be looked at individually.

Fred and Jan

 

7th Response to Posting #191
From: Mary Ann
Date:  02/04/2010

Dear Senators,

When will it stop? HB967 was amended without any consideration as to what the ramifications of adding such cruel and heartless restrictions to a group of citizens that are already vilified beyond belief would be! 

I cannot believe my beloved state is really considering banning Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) from rehabilitation centers (mental and physical) and from living in assisted living facilities!  What is next? 

Are we going to require RSO’s to wear a black star on their clothing?  We already limit where     they can work, live, visit and where they go. So now we are going to deny them the chance to heal in rehabilitation centers or the opportunity to grow old gracefully in an assisted living facility? 

Only a very few RSO’s are a threat to society and they should remain in jail.  What other crime is there where you pay for it for the rest of your life?  Let me think these facilities will allow   convicted violent drug abusers, convicted robbers, convicted murders, but not a RSO? 

I repeat, When will it stop?  Is my beloved state really considering banning Registered Sex           Offenders (RSO) from rehabilitation centers (mental and physical) and from living in assisted living facilities?   Is there a plan to offer a separate set of facilities for RSOs?  This amendment            should not have even been considered!   

Delegate Peace did you for one moment look at the ramifications of sponsoring such an                 amendment? Before sponsoring this amendment did you question The Realtors Association or its head Chip Dicks as to why they would propose this amendment?  It is now obvious why Delegate Peace sponsored this amendment. The Realtors Association contributed $5150.00 to his      campaign.  Most likely the amount is more. $5150 is only what is on the records!  I cannot believe that the civil liberties of a group of people can be sold for such a small fee. 

Initially most restrictions were mandated to “protect our children” what is the purpose of            restricting RSOs from receiving the rehabilitation they need?  What is the purpose of banning an elderly RSO from living in an assisted living facility?  Before sponsoring this amendment did you question Chip Dicks as to why he would propose this amendment?  I would certainly hope so! 

As our legislators you owe it to all of your constituents to get the facts and to understand all of the ramifications of what is proposed for each and every house bill and amendments to it.  Senators of Virginia DO NOT follow the example of our ill informed delegates!  Throw this amendment out   of the House!  Send a message that all constituents are entitled to proper rehabilitation facilities      and to grow old gracefully. 

It is my sincere hope that you will avoid the temptation to look like you are “being hard on          RSOs” for political gain.  It is time to consider the basic rights of thousands of Virginia RSOs and the thousands of family members affected by these draconian laws.   

Sincerely,

Mary Ann

 

8th Response to Posting #191
From: Mike #3
Date:  02/04/2010

Dear Senators,

I'd like to call your attention to the amended HB 967 H1 in which a discrimination against            registered sex offenders was added.  I believe that being listing on a registry should not deny a         person of medical care, and so I urge you to vote against HB 967.

The registry is supposed to be there for public information - not to continue punishing people who   have already done their time.  This bill can't even hide behind the facade of serving the public        safety because there's no reason to believe nor evidence to suggest that a registered offender posses   a threat while residing in a medical facility.

Mike