RSOL VIRGINIA MAKES PRESENCE KNOWN AT VIRGINIA CRIME COMMISSION MEETING and ADDS CORRECTIONS TO MISTAKES GIVEN IN TESTIMONY
Summary by Alex Marbury
RSOL Virginia, under the excellent leadership of Mary and John, had hoped to make public testimony at the Virginia Crime Commission (VCC) meeting on September 16, 2009, which was to consider sex offender laws among other matters. But the Commission postponed public testimony until its December meeting. Not to be easily deterred, RSOL Virginia rallied 23 of their members, plus the 2 leaders, and appeared at the hearing carrying signs that made clear opposition to the Virginia sex offender commitment and registry laws in their present form. The Commission, in addition to looking at other justice issues, considered the Civil Commitment laws, several different Sex Offender Registry laws, and the issue of 'sexting.'
RSOL members held 5 large signs:
#1 Teenage Consensual Sex = Lifetime Violent Sex Offender Status.
#2 How Many Votes is My Family Worth?
#3 1,200 New People Every Year. You Might Be Next.
#4 Jobless and Homeless = Untraceable - Is that What you Want?
#5 Recidivism Rates for Sexual Assaults Are 3.5-5.5% NOT 80 or 100%.
Stop the Hysteria!
Here is an edited summary of Mary's report to her group, with corrections RSOL sent to the Committee with regard to their power point presentations at the hearing:
"Back on August 18, we asked all of you to join us for a united stand at this VCC meeting. We had no idea how many supporters to expect, especially since 8 supporters who were each bringing someone cancelled within 48 hours of the meeting.
We met 23 of you and you all happily selected one of our visuals to hold during the VI. and VII. sections of the meeting, when sex offender legislation was to be reviewed.
We learned that 2.3 million people are in U.S. Prisons today. That's 1 out of every 100 adult males. We also learned that 1 out of every 31 adult males are [sic] either on probation or parole today. $68 BILLION per year is spent on corrections. In Virginia there are currently 67,000 people in prison (state and federal), that's 1 out of every 89 adult males. In Virginia 1 out of every 46 adult males are currently on probation.
The meeting dragged on longer than the two previous VCC meetings and by 1:00PM the committee was just beginning part IV. of the agenda and 3 of our supporters had to leave. By this point in the meeting, only 7 members of the 13 members of the VCC could listen to the rest of the speakers.
In regards to section III. Civil Commitment one or two incorrect facts were presented by the so-called expert.
In regards to topic VI. Sexting the numbers seemed REALLY low and in regards to section VII. the 2009 S.O. Bills, we counted 7 incorrect facts and we will be sending all the members of the VCC an e-mail giving them the correct data.
During section VII, one of our supporters made an effort to point out incorrect information and he was immediately silenced by Senator Howell with the statement, "No comments are being taken until the December meeting".
When we all held up our visuals it was very interesting how the last 7 VCC members (and their counsel) reacted. At first they looked shocked and scanned the variety of visuals and then once they realized what they said and that it meant we were all together they never again made real eye contact with the audience.
The one Richmond news channel that also attended the meeting all of a sudden went into action and turned his camera into the audience to capture our signs.
We want to thank all of you who were able to attend the September meeting. We know that many of you drove many hours and it cost you a day of work, the fuel and the parking and we are so grateful that you knew your presence was needed and came.
The next VCC meeting is December 15 and public comments will be heard. We know its 10 days before Christmas and you may not be near Richmond but we need you to attend the December meeting and be heard. It could be icy/snowy weather in Richmond but we REALLY hope you will take this opportunity to take a stand."
RSOL of Virginia
RSOL LETTER TO THE Virginia Crime Commission (VCC) with CORRECTIONS TO CERTAIN "FACTS" PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2009, MEETING:
Dear Virginia Crime Commission members,
There seemed to be confusion at yesterday's meeting on how much it would cost Virginia to comply with SORNA/AWA and how much would be lost of the Byrne Grant. It will cost Virginia $12 million to comply with SORNA and Virginia would only lose $400,000 (10% Byrne Grant) if they do not comply.
Only one case of a Virginia juvenile being charged for "Sexting" seemed to be known at yesterday's meeting. Also the conversation and presentation only included the juveniles. What about the 18, 19 and 20 year old boyfriends and girlfriends who receive these unsolicited photos or videos [who] should not face prosecution or being listed as a Sex Offender?
Or what about the Loudon County case where School Administrator, Ting-Yi Oei spent almost a year of his life fighting for his career, his reputation and his life? (SEE - 'Citizens and Lawmakers Brace for More Sexting— Can it Prompt the New "Scarlet Letter"'? By Bonnie Atwood. Capitol Connections Magazine - Summer 2009:
Mr. Oei's case shows that Virginia's prosecutors do not always use good judgment as the VCC stated at yesterdays meeting and because of that, Sexting laws do need to be proposed in 2010 in addition to educating students of the dangers of Sexting.
There are several incorrect facts from yesterday's Power Point Presentations and if you are to make an accurate decision when you vote at the December 15 VCC meeting you should have the correct data.
First, as I brought to your attention during the meeting, using the Virginia Sex Offender Registry to harass or intimidate someone is currently only a misdemeanor, not a felony as it should be."
The Sexting Power Point Presentation:
Slide # 11 states
"...a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent of a sexual offense is not automatically required to be registered."
RSOL CORRECTION: The state of Virginia requires ALL sexually related convictions to be registered.
Slide # 12 states
"Juveniles who are convicted as adults of producing or distributing child pornography must register as sex offenders for at least 25 years. Virginia's registration requirements for these offenses comply with the Act."
RSOL's Correction: Virginia would be compliant with the 25 years if Virginia had a 3-Tier system which is recommended by SORNA. Tier 1 is the lowest offender and could petition after 15 years; also there is no requirement that the information for a Tier 1 be publically posted and as such could save the Commonwealth a great deal of funding. Tier 2 is a mid-level offender and could petition after 25 years and Tier 3 is the worse offender and would be listed for life. Virginia only has two classifications, Non-Violent=15 years which we all know has been revised twice by the General Assembly (G.A.) and Violent=Lifetime. So when this slide says Virginia complies with SORNA or AWA, Virginia actually exceeds the guidelines because the offender is Violent according to the Commonwealth and will never be removed. With AWA they'd have a chance to be removed in 25 years. Differentiation would allow more attention to be focused on those who do in fact pose a greater threat and require more attention. This may in fact prevent a situation like that which occurred in California.
Sex Offender Registry Requirements of the Adam Walsh Act Presentation:
Slide #7 states
"Requires that any telephone number a registered sex offender uses, or intends to use, be added to the registry."
RSOL Correction: This is not required by SORNA, but is required pursuant to the authority of the U.S. Attorney General (A.G.) to mandate additional information be added to registries. The A.G. recommends that the numbers not be made available to the general public.
As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, "One must ask; would phone lines where only internal communications are utilized be included. In these cases the actual phone number may or may not be known and may not be accessible to the person to whom this new requirement would apply. If this is the case then how would the State Police verify this new information?"
In my husbands case, the phone lines are too numerous to count and he knows of at least 3 in which it's a direct hotline to other facilities where no phone number is available. Not only would listing all this be an impossible task, but in some cases would be a violation of workplace security.
Please try to imagine if this restriction were applied to you, could you actually comply with the requirements? If your answer is no, then how can you expect anyone to comply despite their best efforts?
We do need to apply some sense to these requirements. The attempt to do this would hopelessly bog down the system as one can not anticipate all phones one might use.
Slide #8 states
"(SORNA) Requires that the registry information on "place of employment" include all places and physical job site locations, including volunteer work."
RSOL Correction: This is not precisely required by SORNA - "...name and address of any place where the sex offender is an employee..."
Employer addresses are required by SORNA but the employer name or company name is NOT required. In fact New Hampshire removed the employer name/company name two years ago from their registry because an employer will not hire an offender specifically because they do not want their company listed on the registry.
Slides #10 and #11
[RSOL Virginia response:] As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, "As to changing the visitation time requirements regarding registration, the existing law of 14 days is more than adequate. Changing the law to limit the amount of days allowable would in some cases limit the chance for the registered to return to productive society. This is particularly evident in that most businesses will schedule training classes or seminars to travel over a one week period to take advantage of the airline discounts. Limiting the stay to a mere 7 days requiring registration would hopelessly confuse the ability to follow registration and actually create a situation where the registrant could have multiple listings and differing states of residency."
Slide #12 states
(AWA) "Creates a new requirement that a "substantial change in appearance" would also necessitate a re-registration in person within 3 days."
RSOL Correction: This is not required by SORNA, nor by the U.S. Attorney General.
As I stated at both the 2009 G.A. House and the Senate Sub-committee hearings, If this committee is to require that any significant change in appearance would require the registered to resubmit to a new photograph, than a "significant" change needs to be clearly defined and documented.
What exactly is the definition of a significant change in appearance? Unless the authorities enforcing this law define exactly what constitutes a significant change and submits these defining changes to the persons affected, then how can we pass this bill into law?
Would an unreported haircut be a crime or the gradual graying of ones hair that goes virtually unnoticed by the individual an offense? Changes of this type may be considered significant, but to the person on the registry they might not even be aware the changes have occurred until someone that hasn't seen them in many months' mentions that they look different.
Perhaps going 4 days without shaving. What about weight gain or loss, what is the amount that would require a new photo, 5, 10, 20 pounds?
What about a bad case of acne or eczema or a broken nose that didn't heal perfectly?
Women typically will wear there hair in a different styles, whether it be up or down.
When one's appearance changes on a day to day basis, dependant upon how they may have slept or if they've showered and shaved to start the day, who can state what constitutes significant under this bill?
This bill is far too vague and is completely open to subjective opinion; and should not go forward. We ask that this bill be tabled until there is a clear list defining what is and what is not considered a significant change by the state.
Without clear and precisely defined rules and regulations the state is setting the registered up to fail."
Slide #17 states
"Virginia currently prohibits retroactive application of certain offenses."
If committed before July 1, 2006, a felony conviction under Section 18.2-67.5:1, a conviction under Section 18.2-91, or a conviction for possession of child pornography do not require registration.
"This is in violation of SORNA, federal regulation, and the U.S. Attorney General."
RSOL CORRECTION: As an audience member verbally pointed out, this is not correct. There are many people currently listed on Virginia's registry that were convicted before July 1, 2006 for this very crime.
Interestingly this and many other type convictions has been successfully challenged in the Ninth US Court of Appeals in regards to juveniles convicted prior to SORNA and has been deemed unconstitutional. They went as far as to refer to the Registry as a punitive rather than just an administrative order.
Slide #19 states
"Under SORNA, a person convicted of sexual battery of anyone 13 years old or older must be on the registry for at least 25 years, if the battery was accomplished through force or threat of death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping. Under Virginia law, sexual battery of an adult will only result in registration if it is the offender's third offense."
RSOL CORRECTION: This is NOT correct. My husband was convicted of sexual battery of a 15 year old without the above qualifiers, it was his first offense and he was told he'd have to register for 10 years and then 4 months later the Virginia General Assembly increased it to 15 years.
Slide #20 states
"SORNA requires juveniles over the age of 14 to be registered if they are adjudicated delinquent of aggravated sexual battery, rape, forcible sodomy, or forcible object penetration."
RSOL CORRECTION: Currently, Virginia law only provides for the possibility that such a juvenile be registered; the Commonwealth must first file a petition, and the judge must agree that the specific facts of the crime warrant registration.
Virginia lowered the minimum age for registration to 13 years old and attempted to lower to 12 years old unsuccessfully.
Finally, I questioned a statement in the AWA Presentation, that SORNA specifically allows the Attorney General of the United States to expand or exempt the requirements that are listed in the federal statutes. So I e-mailed the lead counsel member to the U.S. Judiciary Committee in Washington D.C. whom we've met with and asked if this statement is correct. She responded back, "The statement you quote is extremely broad, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. SORNA does direct the AG to issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement SORNA. It also gives the AG discretion in certain areas, such as discretionary or mandatory exemptions from public disclosure and retroactive application of the law. But the AG on his own, with no statutory authority or mandate can't change laws that Congress has passed". So, this slide from your presentation is extremely misleading and should not be used again.
Please take these truths to heart and vote as educated persons on these important decisions. No one likes to dwell on these issues but in order to truly protect all Virginian's you must fully understand these things. These changes would only add confusion, frustration, additional expense and burden not only to the registrant, but to the Commonwealth. The extra costs to the taxpayer due to the extra work involved with attempting to keep the registry up to date are limitless.
RSOL VIRGINIA