Reform the sex offender registry
Mary Devoy
Re: “Botetourt neighbors: Rapist is unwelcome,” March 7 news story:
For four years, I was executive director of the since-dissolved nonprofit Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, and am now a part-time volunteer advocate to reform the Virginia sex offender registry.
I am not going to address Calvert Thompson’s background or past convictions nor attempt to look into a crystal ball to presume what he might do in the future.
Devoy was the founder of Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia.
March 22, 2013 - 6:13 AM
Good luck with that! The people that the public cares least about would likely be the people on the “Sex Offender Registry”. That people can get on there for very specious reasons and even reasons having NOTHING to do with being a sexual predator really gives the public a false sense of security at the same time it condemns people who may well not deserve it.
The kind of activism displayed by the witch-burners in that neighborhood is appalling. People should not have to wear the “Scarlet Letter”, even if there is a high rate of recidivism. Knowing that, the state should have lifetime probation and regular check-ins, meetings, counseling and oversight. If the state will not do that, then they bear some blame when a predator does re-offend IMO.
Upon some consideration of the spectacle observed in ‘Ashley Plantation,’ — where Calvert Thompson has neither purchased property, nor moved — several thoughts came to mind. (1) Va. Code 33.1-373 prohibits signs on public highways, and subdivision streets are dedicated as such. (2) Botetourt County Code 25-461 regulates private signage by time manner and place, including campaign posters, the First Amendment notwithstanding, and no permits were obtained. (3) The neighborhood covenants for the Plantation probably prohibit signage. (4) Mike Doherty and C.A. Joel Branscom might take note that State Bar ethics rule 4.4 prohibits an attorney from using means ‘that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person…” (5) Va. Code 8.01-40 provides for damages for the unauthorized use of the name or picture of a person for advertising or ‘for the purposes of trade’ which might include trying to get someone to sell their property. See Town & Country Properties v. Riggins (Va. S.Ct.) “the flyer was designed to enhance the probablity of the ultimate sale of the property.” (6) Va. Code 9.1-918 makes it criminal to misuse of offender registry information to intimidate or harass, and the posters did not ‘merely’ republish the information, and it was not ‘absent other aggravating circumstances’ such as a PR campaign, news coverage, etc. The damage is already done. Thompson and anyone else so treated has several avenues to pursue here.