Check It Out

The Roanoke Times iPad app has a new look and a few new features. Learn more here.

Blog Archives


Sex offender registry: Point/Counterpoint

RoundTable regular Sandi Saunders says Virginia’s sex offender registry desperately needs reform.

Any other registry so wrong so often and so easy to get onto without cause would have been discontinued as unconstitutional long ago.

You think gun owners have a legitimate argument about the public knowing they own and carry guns? Think how it would feel to be on this list and never have actually committed a sexual crime? This is an out of control “Scarlet Letter” and the reason is Commonwealth’s and Attorney General’s trying to gain “victories” without regard to the lives they ruin and allowing vindictive families and activists to decide whose privacy can be invaded.

Join the conversation.

 

Does Virginia’s sex offender registry need reform?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

Sex offender registry: Point/Counterpoint

Does Virginia’s sex offender registry need reform?

Raising fear, to no effect

0331_pcp_Mary DevoyBy Mary Devoy

Devoy, of Mechanicsville, has been a volunteer advocate for data-driven reform of Virginia’s sex offender registry and laws since 2008.

Most Virginians would say there are more rapists and molesters today than 15 years ago. They would be wrong.

Approximately 15 years ago, victims’ rights groups and lawmakers began lowering the threshold of what is defined as a sex crime, making the standards of guilt easier, increasing and expanding punishment, tying the hands of judges with mandatory minimums and giving too much power to prosecutors.

Vengeance over justice became the standard. No one dared question these changes or asked for data to support them, fearing they’d be perceived as dishonoring crime victims.

When sex offender registries were created, politicians claimed their very existence would prevent crimes and victimization. Have they?

A plethora of research over the last 12 years by experts in the field have concluded the registries have not lowered the number of crimes nor the rate of recidivism. Nor have they made the public feel safer. In reality, the registries keep the public in a perpetual state of suspicion, fear and watchfulness, with no tangible results.

Virginia has dehumanized an entire class of society, making them public spectacles, monsters of no value. This rationalizes and endorses destruction as opposed to healing and growth. Successful re-entry for offenders — including housing, education, employment and family life — becomes practically impossible.

Every offender is painted with the same broad brush. An 18-year-old who had consensual sexual contact with a 16-year-old suffers the same restrictions as a rapist who assaulted a stranger. After serving lengthy prison sentences, each is listed for life on our registry as a violent offender, convicted of rape, sodomy, object sexual penetration or carnal knowledge of a minor.

Are they equal? Do both deserve the scarlet letter or state monitoring for the next 30, 40 or 60 years? No, they don’t.

Every year, 850 to 1,300 new Virginians (an average of 20 per week) are added to our registry, and fewer than 50 are removed. In December 2008, one of every 202 adult males was registered; in December 2012, the number grew to one of 159. By late 2018, we’ll reach one of every 100. Eventually, every Virginian will know someone bearing this scarlet letter.

There can be an even-handed approach — protecting the public, informing people of who might be a threat and allowing for successful re-entry to the majority who want to be productive citizens. It just takes careful consideration and actually listening to experts in the field.

It is possible to protect society from sexual harm, while preserving civil liberties and genuine justice. Lawmakers, if directed, could construct targeted laws against harmful acts, not classes of people. Which delegates and senators will find the required inner strength to take on this polarizing issue to reform, and restore integrity, to our registry?

Why sex offender registries work

0331_pcp_stanleyBy Bill Stanley

Stanley, of Franklin County, is state senator for the 20th District and Republican majority whip. He has sponsored legislation in the General Assembly to ensure Virginia’s compliance with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Sex offender registries are relatively new legal instruments used by states, including Virginia, in the war against sexual predators. Nationwide, the number of registered sex offenders has increased at an alarming rate, from 606,816 in 2006 to 747,408 today.

One only has to watch the nightly news to see that sexual offenses by predators are on the rise. With the advent of the Internet, these criminals now have access to illicit materials that further their criminal desires. And the Wworld Wwide Wweb now provides a gateway into our homes through our computers, where these criminals can gain access to our children.

Consider these disturbing facts: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, on any given day there are approximately 234,000 sex offenders who were previously convicted of a sex crime, who are now under the custody or control of state or federal corrections agencies in the U.S.; the median age of the victims of these predators was less than 13 years old; in this group of offenders, approximately 21 percent of those currently confined for either rape or sexual assault had been on parole or probation at the time they committed their offense; and, after their release, the recidivism rate of sex offenders for subsequent criminal offenses of all types is nearly 43 percent. Shockingly, of those released sex offenders who were accused of another sex crime, 40 percent were arrested within a year of their release.

The federal Adam Walsh Act of 2006 requires all 50 states to maintain sex offender registries, and details who must register (and what sex offenses qualify for registration), how long they remain on the registry, and what information of the offender must be maintained.

Virginia’s registry is maintained by the state police and Department of Corrections. Persons on the list have been convicted of certain sex crimes, as defined in Virginia’s criminal code, that require registration as a part of their punishment. With few exceptions, once sex offenders are put on this registry, they are on it permanently.

This public registry details the home location of each released sex offender throughout the commonwealth. The registry serves multiple purposes, including deterring sex offenders from reoffending, and providing access to valuable information for both law enforcement agencies and the general public.

The sex offender registry is an evolving program, and admittedly, the registry is not the be-all -and -end-all in the battle to deter and punish sex crimes. A; but as it is further developed and refined in its continuing evolution by the Virginia legislature and law enforcement, it will remain an important tool in keeping our fellow citizens and our children safe from sexual predators both now, and in the future.

Does Virginia’s sex offender registry need reform?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

The inalienable right to life

By Ron Patt

Since the dawn of time, we have had the right to hunt and the right of self-defense. These rights are the basis of gun ownership. I am an avid hunter and own 10 guns secured in a steel combination-lock safe.

Let’s get right with our Constitution: Thomas Jefferson listed our inalienable rights in the order of their importance — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our representatives’ foremost responsibility is to protect our lives. Our Constitution provided for an armed force to ensure our protection from foreign powers. The Second Amendment (birth of our National Guard) ensured our protection from tyrants within our republic (remember some of our forefathers remained loyal to King George).

Continue reading.

 

Patt is a retired social studies teacher, organic gardener, avid hunter, fisherman and activist. He lives in Austinville.

A new use for gnarly photos

Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons

Icky images will stay off cigarette packages, but they could be recycled for a public health campaign.

For now, the constitutional fight over graphic warnings about the dangers of cigarettes has disappeared. The tobacco industry’s need to hook young smokers has not.

So it’s back to the drawing board.

Continue reading this editorial.

All rights have limits

Rosemary Hawkins

According to Lance Hunt, “the government cannot give rights; it can only take them away (“Gun ownership is an inborn right,” March 12 letter.)

He is dead wrong. Another government hater, I presume.

Read more.

Hawkins is a retired business woman and local writer.

The courthouse door barely opens without judges

By Ray Ferris

April 1 will be like any other early spring day for most of us in the Roanoke Valley. Government offices will open, the buses will run, the trash will be collected, students will return to school, businesses will look forward to a new week and Washington will still be dysfunctional. Business as usual, that is, unless you have business to conduct in one of the valley’s courthouses.

The 23rd  Judicial Circuit includes Salem, Roanoke County and Roanoke. This circuit has long enjoyed the reputation statewide of having excellent jurists who are accessible and responsive to the public that they serve. However, the public’s access to the judicial system will change for the worse if the General Assembly’s refusal to continue funding our judiciary becomes a reality.

Read more.

Ferris is a practicing attorney, member of Roanoke City Council and a former prosecutor.

Into uncharted territory

Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons

By George Will

When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws,” these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science. The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground.

The Obama administration says California’s law expresses “prejudice” that is “impermissible.” But same-sex marriage is a matter about which intelligent people reasonably disagree, partly because so little is known about its consequences.

Continue reading.

Will is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

Even the poor have a right to an attorney

By Virginia Sloan

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that states are constitutionally required to provide defense lawyers to individuals charged with a felony and unable to afford a lawyer on their own.

Before 1963, individuals charged with a criminal offense were subject to a patchwork of state and local rules regarding their right to counsel. The Gideon decision generated hope that all states would meet their obligation to ensure the fundamental right to counsel in criminal prosecutions. No longer would justice depend on where you were charged or how much money you had.

Continue reading.

Sloan is the president of The Constitution Project, a bipartisan watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

Beyond militia, gun ownership is privilege, not right

by Theodore Fuller

Most people recognize that our rights are not absolute. The First Amendment says we have the right to free speech, and yet we know that we cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless there is actually a fire). Similarly, our right to free speech is limited by laws against slander and libel.

In the same way, our right to bear arms is not absolute. We have to balance the right to bear arms against other rights, such as the right not to fear that first-graders might be shot to death in their schoolrooms or that we might be shot to death in a movie theater.

Read more.

Fuller lives in Blacksburg and is a professor of sociology at Virginia Tech.

Is there still freedom after speech?

By Robert Benne

A Cold War witticism had a dissenter in the East remarking that people in communist lands had freedom of speech just like those in the West. The only difference, he said, was that in the West there was freedom after speech. The speaker wasn’t sent to the gulag.

We don’t wind up in the gulag for dissenting from the received wisdom of the progressive left, but we can lose our reputations and jobs. The threat of such loss is real enough to make dissenters think twice about speaking at all. The diminution of freedom after speech tends to inhibit freedom of speech.

Read more.

 Benne lives in Salem.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Weather Journal

Some severe storm risk thru Thurs.

Wed, 22 May 2013 13:19:25 +0000




.....Daily Deal.....


Recent Comments

  • Michael: #34 – Resent it all you want, but c’mon, Sandi, we all know how much you despise George Bush and...
  • Sandi Saunders: Great initiative Bubba! How many times did someone from the Bush, Clinton or Reagan administration...
  • Sandi Saunders: I would never be the one “demanding people be waterboarded” and I resent that...
  • Sandi Saunders: A new low! And that is saying something.
  • Art Hill: My, Foxwatchers are easily led. They distort, we deride.

Categories

Archives