There's a small, simple but important House bill up in the Senate Criminal Jurisprudence Committee today that deserves quick passage: Removing employer information from the public sex offender registration database, HB 3346 which passed with bipartisan sponsorship and overwhelming support in the House (138-2).
According to the bill analysis, "Texas is one of the few states that includes the names and addresses of employers of a sex offender in the public sex offender registration central database. Some employers have been hesitant to hire sex offenders and some have terminated employees after discovering that the names and addresses of their businesses are identified in the public database." Reducing recidivism means reducing barriers to employment and this bill
The bill would overturn a unilateral decision by the Department of Public Safety to add employer information to the database in 2008, on the grounds that it would be required under the federal Adam Walsh Act. But Texas has decided not to comply with the AWA, which unwisely expands the registry and would cost tens of millions to implement. I'm glad to see the legislation get this far and hope it makes it to the finish line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
15 comments:
What I find interesting is that DPS is now an autonomous group allowed to pass decisions in adding information to the registry. Orwell had it right I guess. So when DPS wants to start putting our wives' names, who we associate with, where our kids go to school, will this be allowed as well?
Don't say it won't happen. Who would have thought 20 years ago that the state would suspend the Bill of Rights along the lines it has done currently?
Sieg Hiel mein Fuhrer
Just wondering what Tommy Williams' is up to with his execrable SB 9 which would deploy 'special Texas rangers' to 'monitor' sex offenders, among other things?
11:47, it's been heard in House committee and could be voted out as early as today. He took out some of the more objectionable stuff, though the bit about special rangers monitoring sex offenders, etc., is still in there. But it's still larded with bad stuff; I wouldn't shed a tear, certainly, if it doesn't make it through.
If you have a special law organization monitoring sex offenders, how does that sit with the registry being 'remedial' and not punitive?
If an individual is being harassed by law enforcement would it cross that line?
I wonder if there has been any Constitutional law findings for or against just this item. it is one thing to publish 'public' information, yet quite another to actively pursue someone that is completely complaint.
I would like to edit my last post. I just read SB9.
In viewing the Analysis and the actual proposed bill, it reads like the handbook for a secret police department outside of the uniformed services of law enforcement. They would report solely to the head of DPS.
I wonder what the lack of accountability will be for this little gem.
Kill the Registry itself. It is pointless and serves no useful purpose to victims or law enforcement but in turn saddles the listees with yet one more Scarlet Letter designed to make the 'tough on crime' crowd look good.
Actually I do not follow your train of thought Anon 1:22.. I am on the registry, I agree with it for the truly dangerous cases that make up the minority of the offenders.
While I know as well as anyone how the net was cast wide to include so many, I also realize that there are some truly dangerous people on it that should be outed publicly for the good of a community.
That said, I would still support a registry for the worst of the worst, even if by some chance I would be included in that group. If it truly benefits the greater good, I am for it; however the current registry is just as you say, it does not benefit anyone except those who's job it is to get a nice leather chair in Austin or DC.
Wow, an elite special task force of Texas Rangers to monitor (former) sex offenders, whom have a very low rate of recidivism to start with. Those Rangers will be about as busy as the Maytag repairman.
To give that unit some real teeth, they can bring in Chuck Norris as supervisor and Chris Hansen as commissioner. Sheesh!
Actually, adding place of employment to the public registry was not a decision made by DPS. The order was given to DPS by Attorney General Greg Abbott. Also, the Adam Walsh Act does not require states to publicly post employer info.
HB 3346 is a common sense bill and Representative Burnam should be commended for his efforts. Takes alot of gutts to do the right thing.
Sieg Hiel Yeah! Texas is a Police State!
1:37, I am not on the registry, and I see no benefit from the list. If you cant fix it, then do away with it. Cathy
Question: has anyone studied Hitler's Germany 1939-1945 and compared it to today's America? Just compare the laws passed against the Jewish people in Germany and Poland to the laws passed against RSOs today. Jews had to wear a yellow star of David to identify them; RSOs wear the sex offender registry. Jews were carted off to concentration camps for slaughter; RSOs are emasculated and de-boned like a fish--their dignty and pride stripped away. Sure, they commited a crime but paid for it with, in some cases, many many years of imprisonment so why this punishment in perpetuity? And as to this SB9, hmmmm, "Gestopo" American style--thats real Hitlerish. Wonder if they will wear the Black uniforms emboldened with the Iron Cross.
Grits...the post from Dan on 09:29:00 is just a link promoting..yet again...a sex offender database tracking site. If you click his name it takes you to an external link and the website. I agree everyone has an opinion and is free to give it..to an extent...but he is promoting a service via your site.
Well the ROOSTER'S have come home to roost. This has been in the making for the past ten years. I actually believe in ten more years we will look like the old Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany. I would never have believed this if you would have told me this stuff would be happening twenty years ago. I had hope I would not see this in my life time but it will come I am sad to say.
Cathy@11:00
yes, As I said, I support it for the cases in which the individual is a member of that 5% that will re-offend. That would draw to question that, if we can identify those 5%, why would they not get longer sentences etc.. The loop is mind-numbing.
You 'fix' the registry by solely placing those that are the worst on it and leave the Romeos off of it. Even Walsh (who I truly despise, and will make a trip to California to personally piss on his grave when he dies) stated that the registry is far too large and should only include the worst offenders.
I appreciate your support of getting rid of the registry though. Gives those of us that are on it hope that others are paying attention. :)
Post a Comment