Twitter

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Virginia’s 2015 HB1533 and SB976 (both failed) Had an Ulterior Motive, To Continue Cycling Our SVP’s Through the Virginia Prison System Which is Much, Much Cheaper than Civil Commitment

 
As I posted yesterday I attended the first Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission meeting of 2015. The presentations from the meeting still have not been posted online so I can not provide a link to the issue I am posting about here. 

During the 2015 Virginia General Assembly session one of the many bills I monitored but did not oppose was HB1533 (and its companion SB976) Obscene sexual display in a public place; third offense, penalty. 

What did HB1533 and SB976 propose to do? 

Per it’s summary it would have ……Added engaging in an obscene sexual display, i.e., actual or explicitly simulated masturbation in a public place, to the list of misdemeanor sex offenses for which the penalty for a third offense of any of the listed offenses committed in a 10-year period is a Class 6 felony. 

When it comes to legislation adding or increasing second and third offense penalties (that are not simultaneous), I don’t oppose them.  

In yesterday’s VCSC presentation it was noted on page 25 that two bills from the 2015 session with fiscal impact statements produced by the VCSC staff were sent to JLARC by Virginia Delegates who did not agree with the finding. It turns out this is allowed but rarely occurs, 0-2 times per year according to VCSC. One of the 2 bills sent to JLAC during session was HB1533 . 

On page 30 of the VCSC presentation it breaks down the VCSC analysis of HB1366 and how they came up with 7 additional prison beds being required at a cost of $207,232 for each year if HB1533 became law in Virginia. 

Then on page 33 JLARC’s conclusion of their analysis of VCSC’s work was given and I sat in the meeting stunned because I THEN realized at that very moment what the true intention of HB1533 and SB976 had been.
 

Don’t Be So Hysterical About Sex Crimes: A study on offenders that indicates a genetic tendency has some sinister implications, By Lionel Shriver

 
Don’t be so hysterical about sex crimes, April 11, 2015
A study on offenders that indicates a genetic tendency has some sinister implications
By Lionel Shriver
 

In the film Minority Report, police employ psychics who foresee offences before they’re committed. The special unit “PreCrime” swoops down to arrest citizens before they break the law. We’re not there yet, but a large Swedish study has nudged us an inch towards Philip K Dick. 

Across more than 20,000 cases of male sex offences in Sweden 1973–2009, men with brothers or fathers convicted of sex offences were five times more likely than average to commit the same kind of crime. (The chances were 2.5% if sexual predation ran in the family, 0.5% among the general male population.) The study’s authors brandish numerous disclaimers: they’re not giving offenders an excuse, proposing male relatives of rapists be imprisoned or isolating a sex-abuse gene. But they believe the finding of a broad genetic proclivity paves the way for prevention strategies. As one forensic psychiatrist put it: “If interventions can be provided that are not harmful, this is an opportunity.” 

Imagine being the son or brother of a man imprisoned for sexual assault – traumatic in itself. A social worker rings the doorbell. She offers therapy, anger management or gender–sensitivity training – when you’ve done nothing wrong. Wouldn’t you slam the door in her face, after telling the busybody from PreCrime where she can shove her “prevention strategies”?