Showing posts with label 2020 Dumbest New Bill/ Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2020 Dumbest New Bill/ Law. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Michigan lawmakers decided, If at first you don't succeed, pass the same unconstitutional, draconian law

This is a reminder Democrats are no more receptive to justice reform than Republicans. Vote them ALL out! 

Just remember that this dumbassed state also willingly poisoned their own constituents in Flint and trired to cover it up. While that wasn't on Gretchen DIMWITmer's watch, she signed a bill that will destroy just as many human lives.  

Millions of dollars will be wasted once again as the lawsuits will increase. 

https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/12/whitmer-bill-signings-include-tightened-sex-offender-registration-protocols-boosts-in-medical-staffing.html

Whitmer bill signings include tightened sex offender registration protocols, boosts in medical staffing

Updated Dec 30, 2020; Posted Dec 30, 2020

By Samuel Dodge | sdodge@mlive.com

LANSING, MI - Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s major signing Tuesday was the partial approval of a COVID-19 relief supplemental equaling $106 million. Later on Dec. 29, though, she inked a series of other bills.

The governor ratified more than 80 bits of legislation to immediate effect, notably the tightening of registration protocols for sex offenders and the loosening of license restrictions to boost medical staffing to fight COVID-19 surges.

The approval of changes to the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act fulfills a 4-year-old mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled that it was unconstitutional to impose new restrictions on people convicted before the Act was updated.

House Bill 5679, sponsored by Rep. James Lower, R-Greenville, addresses that problem and was approved in the Senate by a 21-17 vote during the Dec. 16 session. The Michigan House approved the bill 80-24 on Dec. 2.

The proposed amendments to SORA in House Bill 5679 are:

Giving sex offenders no more than three days to register or report status changes in person with local law enforcement.

Requiring offenders to report all email addresses, social media names or other forms of “internet identifiers.” That would not apply retroactively to offenders prior to July 1, 2011, but anyone required to register after that date must comply.

Requiring all telephone numbers and vehicles used by the offender to be reported. Previously, they didn’t need to report those used on a less regular basis.

Allowing email addresses, social media usernames and other identifiers to be published on a public sex offender registry.

Removing prohibitions for offenders from living, working or loitering near school property or “student safety zones.”

No longer requiring an offender’s tier classification to be included on the public website. Law enforcement personnel who willfully fail to periodically report on offenders would face a penalty.

The state’s ACLU chapter urged Whitmer to veto the changes, calling them unconstitutional and ineffective at stopping offenders.

“This legislation ignores the judicial rulings, rejects the science and makes Michigan communities and families less safe,” said Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney for ACLU Michigan, on Dec. 20. “The research is clear: registries don’t work. As the courts have pointed out, registries are counterproductive and may increase offending because they make it extremely difficult for registrants to obtain a job, find housing, and rejoin their families, sabotaging their efforts to become productive members of the community.”

House Judiciary Chair Graham Filler, R-DeWitt, called codifying SORA changes a priority of the 2020 lame-duck session, along with COVID-19 preventative measures.

Read more: Mitigating COVID-19 surge at center of lame-duck session at Michigan Capitol

“If we don’t do anything as a Legislature, we’re afraid a federal judge could invalidate the entire Sex Offender Registration Act,” he told MLive prior to the start of the lame duck. “That’s not something we want. We want to be fair and proportional, but we also want to protect the public.”

Monday, February 10, 2020

Missouri House Bill 2142 would ban registrants from being within 500 feet of state conservation areas

I'm willing to wager there's never been a single instance of a registrant committing a crime at one of these conservation areas.

https://www.missourinet.com/2020/02/09/bill-would-keep-registered-sex-offenders-away-from-missouri-conservation-areas/

Bill would keep registered sex offenders away from Missouri conservation areas
FEBRUARY 9, 2020 BY BRIAN HAUSWIRTH

A southern Missouri lawmaker wants to keep sex offenders away from state Conservation areas, to protect children an
d families.

State Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove, chairs the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Conservation. Her bill will be heard Monday at noon by the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee in Jefferson City.

House Bill 2142 is a one-page bill. It would ban registered sex offenders from nature or education centers controlled by the Missouri Department of Conservation, and sex offenders would have to stay at least 500 feet away from those areas.

Under the bill, the first violation would be a class E felony, and any subsequent violations would be a class D felony.

Kelly tells Missourinet her intent is to keep children and residents safe in and near Conservation nature and education centers. The Missouri Department of Conservation has several of these facilities. They include the Runge Nature Center in Jefferson City, the Springfield Conservation Nature Center and the Cape Girardeau Conservation Nature Center in southeast Missouri.

Schoolchildren frequently visit Conservation nature and education centers.

State law currently bans registered sex offenders from being within 500 feet of public parks with playground equipment, public swimming pools and children’s museums.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Are you a registered person who wants to go to church in Tenn-NASTEE? Well, soon you'll be able to, but there's a catch

The good news here is that unlike North Korealina, TennNASTEE is actually going to allow registrants attend church. BUT, the bad news is that there's a catch.

If this law passes, registrants would have to disclose their status to churches and get written consent to attend. Since this will require written notification, how many churches in the state will tun people away?

https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-bill-would-allow-sex-offenders-to-attend-churches-under-certain-conditions

Tennessee bill would allow sex offenders to attend churches under certain conditions
by ADRIAN MOJICA | WZTV Staff
Monday, January 27th 2020

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WZTV) --Legislation proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly on Monday would allow sexual or violent sex offenders to attend church or another house of worship under certain circumstances.

HB 1922 was filed by Representative Patsy Hazlewood (R-Signal Mountain). Under the bill, the offender would be allowed to attend houses of worship for religious services or to receive educational or social support services.

However, the offender would have to provide written notice of their offender status to the leader of the house of worship. They would also have to be granted permission in writing from the house of worship's leader.

If passed in both houses of the General Assembly, the bill would go into effect July 1, 2020.

TEXT OF HB 1922

HOUSE BILL 1922
By Hazlewood
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 39, relative to sexual and violent sexual offenders.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-39-211(d)(2), is amended by
adding the following new subdivision:

( ) Is at a house of worship for the purpose of attending religious services or
receiving educational or social support services, and the person has provided written
notice of the person's offender status to the leader of the house of worship and received
written permission from the house of worship's leader.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2020, the public welfare requiring it.

Friday, January 24, 2020

Utah bill targeting Catholic confessions will violate separation of church and state



Well, it is Utah, so of course, it is a religion-related law.

But someone is confused, it is supposed to be the Mormon state, not the MORON state.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-utah-bill-on-confession-would-criminalize-priests-not-counter-sex-abuse-81402

Critics: Utah bill on confession would criminalize priests, not counter sex abuse

By Kevin J. Jones

Salt Lake City, Utah, Jan 16, 2020 / 03:01 pm (CNA).- A Utah legislator’s proposal to remove protections for priests and other clergy who hear confessions of the sexual abuse of minors has drawn significant criticism from Catholics and other commentators.

“The motivation for the bill is understandable, to uncover and stop the abuse of children, but H.B. 90 will not have this intended effect,” said Jean Hill, director of the Diocese of Salt Lake City’s Peace and Justice Commission.

Removing the clergy exemption would be “making it a crime for the priest to maintain the Seal of Confession,” Hill said in a column for the Jan. 17, 2020 edition of the Intermountain Catholic, the diocesan newspaper. The proposal “could permanently destroy the relationship between our priests and ourselves in the confessional, without furthering the stated goal of the legislation.”

The proposed legislation “places a Catholic priest in the untenable position of violating state law and facing criminal penalties, or violating canon law and facing excommunication,” Hill added.

“For a Catholic priest, revealing the contents of a person’s confession is a mortal sin and grounds for automatic excommunication,” she said. “In the past, priests have been tortured and given their lives rather than break their solemn vow to protect the Seal of Confession. This isn’t just a convenient means of maintaining confidentiality, it is a sacred duty and thus critical to the free exercise of our religion.”

Under Utah law, certain professionals must report allegations of child abuse to authorities. These professionals include clergy, teachers, medical professionals, and law enforcement. At present state law exempts clergy if a perpetrator confesses directly to a religious leader and cannot report “without the consent of the individual making the confession.”

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, was raised Catholic. She said she “understands our sacraments and it’s not my intent to go against them,” the Deseret News reports. She said her bill doesn’t target any religion specifically.

“This isn’t about the Catholic Church,” she said. “This is about religious institutions ensuring that people aren’t hiding under the guise of confession to get away with hurting children... Because the trauma they experience from sexual assault doesn’t just impact them, it impacts the entire community, it impacts our families. For me, that’s more important than protecting a perpetrator who will likely hurt other children.”

The legislation could affect the confidentiality of confessions to clergy in the predominant religious group in Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as Mormons. The Mormon church, whose global headquarters is in Salt Lake City, has not taken a position on the legislation, the Deseret News reports. It has faced criticisms and lawsuits for various leaders’ handling of sexual abuse of minors.

A woman in Oregon is suing the Mormon church for more than $10 million, after her husband was arrested for child sex abuse. He had confessed to his bishop, following the religion's doctrine, and believed the converation to be confidential. The clergyman reported the acts to law enforcement. The lawsuit claims the religion violated a privileged conversation between clergy and a member of the community.

Hill noted that Catholics are not alone “in viewing the private disclosure of wrongdoing as a path to God.” She cited the Orthodox Churches' use of the sacrament of confession, and wrote that the Church of England also “recognizes the inviolability of an act of confession.”

She added that the Mormon church “views confidential admissions of wrongdoing as an essential part of the repentance process,” and that the Presbyterian Church USA and Baptist and Lutheran ecclesial communities “all recognize the pastoral imperative of confidentiality when congregants seek counseling and care from their spiritual leaders.”

House Speaker Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, does not support the bill.

“I have serious concerns about this bill and the effects it could have on religious leaders as well as their ability to counsel members of their congregation,” he said in an email to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. “I do not support this bill in its current form, and unless significant changes are made to ensure the protection of religious liberties, I will be voting against this bill.”

Wilson had received hundreds of emails critical of the bill. CNA sought comment from Wilson but legislative staff said he had nothing to add at present.

The House Speaker’s opposition to the bill could prevent it from a committee hearing. Romero said she looked forward to discussing the bill with the speaker.

“I’m hoping my colleagues will give this bill a fair hearing and they understand why this is an important piece of policy,” Romero said. “I hope we can follow the lead of other states who have placed the best interests of children over religious institutions.”

Several groups are calling for an end to the exemption, including the Truth and Transparency Foundation, which runs the controversial site MormonLeaks. The site publishes internal LDS documents relating to budgets, international relations and responses to sex abuse, among other topics.

The group said the exemption is “an affront to the safety and well-being of abuse survivors” that “provides an environment where predators are enabled,” it said in a November 2018 email to state legislators.

Sam Young, a former LDS bishop who founded the group Protect Every Child, is also in favor of eliminating the exemption.

Young, who lives in Texas, was excommunicated from the religion after he advocated for an end to the practice of leaders having one-on-one interviews with children that sometimes included sexually explicit questions, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Mandatory reporting exemptions for clergy have been removed by North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia, the Deseret News reports. A California proposal to remove these exemptions was pulled from consideration.

Eric Kniffin, a Colorado lawyer and First Amendment attorney who followed the bill in California, told the Salt Lake Tribune that such proposals to remove clergy exemptions would “damage religious liberties.” He cited the Catholic prohibition on clergy revealing anything said in confession on pain of excommunication.

In Kniffin’s view, protecting clergy exemptions may provide greater benefits in the effort to address sexual abuse.

“The confessional is not just a black hole,” he said. “If a priest hears something in confession, they may urge the person to get help, talk to police or say ‘talk to me outside of the confessional’.”

Like Kniffin, Hill suggested removing legal protections for clergy would be counter-productive.

“There is no evidence that forcing priests to disclose cases of abuse learned of in the confessional would have prevented a single case of child abuse,” she said in her Intermountain Catholic column. “On the other hand, there is every reason to believe the elimination of the privilege would mean that perpetrators would simply not bring it to confession.”

The knowledge that confession is “a sacred conversation with God” would encourage Catholics to seek to make amends to both society and their victims. A priest who hears a criminal’s confession can encourage the penitent to self-report to law enforcement or to seek counseling, or can offer to accompany him or her to report their crime.

“H.B. 90 is a bad law that does nothing to protect children and undermines the very real possibility that a sex offender might repent,” she said.

While legislative counsel that reviewed Romero’s bill said it did not violate any religious freedom, Hill invoked the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision Trammel v. United States, which cited the longstanding precedent of protecting confessions to clergy in its ruling on whether spouses enjoy privileges to refuse to testify against a spouse.

“The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return,” that decision said.

Hill told the Deseret News that the bill is “trying to regulate a sacrament of our religion in a way that we believe violates our free exercise rights.”

The Apostolic Penitentiary reaffirmed the inviolability of the seal of confession in a July 1, 2019 note signed by its head, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza.

“Should the trust in the seal fail, the faithful would be discouraged from accessing the sacrament of Reconciliation, and this, obviously, with serious harm to souls,” Piacenza wrote. Defending this seal, he added, “can never constitute some form of connivance with evil,” but represents “the only true antidote to evil that threatens man and the whole world.”

Some court rulings have indicated that legal protections apply not only to religious groups with a formal confession rite.

Earlier this month, the Montana Supreme Court overturned a $35 million sex abuse judgement against the Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds that a lower court wrongly ruled that the elders involved in hearing abuse allegations did not enjoy religious confidentiality protections guaranteed by state law.

Monday, January 20, 2020

If at first you don't suceed: GA poised to pass same bad lifetime GPS law that was declared unconstitutional in their on Supreme Court

Georgia's lifetime GPS monitoring bill was struck down, but it isn't stopping Jawja from trying again.

You can find a copy of Ga HB 720 HERE.

https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2020/01/17/new-legislation-would-allow-lifelong-gps-monitoring-of-sex-offenders/

New Legislation Would Allow Lifelong GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders

The bill comes after the Georgia Supreme Court last year ruled that forcing individuals who had served their sentences to submit to lifetime monitoring was unconstitutional.
By Greg Land | January 17, 2020 at 06:36 PM

When the Georgia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law allowing convicted sex offenders to be ordered to wear GPS ankle monitors for the rest of their lives after release from prison, several justices offered a concurring opinion saying the Legislature could write a law requiring such monitoring that would pass constitutional muster.

New legislation dropped on the first day of the General Assembly aims to do just that.

Anyone convicted of a sexual offense under current Georgia law must already serve a split sentence including prison time and at least one year of probation.

House Bill 720 stipulates that a judge may order probation for life and that it may include electronic monitoring.

The bill notes that it is intended to “provide a response to Park v. State,” the March 2019 opinion deeming statutory lifetime monitoring after an offender has served his court-ordered sentence constituted a “lifelong search” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Harold Melton rejected the state’s arguments that convicted sex offenders who served their sentences had a “diminished expectation of privacy” subjecting them to searches other citizens must not endure.

“We find such searches to be patently unreasonable,” Melton wrote, deeming the statute “unconstitutional on its face to the extent that it authorizes such searches of individuals … who are no longer serving any part of their sentences in order to find evidence of possible criminal conduct.”

A separate concurrence penned by Justice Keith Blackwell, joined by Justices Michael Boggs, Charles Bethel and Augusta Circuit Superior Court Judge J. Wade Padgett, sitting by appointment, said they agreed with the majority.

“I write separately, however, to emphasize that our decision today does not foreclose other means by which the General Assembly might put the same policy into practice,” Blackwell wrote.

The opinion centered on the law’s subsection requiring “some sexual offenders to submit to electronic monitoring even after they have completed the service of their sentences,” he wrote. “But nothing in our decision today precludes the General Assembly from authorizing life sentences for the worst sexual offenders, and nothing in our decision prevents the General Assembly from requiring a sentencing court in the worst cases to require GPS monitoring as a condition of permitting a sexual offender to serve part of a life sentence on probation.”

HB 720 is sponsored by freshman Rep. Steven Sainz, R-Woodbine, but is co-sponsored by veteran lawmakers including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Barry Fleming, R-Harlem; and Non-Civil Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Efstration, R-Dacula.

Among its provisions is that when a court imposes statutory probation for a felony sexual offense, “such probation in the court’s discretion may be for life.”

There are several provisions that such individuals must follow as part of that probation, including that they wear a “device capable of tracking the location of the probationer by means including electronic surveillance or global positioning satellite systems” and that they pay monitoring fees “set by regulation of the Board of Community Supervision.”

The Daily Report was unable to reach Sainz for comment Friday.

The defense lawyer who successfully challenged the monitoring statute at the high court dismissed the legislation as a “shortsighted and unacceptable fix to the previously shortsighted and unacceptable legislation the bill seeks to replace. “

“The authors of this bill clearly read a portion of Justice Blackwell’s concurrence in Park then stopped without finishing, and it will have consequences going forward,” Yurachek said.

In addition to ignoring what Yurachek said were “serious Constitutional defects” in the state’s current sex offender statute, “it also creates an unwieldy system where every single individual convicted of a felony sex offense will be subject to GPS monitoring for some period of time,” said Yurachek via email.

“By failing to put real considered thought into the matter and instead seeking the quickest and most Draconian solution, the legislature invites more successful challenges to its lazily composed bill while not doing anything to protect the people who elected them,” he said.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Tennessee once again follows Alabama's bad example by introducing a mandatory chemical castration

Tennessee has a bad habit of copying Alabama's bad ideas. First, Tennessee passed a law like Alabama's that bars many registered persons from living with their own children. Now, Tennessee is trying to pass their own version of Alabama's mandatory chemical castration law. Tennes-SEE, Tennes-DO?

(By the way, Alabama's chemical castration bill is among the finalists for the 2019 Shiitake awards, so if you haven't voted yet, CLICK HERE)

HOUSE BILL 1585

By Griffey

 AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 40, relative to certain sexual offenders.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 5, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(a) As used in this section:(1) "Chemical castration treatment" means receiving medication,including, but not limited to, medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or the chemical equivalent, that, among other things, reduces, inhibits, or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person's body; and(2) "Sexual offense involving a person under thirteen (13) years of age"means a sexual offense, as described in § 40-39-202, that is committed against a person who is less than thirteen (13) years of age.

(b) If a person convicted of a sexual offense involving a person under thirteen(13) years of age will become eligible for parole for the offense, the sentencing court shall order the person to undergo chemical castration treatment, in addition to any other punishment prescribed for the offense, as a condition of parole. The person may elect to stop receiving the treatment at any time and shall not be forced to receive the treatment;however, such refusal constitutes a violation of the person's parole and the person shall be immediately remanded to the custody of the department of correction for the remainder of the person's sentence.

(c) A person required to undergo chemical castration treatment shall begin the treatment not less than one (1) month prior to being released from custody of the department of correction and shall continue receiving treatment until the sentencing court determines the treatment is no longer necessary. The department of health shall administer the treatment.

(d)(1) The person shall pay for all of the costs associated with the chemical castration treatment. The cost of the treatment is in addition to any fine, court costs, restitution, or costs of supervision. A person may not be denied parole based solely on the person's inability to pay for the costs associated with the treatment required by this section.(2) If a person required by this section to receive chemical castration treatment, upon application, claims indigency, the person must be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for a determination of indigency. In the event that a court determines the person to be indigent, the court shall not waive any fees or costs unless the person proves to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that the person is not capable of paying the fees or costs within the reasonably foreseeable future. In the event the person is determined to be indigent, the court may conduct a periodic review of the person's indigent status, upon motion of the district attorney general, to determine if the person is no longer indigent.

(e) In addition to any condition of parole imposed under subsection (b), as a condition of parole, a person released on parole subject to the requirements of this section shall authorize the department of health to share with the board of parole all medical records relating to the person's chemical castration treatment.

(f) Prior to the administration of any chemical castration treatment, a medical professional shall inform the person of the effect of the treatment and any side effects that may result from the treatment. The person must sign a written acknowledgment of receipt of the information.

(g) Only a bona fide employee of the department of health may administer the treatment.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2020, the public welfare requiring it, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date.