NH: Sex offender employment limitation bill

Source: sentinelsource.com 1/21/23

Returning for a third attempt at becoming a law, members of the N.H. House of Representatives Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard a bill on Wednesday that would provide additional employment restrictions for registered sex offenders.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Kevin Verville, R-Deerfield, brought the bill back at the urging of a constituent after it passed the House with amendment in 2020 and 2022 only to die in the Senate both times. Now known as HB 107-FN, the bill would prohibit any registered sex offender from being employed or volunteering in situations where they provide direct services to a minor, supervise a minor or oversee a minor.

Verville told the committee that the bill’s goal was not just to protect minors from being victimized by registered sex offenders in workplaces or other areas where they may be performing an activity, but would also protect the registered sex offender from being put into a situation where they may be tempted to harm minors.

Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester) asked Verville whether the bill took into account the varying levels of sex offenders, as certain sex offenders can be placed in higher tiers of the sex offender registry due to convictions related to violence. Verville replied that the intent of the bill was not to get too granular in terms of details, but rather ensure that any sex offender cannot be left alone with a child.

Verville added in a question from Committee Vice Chair Jennifer Rhodes (R-Winchester) that the bill is not intended to make it more difficult for registered sex offenders to find employment, but keep them from jobs where they would have direct and unsupervised contact with children.

However, there was confusion over “indirect” access to children in workplaces, with Ray Newman (D-Nashua) asking for example if it would be appropriate for a child who was not with their parent to ask a registered sex offender working in the bakery section of a supermarket where they might find English muffins. Verville indicated in that situation it would likely be okay as long as the registered sex offender didn’t order the child to do anything.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“At the urging of a constituent “. That means a large private donor wants him to be their personal representative or else they will shut off the money tap.

“Verville told the committee that the bill’s goal was not just to protect minors from being victimized by registered sex offenders in workplaces or other areas where they may be performing an activity, but would also protect the registered sex offender from being put into a situation where they may be tempted to harm minors”

This goof ball thinks he’s doing registrants a favor by protecting them from themselves? What type of sh*t is that!

“Language in the bill also requires any organization or employer that provides direct services to minors to engage in criminal background checks of any prospective employees or volunteers.”

I thought New Hampshire was “Live Free or Die” state. Now you have politicians there pushing unfounded mandates on private business to do background checks.

“Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester) asked Verville whether the bill took into account the varying levels of sex offenders, as certain sex offenders can be placed in higher tiers of the sex offender registry due to convictions related to violence. Verville replied that the intent of the bill was not to get too granular in terms of details, but rather ensure that any sex offender cannot be left alone with a child.”

Hooray for the Dem with common sense! But you have to love Verville’s stupid response. “Let’s not get into the details.” Yeah, let’s all rubber stamp your bill and not think it through….you moron!

“with N.H. State Police Detective Sargeant Richard Perreault adding that his organization was also neutral toward the bill…..still, Perreault also expressed concerns given that under New Hampshire state law, people can engage in lower-level sexual crimes such as indecent exposure or public urination and not be placed on the sex offender registry unless they commit the crime multiple times in a given timeframe.”

Detective, you just hate people pissing on your highway after a beer party. So let’s add them to the sex offender registry…..what an idiot you are!

I have already twice replied to the newspaper. In there I asked how this bill is going to save any kids. I also asked if maybe we should have a bill for drunk drivers, or druggies, to keep them from working with the kids. But of course every time I post, it gets removed. Cuz of course all they want is one sided opinions and that is hate hate hate!

Watching the news. There have been 36 shootings already this year, and we are not even through January. But, let’s focus on sex offenses that are often decades old instead. Let’s get real and worry about realistic problems for once. Enough of this sex offender hype.

May the HB 107-FN DIE a third and final death and that Kevin Nerdville fades out of office or this plane of existence.

pushing more useless trash law to make it even harder for PFR’s to find work , while the thugs at the top of this sh*t pile we call a country run amuck and rape our country of food/money/housing/fuel . pointing fingers at PFR’s , Gee thanks , for making more familys homeless/hungry and filling more prisons in the name of making safety and freedom . which they know nothing about