O'Malley Meets With Vallario on Child Sex Offender Bills
WBAL Radio reported late yesterday that Governor O’Malley met with House Judiciary Chair, Joe Vallario to discuss child sex offender legislation.
According to the report:
O'Malley says he met with Vallario on Tuesday. The governor says he's optimistic about the chances for "the core of what we asked him to consider and to fix and to change and improve."O'Malley supports a bill to mandate lifetime monitoring of certain serious sex offenders, which may include GPS monitoring. He also supports requiring people convicted of child pornography possession or indecent exposure in the presence of minors to register as sex offenders.
Kudos to O’Malley for engaging Vallario, who infamously protects the tort lobby from bills they don’t like.
However, there was no mention of HB 254 the bill, which would add 20 year mandatory minimum sentences to those convicted of second degree child rape and molestation.
Given his non esixtent support on this issue in the past, O'Malley needs to do more than just pay lip service to strengthening Maryland's child sexual predator laws.
While the governor’s bills are helpful, HB 254 should be the top priority.
Senator Nancy Jacobs cross filed HB 254 in the Senate (SB 622). A hearing on the SB 622 is scheduled for March 16 at 1:00pm. If you are interested testifying please see the Citizens for Jessica’s Law Facebook page for more information.
Your calls to Vallario, O’Malley, and Speaker of the House Michael Busch worked. Now is the time to keep up the pressure and ensure Senate Judicial Proceedings Chair, Brian Frosh—just as notorious on this issue as Vallario—doesn’t bury SB 622 in his desk drawer.
5 comments:
Putting aside the issue of the bills, you clearly have no idea what "tort lobby" means.
Tort lawyers handle personal injury cases: auto accidents, premises liability, medical malpractice, mass torts, etc.
There is no interest whatsoever that any tort lawyer would have in whether child sexual offender bills pass or don't pass. None.
You've used this phrase repeatedly, and it doesn't make any sense at all, except as a talking point cribbed from some other source.
Jonathan Shurberg
I am also confused as to why a personal injury (tort) lawyer would oppose a child sexual offender bill. I guess there is a chance that an abused child may end up less money as a plaintiff in a civil suit because his/her sex offender had bankrupted himself paying criminal defense attorneys. Of course, I doubt this is what Mark meant.
To be honest, this bill will probably help lawyers instead of hurt them - particularly those expensive private defense lawyers. The more jail time you face, the less likely you are you stick with a Public Defender.
Jonathan tort lobby-trial lawyer are well known interchangeable terms to people outside the legal field. I could care less what they mean to YOU.
If you are accusing me of cribbing from another source surely a lawyer such as yourself would has proof...right.
Mark:
If what you meant by "tort lobby" is actually "trial lawyers," which encompasses criminal defense attorneys, then just say "trial lawyers" or the "evil criminal defense bar."
While I happen to do both areas of law, they are completely distinct and most of the political targets of your labeling (big time lawyers who fly around in private jets, make millions of dollars a year, and give lots of money to the Democratic Party) do one or the other, but rarely both.
As a matter of policy, some lawyers will see this bill as a good thing and some won't. I'm not for mandatory minimums as a general rule, but I also see a serious problem with sexual offenders that needs to be addressed. I haven't read this bill, so I profess no position on it one way or the other.
Since you insist on assuming that the "tort lobby" can only see things selfishly, however, I will agree wholeheartedly with Lisa: if this bill passes, fewer cases will end in plea bargains if there's a mandatory 20 year sentence. More cases will go to trial. More cases going to trial will mean more money for lawyers. But, I apparently must hasten to add, I don't see things that way, and neither do the vast majority of lawyers I know and work with every day.
Isn't it possible, just a little, that people who disagree with you might just have some other motivation other than selfishness, stupidity and greed? Apparently not.
Jonathan Shurberg
This is the matter of policy, some lawyers will see this bill as a good thing and some won't. I'm not for mandatory minimums as a general rule.
Personal Injury Attorney Houston
Post a Comment