Public Comments for 02/05/2024 Courts of Justice - Criminal
HB172 - Family or household member; clarifies definition, penalty.
HB267 - Assault or assault and battery; affirmative defense, penalty.
I would suggest amending HB267 to reflect the following proposed compromise solution: that a CSB Qualified Mental Health Profession (QMHP-A) be authorized to perform a TDO prescreening evaluation on site at the court service unit having jurisdiction upon the issuance by an LEO or mobile co-response team of a paperless ECO. The proposed amended code would direct the LEO officer or mobile crisis co-response team responding to a "psychiatric emergency" to transport an individual with a known history of SMI/ASD/I/DD to a suitable secure physical location for further evaluation. This would typically involve transport of the individual in custody to the local court service unit having jurisdiction physically located in close proximity to the magistrates office. At such secure location, the TDO prescreening evaluation and final decision to book or not book and to divert to the civil side would be made. Final booking status would be at the discretion of the LEO or co-response team retaining physical custody of such an individual facing criminal charges but with the benefit of the results of a completed TDO civil prescreening evaluation performed by a CSB QMHP-A in a controlled environment and with benefit of a brief criminogenic screening The decision to charge would be made in consideration of a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the immediate assessed mental capacity and stability of the individual in question, the known history of mental disability of the individual, prior history of offending, the recommendation of the CSB pre-screener, and the recommendations from the regional CITAC having jurisdiction. The pre-screener, in addition to a standard TDO prescreening, would normally perform a brief criminogenic RNR risk assessment using a standard evidence-based instrument . The assessment would take into further account evidence based on the preliminary police report, and available court and mental health records,, . The CSB evaluator would convey the results of a written prescreening evaluation with recommendations to the magistrate for disposition. Those having input into the final disposition of the case with respect to diversion or booking would include the regional CITAC with input from co-response crisis teams, EMS, fire, dispatchers, existing medical providers in the community, and family or adult peers when available, at varying stages of police intervention, according to the Sequential Intercept Model (Munetz and Griffin) at Levels 0 and 1 with the option not to prefer, or, that is, to forego charges, and "drop off" at a licensed CRC unit or other specialized mental health "drop-off" point for medical clearance. Individuals meeting criteria for civil diversion would be transported to a licensed CRC/CSU or mental health specialized ED at a hospital like the Carillion Roanoke System or Merrifield Fairfax for further evaluation and psychiatric stabilization.
This is another great bill which I support! It is far too easy for Law Enforcement to charge the mentally handicapped, particularly the autistic and Downs Syndrome, who do not know how to act or react in this situation. The intellectually disabled all ready do not know their rights, do not understand that the police are not always their friends, do not know how to self advocate, and are at the mercy of police who are allowed by law to lie to people to gain convictions. Time and again police criminalize mental health emergencies in the name of officer safety, though they show up in overwhelming force and often enough shoot first, ask questions later. Remember the case of Elijah McClain, Aurora, Co, who told police he had a mental health crisis. They and the first responders instead delivered a lethal dose of ketamine that killed him.
HB267 The Arlington County Police Department strongly opposes this legislation. First, it sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that it is okay for law enforcement officers to be assaulted, but not others. Given the current state of the mental health system, police officers are dealing with individuals in mental health crises more often now than ever. If this legislation passes, officers may be forced into encounters that have disproportionately heavy consequences for the officer but no consequences for the offender. Second, arresting an offender who is suffering from a mental health crisis does not preclude them from obtaining mental health services. In Arlington County, the detention facility provides acute mental health services and works closely with the Department of Human Services to provide the necessary services he/she needs to reduce recidivism. Additionally, the court system is set up to assist individuals who cannot stand trial due to their mental state. Third, this legislation would allow individuals to assault the police with no criminal recourse. Additionally, it would allow others to abuse the system and falsely claim they were having a mental health crisis in order to commit the serious crime of assault on law enforcement.
As the parent of a non-verbal young man I know firsthand the terror that some bystander will misunderstand my son and call the police. It happened once in the grocery store, where my son, who chatters wordlessly to himself, was overheard by someone who misinterpreted his chatter as "I have a gun". They called management, fortunately, not the police, but I still have flashbacks of the awfulness that could have happened if the police had been called. My son cannot understand commands from a police officer. Please do not allow disabled people to be subject to criminal penalties for behavior over which they have no control/no understanding of the consequences.
Please Vote YES on HB267. Because of the high probability of law enforcement charging someone with a felony assault when they are in a mental health crisis especially if they are someone who is autistic or has other disabilities, families are terrified of calling for HELP. When you dial 911 you think someone is coming to help you with a crisis but rather the police respond. If there is a medical crisis, then medical personnel respond. If there is a behavior crisis, the police respond. Why? The crisis is still medical. Please stop putting vulnerable people in jail. The best way to do this is to have behavioral health professionals respond and not charge the individual with felony assault. Sheriffs who see these people in jails know they do not belong there. The statute gives law enforcement extraordinary power to punish those who insult or defy them. Stop victimizing vulnerable people by charging them with a crime when they are in crisis. This is NOT an attempt to be "soft on crime" and that argument is a red herring for a situation everyone admits is unjust and unfair. Please vote yes on HB267.
Hb267 Vote yes. People do not have full control over themselves during mental health emergencies. Coming out of it to legal consequences is setting them up for failure
YES amend/add to the code these exceptions/definitions
YES this is a great addition to the code 18.2-57 on A&B. From social worker
YES from a social worker who advocated for the MARCUS alert. it is life changing to add this exception to VA code and add these definitions.
We support HB267 beccause it is important to help prevent individuals in a mental health crisis from getting a felony record and mandatory jail time for something they have no control over. It could also help prevent individuals in crisis from entering the criminal justice system and experience additional damage, for behavior that often does not result in bodily harm, when instead they should be taken for treatment to a mental health facility. There are protections in place for law enforcement officers, who if actually injured can still place other charges.
HB768 - Child victims and witnesses; using two-way closed-circuit television, expands age range.
Hb768 Vote yes. Children shouldn't be subjected to having to testify in front of an abuser
Attached is testimony in support of HB 768 on Behalf of Shared Hope International, a non-profit organization that brings justice for victims of child sex trafficking.
VCAHT supports HB768 as it will help reduce the retraumatization of children in confronting those who have exploited them. VCAHT would support the expansion of this relief to adult victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking as well, as the protective benefits that CCTV testimony offers most certainly extend to trauma survivors of all ages. As a clinical psychologist that specializes in working with children and adolescents I completely support removing all barriers that would prevent any minor under the age of 18 from accessing the opportunity to testify without needing to be in the same room as their abuser. It is my professional opinion that there should be no threshold necessary for any child to pass in order to access this form or testimony if it is desired. The chances of a child or adolescent becoming destabilized and derailed in their recovery are significantly increased by the need to be in the presence of their abuser as well as a courtroom full of others. Despite our best intentions, the need for retelling the details of their abuse in such a setting often adds to the shame and embarrassment felt by the victim and can actually lead to developmental regression as a means of coping. This can delay the progress of therapeutic interventions as well as increasing the common yet excruciating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder like panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, and increased dissociation. Another less obvious factor to consider is that victims of abuse often develop what is referred to as a Trauma Bond. Even in cases where the child did not previously have a relationship with their abuser, a common reaction to being abused is the development of a strong bond with the abuser, particularly when there is a well-established power differential in the relationship (like an adult has over a child.) Deconstructing this powerful bond during the process of therapy is a long-term process which can easily be interrupted by re-exposure to the abuser. Feelings of guilt regarding the harm the testimony may cause to the abuser are common as is the potential for rekindled feelings of closeness and affection towards their abuser. The potential for reintroducing these confusing but powerful feelings for a child who is working hard to break free from such a powerful Trauma Bond can be devastating, if they are even able to bring themselves to testify at all, which is another risk. The likelihood of this delaying or derailing their recovery process is high and such a consequence is unacceptable. Reducing the need for a child of any age to endure unnecessary re-exposure to their abuser is the most humane decision and I wholeheartedly support this bill as written.
In Favor of Delegate Delaney's HB 768: Comments of the Mother of the Child Victim My daughter, AZ, was a victim of sexual abuse from ages 7-10 years old. Her father, Jose Noe Quintanilla, was found guilty of 3 counts of object sexual penetration and one count of rape. I am writing this statement to express my gratefulness for my daughter’s ability to use closed-circuit television (CCTV) while testifying during the criminal trial, and to advocate in support of more children being able to testify via CCTV in Virginia. My daughter was traumatized from the abuse and had nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks and often thought about the abuse. She suffered from suicidal thoughts regularly. During the trial, and at the time she had to testify, she also lived in an intense fear her dad was going to attack her for telling the truth and did not feel safe about talking about the abuse or testifying in court. As her mother, it pained me and has caused me great stress to see my daughter suffering, and to know it will affect her the rest of her life. My greatest concerns were AZ’s future and getting her through the trial with the least amount of trauma. My daughter was told by the prosecutor’s office she needed to testify in open court. For my daughter, this meant she had to be able to be questioned like an adult about graphic and traumatizing sexual acts her father did to her in open court with her father only several yards away, and in front of others. This is a frightening situation for any child. My daughter was later approved to testify through CCTV. Being able to testify through CCTV helped AZ get through testifying, and has kept the traumatizing impacts of the trial from being too much for her. If she had to testify in front of her father, she may have been unable to speak about the abuse in the courtroom, and would be much more traumatized. Additionally, her father became emotional during her testimony, and if she had to testify only a few yards away from him, his emotional behavior would have affected her ability to testify. Using CCTV gave my daughter the ability to stand up for herself and tell her story in a way that empowers children who have been abused. The Virginia Victims Bill of Rights states “In recognition of the Commonwealth's concern for the victims and witnesses of crime, it is the purpose of [the Victims Bill of Rights] to ensure that the full impact of crime is brought to the attention of the courts of the Commonwealth; that crime victims and witnesses are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity...” (§19.2-11.01 (A)). Allowing children to use CCTV to testify helps to ensure the full impact of crimes are brought to the attention of courts. All children should have access to this victims’ right if it is needed to avoid their intimidation, and unnecessary mental injury and harm. Sexual abuse is traumatizing enough, and children who experience this type of abuse can already have a hard road to recovery. All children should have access to CCTV, especially if a mental health professional says it could cause injury, instead of children having to get to the point of a severe mental condition to qualify. Thank you for your time and consideration for amendments to the law that will allow more children to testify via CCTV in Virginia; to help children testify better to expose the full impact of crimes; and support the safety, protection, mental health, and wellbeing of all children.
HB773 - Marijuana; modifies criminal penalties.
HB1350 - Attorney General; prosecuting violations of criminal law related to human/sex trafficking offenses.
Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking and Freedom 4/24 support HB 1350 as it increases the efforts to prosecute those who have engaged in human trafficking and we are asking for your support of this legislation.
HB18 - Hate crimes and discrimination; ethnic animosity, penalties.
I want to share my concerns about HB18, a bill that inserts the word “ethnicity” into the existing Hate Crimes bill. The bill purports to safeguard all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, a laudable intent with which I strongly agree. However, the placement of “ethnicity” into the Hate Crime law could have far-reaching and perhaps not immediately obvious consequences. The bill would prohibit unlawful discrimination because of, among other things, ethnic or national origin. Discrimination targeting people of Jewish ethnicity is commonly known as antisemitism. Antisemitism, as adopted in the Virginia code last year, has a very specific definition, one based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA WDA). That definition gives examples of certain types of criticism of the state of Israel and labels them antisemitic. One of those examples includes: • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor, ie accusing it of being an apartheid state; This seems to mean, if this bill were to be adopted, that under certain circumstances, a person criticizing the state of Israel could be accused of a hate crime. What circumstances? Lines 27-30 of the bill state: “Conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of . . . ethnic or national origin is unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter.” Does that mean, if I were to carry a protest sign in a (Virginia) public place that says “End Israeli Apartheid” under this bill, in combination with the IHRA Definition, I could be charged with a hate crime? In the section entitled Liability for Defamatory Material on the Internet beginning at line 216 it says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be liable for (i) Any action taken by it voluntarily in good faith to restrict access to, or availability of, material that the provider considers to be . . . harassing or intended to incite hatred . . . on the basis of race . . . ethnic or national origin, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or (ii) Any action taken to enable, or make available to information content providers or others, the technical means to restrict access to the information provided by another information content provider. What are the implications of this section? Could an internet provider, say a college, be asked to prohibit internet access to the apartheid findings of multiple human rights organizations, based on the example in the IHRA definition that deems referring to Israeli apartheid as antisemitic? Or could a high school teacher be prohibited from assigning digital material by Ta-Nehisi Coates and others because it discusses racism and a student finds it uncomfortable? This bill appears to be an insidious broadening of ways to accuse people of hate crimes and stifle important learning and expressions of criticism about difficult and uncomfortable topics. I ask that you look closely at this bill and consider all its implications. Sincerely, Kathy Drinkard Springfield, VA
Good afternoon! My name is Amy Melnick-Scharf, Chair of the Legislative Committee for the Jewish Community Relations Committee at the Jewish Federation of Richmond. I am here today on behalf of several Jewish Federations throughout the Commonwealth. I am here to thank the bi-partisan Patrons of HB18 A bill relating to hate crimes and discrimination adding ethnicity. This bill, when passed, will ensure and safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination in employment and in public because of one’s ethnic origin. For new members of the Committee and the House, this legislation passed the House last year, and in the Senate, similar legislation overwhelmingly passed the Senate. The session ended without achieving a compromise. The Jewish Community Federation strongly supports this legislation which will strengthen the Commonwealth’s hate crime laws. This legislation adds the word ethnic to the list of protected classes, which also includes race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin. Ethnicity a collective identity which often includes the belief in a common history and origin and may include shared traditions, language, and religion. An ethnic group consists of a shared common culture based on cultural, historical, linguistic, and unique historical and social experiences. Examples include Sikh’s, Han Chinese, Zulu, Kurds, Basques, and the Jewish people of which I am a part. It's essential to note that the perception and definition of ethnicity can vary widely among different societies and individuals-even among the ethnicity. As a Jewish person-this is my religion; but it is also my ethnicity. There are many Jews who are non-white, who speak a variety of languages and who do not practice the religion at all, or who practice it very differently; however we are all ethnically Jewish. While this legislation is not about any single community, nor does it name any specific community and nor should it – this bill will ensure that that Jewish individuals are included in Virginia’s laws against discrimination and assault regardless of whether they identify or are targeted based on Judaism’s religious or ethnic aspects. As we have seen in recent months with the increase in antisemitism, which according to the FBI has risen over 300% since October 7th, often Jewish people are targets of hatred because of their ethnic identity regardless of their level of religious observance. Thank you for your support of HB18.
Please vote NO on HB18. Adding the word “ethnicity” will not prevent antisemitism, nor strengthen the Hate Crimes bill. It could potentially infringe on the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the Commonwealth, and by allowing the prosecution of Jews who disavow Zionism. Again, please vote NO on HB18.
HB18 is literally selling the soul of our state to Israel
Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity". The definition of ethnicity is vague and can be confused, misused, and abused. VOTE NO on HB 18.
The addition of "ethnic animosity" is a very broad term and could easily be abused and actually used to stifle free speech and in this case expanded to charge someone with a hate crime. This is extremely problematic due to the current incorrect definition of antisemitism by the IHRA and the state of Virginia which unfortunately conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism which it is not. I would be concerned if you add "ethnic animosity" that criticizing the state of Israel could be found to be discriminatory against an ethnic group, given the way that Virginia and the IHRA has chosen to define antisemitism. For example: I would be concerned that if a person at a rally to ask the state of Israel to stop killing Palestinians, that if that if things became physical, and the person who was at the rally was charged with simple assault against someone there was Jewish that they would also be charged with a hate crime. Ethnicity is one aspect of someone who is Jewish. Adding these words to the bill could of course be used very confusing because "ethnicity" is too broad a term and also hard to determine what someone's ethnicity is. Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity".
HB18 is a bill that echoes multiple past Supreme Court cases in which overly ambiguous hate-speech aimed laws have been overturned for their unconstitutionality- not even touching on their ineffectiveness. I speak as a Jew who will not allow the beliefs of zionism to speak for me. Jews are protected in America, and have been for many decades. If the safety of a people depends on the existence of a foreign nature then that safety is a lie- bread and circuses. This bill goes against the right to free speech as strongly as any I have ever seen. History remembers the killers.
I would like to note that not only does HB18 attack free speech, it could potentially infringe the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the commonwealth. The logical conclusion of this bill is that the commonwealth could persecute Jews for practicing Judaism in a way that challenges and discredits zionism and the israeli state.
Please vote no on HB18. HB 18 safeguards all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, including discrimination because of ethnicity. However, this language (ethnicity) directly ties the bill to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which was placed in the code last year and conflates discrimination against persons of Jewish heritage with criticism of Israel. This bill would in effect make it possible to charge someone who criticizes Israel's practices and policies with a hate crime, based on the IHRA's definition of antisemitism otherwise understood as discrimination of the Jewish ethnic group, thus silencing that criticism. There is plenty of evidence that the IHRA definition is being used in the US and in Europe to do just that. Please refer to the following reports that suggest how the IHRA definition is being used. https://imeu.org/article/imeu-policy-analysis-9-ihra-definition-silences-speech-for-palestinian-righ https://palestinelegal.org/distorted-definition https://elsc.support/news/breaking-new-report-reveals-human-rights-violations-resulting-from-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism Unless it can be guaranteed that this bill can't be used to charge Israel's critics with hate crimes and silence criticism, it should not be adopted.
Vote NO on HB18. It is a direct assault on the constitutional right of free speech. We need more, not less, protection for citizens to express their views openly and without fear of reprisal and discrimination. If passed, this bill would open the door to discrimination against persons who are critical of Israel’s policies, including, it should be added, Jews. It could, in other words, be invoked to discriminate against a religious minority. This is awful. We must hold fast to the separation of church and state. This bill does the opposite. Vote NO on HB18.
Please vote NO on HB18 - extremely misleading attempt at suppressing the rights of Palestinians and other suppressed peoples from defending their rights to exist and free speech in general. Also absolutely unconstitutional.
This is unconstitutional and if you vote for it you will very likely be held liable in the future. This is an attack on free speech and if you champion free speech/democracy your morally obligated to vote no on this otherwise you will be a hypocrite. Also Helmer if Israeli lobby is telling you what to do then you are a power hungry individual who needs to reevaluate and i hope you can never sleep at night again thanks for your time
HB18 attacks freedom of speech. Further, it allows for discrimination against religious practitioners. Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Israel is political, and Judaism is religious. But this bill could allow for the discrimination of Jewish people who do not align with Israel’s politics. What happened to the separation of church and state? I understand wanting to protect Jewish people, but this may actively target some Jewish people while it claims to protect a minority. Vote NO on HB18.
The Commonwealth does not have the right to interfere with Jewish people's criticisms of other Jewish people, or label intercommunity strife as discrimination. This law does not protect from religious discrimination, only punishes the wrong kinds of religious expressions.
Please vote NO on HB 18. This bill attacks free speech, and could potentially infringe the freedom of religion. VOTE NO! Thank you!!
I urge all the members of this committee to vote against HB 18 - “Hate crimes and discrimination; ethnic animosity, penalties.” Although at face value this bill seems fairly innocuous, the consequences of this bill are questionable and therefore the General Assembly should study it further before taking any further action on it. The problem is that the current language of the bill could be construed to include the weaponized "IHRA definition of antisemitism" which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2023, and includes criticism of a foreign government, which is constitutionally protected free speech. Therefore, unless the IHRA definition is removed from the code, HB 18 could impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in Virginia, if passed. For this reason, I urge this committee to reject HB 18 at this time, to protect free speech in Virgina.
I am deeply concerned about the contents of the proposed bill HB18 and its potential consequences for members and residents of the Commonwealth. This bill is a direct attempt to dismantle free speech within the Commonwealth, and should be voted down immediately and in perpetuity. Not only would this bill would allow the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to be used in prosecution, but the language is so ambiguous and vague that it could come to mean no Virginian is allowed to criticize any foreign state representing ethnic majorities. From a personal perspective, as a proud and active lifelong member of Congregation Beth Ahabah, the third oldest and and fourth largest congregation on the East Coast, I can say with confidence that this bill will NOT protect Jews in the commonwealth. All it will do is limit free speech and political dissident. In fact, setting such dangerous precedent would put more Jews in harms way and potentially add on to already real and present hurt and harm directed at our community. The continued conflation of all Jews to the modern state of Israel is both deeply disrespectful and incredibly dangerous. It teaches those who may be unfamiliar or unaware of Jewish practice that all Jews, regardless of nationality, have an allegiance to the foreign modern state of Israel thus perpetuating an age-old anti-Jewish trope that we cannot be trusted or seen as equal countrymen. Currently, the modern state of Israel that I, and most Jews, have been aligned with arguably without consent and, in some cases, against our collective will, is dominating the world stage because of the violence it is inflicting upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. They continue to do so despite the overwhelming calls for ceasefires being heard around the world and within this commonwealth. Such violence is being perpetuated by a regime that is intentionally parroting Jewish words, phrases, and stories in order to not only shield its true intent of white supremacy behind the traumatic lineage of world Jewry, but to send a message to all governments, who again may or may not be familiar with Judaism, that the current actions being taken by Israel are not only to protect itself but to protect the entirety of the Jewish Population. If protecting Jews in the commonwealth is a goal of this legislature, may I ask how this bill aids in that pursuit? From where I, and many other Jews like myself, stand taking a position in favor of HB18 sends a message that we are not acceptable as "Jew" in the eyes of this legislature seeing as we refuse to stand in support of a debatably genocidal, and certain apartheid state and its regime. This sets a precedent that quite frankly, none of us are capable of making as it changes the ways in which the Jews are permitted to practice our religion. As far as I am concerned, HB18 impacts the freedom of religion just as much as it does the freedom of speech. In looking to my so-called leaders in this legislature, I see such dissonance between you all and your constituents. There are genuine instances of hate in this commonwealth that have yet to be fully addressed and can be traced all the way back to our creation as a colony in 1607. You have the choice to be addressing those deep inequalities and inequities, and instead make the choice to police how residents of this commonwealth speak and practice our faiths. Vote NO to HB18 and all bills that aim to attack valid criticisms of foreign states.
Comments Document
ADL strongly supports HB18. We have provided a written statement as to the incredibly increase in antisemitic incidents impacting our community. HB18 is an important step to combat hate and bias.
So wonderful to see us finally cracking down on guardians and conservators. Well done! Also glad to see us crack down on hate crimes especially if we’re going to continue fueling the disastrous Applied Behavioral Analysis. There must be guard rails. So thank you Dan. And as for HB81, I wish that had become law years ago! I nearly took my life twice. Now you’re going to rub salt in the scar?