Louisiana House Bill HB566

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 5/2/12
• Engrossed: 5/9/12
• Refer: 5/10/12
• Report Pass: 5/15/12
• Enrolled: 5/22/12
• Chaptered: 5/31/12
• Passed: 5/31/12

Caption

Provides relative to persons convicted of crimes against nature by solicitation

Impact

The bill has significant implications for state laws regarding the registration of sex offenders. By enabling certain offenders to reduce their registration requirements, HB566 may lead to a decrease in the number of individuals classified as sex offenders under Louisiana law. It introduces a legal mechanism through which those with older convictions can seek reassessment of their situation, potentially facilitating reintegration into society and reducing stigma for such individuals, provided they meet specific criteria set forth in the bill.

Summary

House Bill 566 aims to amend the sex offender registration and notification requirements in Louisiana, specifically for individuals previously convicted of 'crime against nature' prior to August 15, 2010. This bill allows eligible individuals to petition their respective court to be relieved from the registration mandates if their conviction would equate to a lesser offense defined by the updated solicitation laws. This change seeks to address the ramifications of previous categorizations of crimes that may not align with current legal standards.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB566 appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters who view it as a necessary reform for individuals who made mistakes under an older legal framework. However, there may be opposition from those concerned about public safety and the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly regarding any potential for solicitors of minors to exploit these provisions. The dialogue underscores a tension between rehabilitation efforts and ensuring community safety.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the provision that excludes individuals whose offenses involved solicitation of minors, thus balancing the need for reform with safeguarding measures. Critics may argue that the bill does not go far enough in addressing the needs of all individuals affected by outdated laws or that it places too much discretion in the hands of district attorneys and courts regarding the relief process. The overall debate highlights a broader conversation about criminal justice reform and the state's role in managing historical convictions.