CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) _ An Assembly panel voted Tuesday to kill a bill that would have changed lifetime supervision requirements imposed on convicted sex offenders, after critics said the changes would violate constitutional due process protections.
Under AB36, convicted sex offenders who violated the terms of their lifetime supervision would face a state Parole Board hearing, rather than a court hearing.
Representatives of the Division of Parole and Probation said the bill was needed because the process of getting a court hearing often takes too long, and there are too few consequences on the books for violating lifetime supervision.
But David Smith, executive secretary of the state Parole Board which is separate from the division, opposed the bill, saying it would be more appropriate to conduct such hearings in a court.
``Due process is sometimes time-consuming,'' said Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, chairman of the Assembly Corrections, Parole and Probation Committee. ``It's inconvenient sometimes, but it's the system that we have and we just don't cast it aside for expediency.''
Legislators also heard an audit report on the Division of Parole and Probation's performance in 2007.
Denis Klenczar, a deputy legislative auditor, said that for 20 percent of ``high-risk'' offenders examined in the report, it took the division more than 30 days from when the offender was sentenced or released until supervision began.
``When reassessments are not timely, there is an increased risk the offender is not properly supervised,'' Klenczar said.
``It seems like we almost need an entire day to go through this report,'' said Assemblyman Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, noting there were many other ``embarrassing'' problems in the document.
Mark Woods, deputy chief of the division, said that many of the recommendations made by the auditor have been implemented.
The committee also heard AB38, a bill to ensure that civil rights aren't automatically restored to convicted sex offenders who are sentenced to a lifetime of parole.
``Why on earth would the Division of Parole and Probation see as a priority disenfranchising people they supervise?'' asked Lee Roland of the American
...
