CONCORD, N.H. – Returning for a third attempt at becoming a law, members of the New Hampshire 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.
He explained to the committee that under the wording of the bill, registered sex offenders would be prohibited from being in a position where they hold authority over minors. 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.
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.
John Sytek (R-Salem) asked Verville why additional legislation was needed on this topic since registered sex offenders are already limited by law from employment in many areas such as schools. Verville reiterated that this bill is intended to expand those protections for minors beyond those areas prohibited from hiring or accepting the services of registered sex offenders in any capacity and balanced that with making sure they are not placed in compromising positions where they could re-offend in other forms of employment or volunteering opportunities.
Jane Graham of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections said the broad language could have unintended consequences over the employment prospects of registered sex offenders re-entering the workforce and noted that individuals released from correctional facilities are less likely to commit further crimes if they can obtain employment.
However, she said that the Department of Corrections was neutral toward the bill, with New Hampshire 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.
He also echoed later comments by Bouldin regarding businesses that may hire minors in limited roles placing those employed children accidentally under the supervision of registered sex offenders since the definition of a background check can be more or less stringent depending on the employer.
Committee Chair Terry Roy (R-Deerfield) recused himself from participating in the public hearing given that he is one of the sponsors of the bill. Upon closure of the public hearing, he created a subcommittee among the committee’s members to further investigate information related to the bill brought up during the hearing.
Disclosure: Amanda Bouldin is a contributor to Manchester Ink Link
