Senate committee hears two measures on sex offenders

Tuesday, Feb. 18, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

The second bill, SB99, sparked a debate over who's qualified to conduct psychosexual evaluations, which include interviews, reviews of previous crimes, lie detector tests and "arousal assessments."

The bill allows licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses or marriage and family therapists to conduct evaluations. But Stephanie Tyler of the Nevada State Psychological Association said that definition is too broad.

"These criminals have extreme multiple problems like schizophrenia that evaluators must be able to identify," Tyler said. "We want to make sure you have people who are adequately trained to do these tests."

But social worker Robert Stuyvesant encouraged the committee to keep the broad language in the bill.

"To be honest, the resource pool (for people conducting evaluations) is very limited," Stuyvesant said.

Art Brown, a marriage and family therapist from Utah, agreed.

"It's a mistake to exclude professionals because most professionals have gone through additional extensive training," Brown said. "If our state had a concern about marriage and family therapists, I wouldn't have the job I have."

State probation chief Carlos Concha said evaluation costs could be another stumbling block. The program would cost about $1,400 per convict, and five percent of Nevada's adult convicts are sex offenders. That would mean an estimated $630,000 by 1999.

SB102, which would require courts to notify schools about juvenile sex offenders returning to classes, also generated controversy even though many courts already notify schools.

Sen. Ernie Adler, D-Carson City, said telling school boards could violate the confidentiality of the juvenile.

"Once you've had an open meeting, that kid's life is over in terms of living in that city," Adler said.

The bill also requires that sex offenders not attend the same school as their victims. That means higher costs for rural communities, who would have to pay more to transport juveniles to other districts or to teach them at home.

"In Clark County this isn't so much of a problem, because we have lots of schools to send them to," said Clark County schools lobbyist Carolyne Edwards. "But in the rural areas, it's going to be much harder."

Carson City juvenile probation officer Ian Curley suggested that the provisions for victims should not be mandatory because of such economic concerns. Curley said the state of Washington regrets passing a similar measure because it forced many juveniles to be educated at home.

But Judiciary Chairman Mark James, R-Las Vegas, cut Curley off, insisting that juvenile sex offenders shouldn't be in the same schools as their victims.

"I don't mean to get personal here, but if it was my daughter and she was the victim, that'd be a problem for me," James snapped. "This is typical. We get a good idea, go forward and everyone agrees with it but then says it costs too much."