Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill for a domestic‑violence offender registry; defenders and public defender oppose
Summary
Delegate Alethia McCaskill’s bill to create a domestic‑violence offender registry drew support from survivors and advocacy groups and opposition from the public defender’s office and others who questioned the registry’s effectiveness, privacy impacts and unintended penal consequences.
The Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 847, a proposal to create a publicly searchable registry of persons convicted multiple times of domestic‑violence offenses.
First sentence: Sponsor Delegate Alethia McCaskill framed the legislation as a public‑safety measure that would allow prospective intimate partners to check whether someone has been convicted multiple times for domestic abuse and said some states already publish similar registries.
Why it matters: Proponents said the registry would arm survivors and their prospective partners with more information and could help prevent repeat abuse. Opponents — including the Office of the Public Defender — argued the registry duplicates existing public‑records resources, risks privacy harms, and lacks evidence of improved safety outcomes.
What supporters said: Survivor witnesses and Free State Justice urged the committee to provide survivors tools to make informed safety decisions. They noted underreporting of domestic violence and said registries are a way to make patterns visible to people evaluating a relationship.
What critics said: The public defender’s office urged an unfavorable report, arguing Maryland case search already makes criminal records accessible and that registries rarely improve public safety but instead can stigmatize people reentering society. The office raised concerns that many cases resolve with non‑custodial dispositions (PBJs, suspensions) and that registry penalties for non‑registration could be worse than the underlying case dispositions.
Next steps: Committee members asked the sponsor to provide links to other states’ registries for comparison and asked both sides to provide data on registry effectiveness before moving forward.
Ending: The committee did not take an immediate vote and requested more information on operational details and on protections for victims’ privacy.
