Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates creating a GBI registry of repeat domestic‑violence offenders; stakeholders urge drafting fixes
Summary
House Bill 1142 would create a GBI searchable registry for recidivist domestic‑violence offenders (entry on second conviction after Jan. 1, 2027; removal after 5 or 10 years). Advocates support the registry; defense groups and others warned about listing first‑offender adjudications and pretrial diversions and asked for clearer definitions and removal procedures.
A bill to create a searchable state registry of recidivist domestic‑violence offenders generated hours of testimony and drafting questions in the House Judiciary Committee. The substitute (LC0407S) would add an offender to the registry after a second conviction for domestic violence occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2027, with automatic removal five years after a second conviction and ten years after a third or subsequent conviction; the bill applies only to convictions, not arrests.
Sponsor told the committee the registry is modeled on Tennessee’s recent law and is narrowly tailored to provide survivors and advocates with another tool for assessing risk. ‘‘If it saved one life, that’s one life we have saved with this bill,’’ said Betty Williams of Refuge Domestic Violence Shelter, supporting the measure.
Criminal‑defense groups and the ACLU warned the substitute’s changes could publicly list adjudications and pretrial diversions that historically have been shielded, and urged the committee to limit public postings to the later (qualifying) convictions. Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers urged removing first‑offender adjudications from the publicly posted list while permitting them to count administratively toward eligibility for later registry placement.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on the breadth of the family‑violence definitions (which can cover people who once lived together) and asked for tighter language to avoid unintended listings, for example of long‑past conduct among former roommates. Sponsor and members agreed to work with stakeholders on a substitute to reconcile scope, notice, removal and whether pretrial diversion or first‑offender adjudications should be public on the registry.
The committee did not vote on HB 1142 at this hearing; the chair asked the sponsor to circulate a substitute and continue negotiations.
