The bill, which won approval by a vote of 26 to 2 Wednesday.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, proposed the bill in the wake of the killing of social worker Lara Sobel in Barre last summer, and described the legislation as “one of the priority bills” of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The alleged shooter, Jody Herring, is also accused of killing three of her relatives, who she said reported her to the Department for Children and Families, leading to her loss of custody of her child.
The bill creates a heightened penalty for assaults on social workers and mandatory reporters — in the same way that assaults on emergency medical personnel or police officers carry stiffer penalties. The penalty adds up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine on top of other penalties.
But the legislation hit some resistance for a section that creates a new crime for making serious threats, punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. Threats against social workers would be punishable by up to two years in prison.
Sears and other proponents of the bill say that a new law would be a valuable tool for prosecutors, allowing them to intervene in a situation before someone acts on threats of violence.
Others, including the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, have raised concerns that the new law could step on the constitutional right to free speech.
Earlier this session, prosecutors from around the state testified on the proposal, offering mixed opinions on whether the new law would fill a gap in existing statute.
Concerns about the gray areas within the bill were serious enough that they delayed the legislation’s course through the Legislature. The Senate’s final vote for the bill was initially expected nearly three weeks ago, but was delayed as various lawmakers fielded amendments.
Sen. Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden, raised concerns when the bill came up for second reading in February about whether the language around the new crime is specific enough.
Baruth proposed an amendment Wednesday that would have made the language about the nature of threats more specific, but the amendment did not get the support of the Senate.
The body did accept two changes. One from Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, creates an affirmative defense to the crime if the person accused wasn’t able to carry out the threat.
The other, from Sears, clarified that there must be intent to threaten under the proposed law.
Baruth and Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, were the only votes against the bill on the Senate floor.
Ashe, who also voted against the bill in committee, said that the intention of the bill is “very laudable,” but that in his opinion, the current laws are “satisfactory.”
“My concern is that the crime creates a bit of a gray zone,” Ashe said. “Some people might react with great fear to comments made by an individual. On the other hand, there might be people who write it off as an idle joke or something.”
Sears said that he believes the committee wrote the language so that constitutionally protected speech is not impacted by the crime.
“It’s a fairly high standard,” Sears said.
Sears said that the bill is designed to prevent violence from occurring by allowing law enforcement to intervene early on when there is a credible threat.
“And too often we’ve heard reports that people who have been threatened have been told by police, there’s nothing we can do,” Sears said.
The bill now goes to the House.
