Youngkin amendments seek to bring clarity to ‘skill games’
On Monday, the clock was ticking, and with just three minutes before the stroke of midnight, the governor issued a stay of execution on the long-awaited, so-called “skill games” bill. Rather than dispatching it to its death through his executive veto power, he gave it an 11th-hour reprieve by sending it back to the General Assembly with amendments.
The bill, initially framed under a benignly sounding title, now calls a plum a plum. These are indeed electronic gaming devices. They are no longer veiled with euphemistic terms such as “skill games” or “mom and pop” shops.
And in doing so, a level of legitimacy has been granted to gambling operations that had been properly shuttered by the criminal justice system.
I know. I spent years investigating illegal gambling enterprises throughout Virginia, including those that touted their games of chance as skill or amusement devices. From nip joints, bars
(yes, Virginia we do have bars), corner stores and truck stops, I’ve seized and destroyed hundreds of gambling devices and investigated manufacturers, distributors, operators and retailers. I’ve also testified as an expert witness in many Virginia courts.
Through this bill, manufacturers are now required to have background checks and to be licensed, which will undoubtedly help weed out nefarious influences. Just ask Vincent “Jimmy Sinatra” Craparotta who was beaten to death with golf clubs for not paying tribute to the Lucchese crime family, which was due from the company that built and sent machines to our commonwealth.
Of course, that’s not to say that every video gambling device, including those with the artful label of “skill,” are somehow
connected to the syndicate.
Despite tremendous efforts in this latest iteration of the bill, there remain two problems from a law enforcement perspective.
First, it’s hard to imagine that testing by any laboratory will find that the outcome of play of all devices is factually determined by both the substantial and differential element of the skill of the player.
But assuming it did, this description of skill is problematic when considered in conjunction with the second concern — namely, that some of the devices may be designed so that if the “house” is taking a fall on
its profits, it may purposefully render losing combinations to the player. For example, an 80% payout minimum, which is one of the governor’s recommendations, can be maintained by the device by depriving users of opportunities to hone genuine skill from game to game or to benefit from true chance.
The current form of the bill contains a provision that seeks to prevent the gaff, but it falls short. The law must prohibit the modification of the rules of play and the probability of winning from game to game, not just during a single game.
But the goal of some is to take
the hard-earned money from players, much like the sleight-ofhand shell games run by confidence men and their shills in carnivals and places along New Jersey’s boardwalk.
If the commonwealth wants to legalize this form of gambling, it needs to be transparent about what we are dealing with and take proper measures to protect Virginians. There’s no need to soft-pedal these devices or rush into an inadequate regulatory scheme. These are electronic gaming devices subject not only to the laws of the commonwealth but also the federal Gambling Device Act of 1962. This is a
portentous enterprise with malignant implications that needs to be called what it is and regulated with the seriousness we deserve.
That’s what the governor’s recommendations aim to do.
John R. Cencich, J.S.D., of Luray, is a professor and criminologist at Pennsylvania Western University, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh and political science instructor at James Madison University. In 2005, the Senate of Virginia passed a resolution commending him for his “significant and accomplished work against illegal gambling enterprises across the commonwealth.”