Congress Should Repeal the Adam Walsh Act

By TChris, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:01:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

No state has fully complied with the sex offender registration requirements of the Adam Walsh Act, and only four have tried. Some would rather lose their meager crime prevention grants than spend the money it would take to comply. That alone should tell you that this is a bad law.

[The law] requires all states to adopt strict standards for registering sex offenders .... [It] makes it a federal felony to fail to reregister as a sex offender after moving to another state and requires states to toughen their penalties, now often misdemeanors, for failing to register at all.
It also requires offenders deemed especially dangerous to register for life and to renew their registration, usually in person, four times a year. In addition, the law expands the number of crimes for which sex offenders must register and requires states to collect more of their personal information and post much of it publicly.

[more ...]

The federal government needs to get out of the business of coercing states to "toughen their penalties," whether the penalties are for nonregistration or drunk driving. States should fix their own penalties for state crimes without federal interference.

The requirement that an ex-offender renew his or her registration four times a year is an exercise in unnecessary record-keeping that seems designed to trap the unwary registrant who misses a deadline. What's the point of making a stable resident repeatedly renew a registration?

Requiring lifetime registration for an offender who was told at sentencing that he'd have to register for 10 or 15 years is unfair. Telling states that certain crimes must trigger sex offender registration requirements amounts to an unfunded mandate. States are capable of deciding for themselves whether a particular crime merits registration and for how long.

The Adam Walsh Act is another example of the axiom that any law named after a crime victim is a bad law. Kudos to the states that are standing up to the federal government and asserting their right to enact their own criminal laws without federal interference.

< The New Deal Record | Mindless "Centrism" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Congress Should Repeal the Adam Walsh Act | 42 comments (42 topical)

Actually this is one of the biggest problems (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:45:08 AM EST

with the lists, imo:

States are capable of deciding for themselves whether a particular crime merits registration and for how long.

imo, the rules for the lists should be nationally standardized such that there would be no question as to whether or not there are any "harmless or just weirdos" on the list.

But I also get it that if you're 100% against the lists - no matter what their form, no matter what their content - that you'd also be against them being improved by being standardized.

If they were improved in this way, that would take away one of your main criticisms of the lists.

The Act (none / 0) (#4)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:49:41 AM EST

expands the number of crimes that subject an offender to registration -- it doesn't limit them to serious crimes or repeat offenses. Standardizing an overbroad list doesn't "imrpove" the law.


So would you support the lists being (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:58:30 AM EST

standardized to list only the dangerous offenders (assuming their could be agreement on the definition of "dangerous.")


As my post indicates, (none / 0) (#9)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:12:12 PM EST

I support states making their own decisions without federal interference.


: That's really not what I asked you. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:27:49 PM EST

in some states... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by diogenes on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:24:53 PM EST

Some states have different classes of sex offender-level I, level II, level III, so there are different registration rules depending on the offense.
Also, if the crime(s) are posted on the net then we can all ignore the offenders who were 21 and had sex with a willing 16 year old, can't we.

TChris - Question (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by Slado on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:14:19 AM EST

My wife went crazy recently looking up "sex predators" in our neighborhood. As I'm sure you can imagine we had dozens within a mile or two of our home and she went into panic mode.

I told her that most of these could be years old, not really sex crimes etc.. etc... and there was no reason to get so worked up about it.

I'm a big law and order type of guy but even I wonder how easy it is to get on one of these lists.

Do you have any real data for how many are actually threats vs. how many are harmless or just weirdos?

Thanks

: No. (none / 0) (#5)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:54:09 AM EST

The data would vary from state to state but in every state people are required to register for years after they are no longer a threat, or for acts (like consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old) that were never harmful to society in the first place.

I don't have numbers... (none / 0) (#2)
by nutnfiner on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:37:43 AM EST

...but I know that many people wind up registered for stupid things like urinating in public (probably seen behind a tree in a park that didn't otherwise have "facilities"). Other people wind up on there because they were 18, had a 16 y/o girlfriend, and the parents of the girl objected.

I live in a fairly nice part of town, and like you, putting my zip code in Florida's database returns a huge number of hits. If all of these people are so dangerous, then there is no safe place to live.

I agree that usually laws named after victims are generally a serious overreach. I don't have a problem with repeat and/or violent offenders having to register. Then you might have a list that is meaningful. The problem is, the laws (and judges in many cases) just go overboard with who has to register and for how long.

I suspect that these registrations have done absolutely nothing to prevent a crime, but they make someone feel good, and some politicians score points for being "tough on crime."

Oh, btw. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:04:56 PM EST

No public urinators or HS romances gone astray in NJ anyway:

Q2
What types of offenses require registration?
A2
The offenses requiring registration include aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, criminal sexual contact if the victim is minor, endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, endangering the welfare of a child through acts involving pornography featuring a child, promoting prostitution of a child, luring or enticing, kidnapping, criminal restraint, and false imprisonment if the victim is a minor and the offender is not a parent of the victim.

Don't know NJ law, but ... (none / 0) (#33)
by syinco on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:36:04 AM EST

There is nothing here to indicate that this is an exhaustive list, nor to suggest that "criminal sexual conduct" does not include statutory rape, e.g. certain HS romances gone astray.

I realize that many people on the "list" warrant ongoing concern. However, there are in fact cases with people on the registry for far less disturbing crimes than you suggest here.

Though perhaps the actual percentage of such cases is such that it doesn't concern you. For me, though, I'd also like to know the desired and actual effects of the law before attempting to weigh its value in that context.

I do think we agree that the presently broad nature of the list diminishes its value. However, I do question its value even with an appropriately refined list, whatever that means, and I very much take issue with the shifting burdens and punishments that have become part and parcel with this "regulatory" scheme.


I think you're grasping at straws. (none / 0) (#34)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 08:48:35 AM EST

not really (none / 0) (#36)
by syinco on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 10:43:00 AM EST

Because my initial point was not that NJ has such marginal offenders on its registry, but that it could, and we know that other states certainly have required such marginal offenders to register.

FWIW, this NJ Megan's Law page offers in part the following statutory elaboration of qualifying offenses:

endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child pursuant to subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:24-4; endangering the welfare of a child pursuant to paragraph (4) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4

I checked and the referenced NJ statute does indeed cover the sort of marginal behavior in question.

Anyway, I don't actually think that these particular marginal cases are of sufficient number to really hamper the purpose of the registry. But there is quite a range of offenses/offenders in between the extreme cases that you seem to suggest may not actually exist and the other cases of obvious concern; inclusion of that intermediate range arguably does make the registry less effective. From what else you've written, I think you'd at least somewhat agree with that.

What I said about "desired and actual effects" of the registration laws does factor into how I would evaluate who should be on the list, and whether there should even be a list. I also think it makes sense to consider the collateral registration consequences (e.g. residency restrictions) when assessing effects and effectiveness. And sort of the flip side of your objection, I also see many people point to extreme cases on the other end of the spectrum as basis for dismissing the harsh conditions and punishments associated with registration, or the failure to register, and I find that similarly disingenuous.

I see too little consideration of the registry's efficacy, consequences, and enforcement scheme, particularly in light of the totality of persons on the registry. I am inclined to disfavor the registry, but frankly I'd like to have a better understanding of some of these issues before taking a firm position.


If nothing else, (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25:46 PM EST

this thread has clearly defined the two bogeymen.

For those who support the registry, it's the:

"just because he hasn't been reconvicted doesn't mean he's hasn't reoffended" bogeyman,

and for those who don't support the registry, it's the:

"many of the listees just urinated in public or accidentally had their fly open in public" bogeyman.

As I've said before I do support standardizing the lists from state to state and restricting them to those who are a danger to society.

I do believe the registeries have some deterrent effect on the actions of those listed, and also enable some measure of self protection for society at large.

imo, for those who genuinely belong on that list, I don't find the collateral consequences of being listed excessive.


I can certainly see (none / 0) (#39)
by syinco on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:38:30 PM EST

value in a list of those who are a "danger to society" (though I'm not sure it outweighs the costs). But how that determination is made is of course the key, and I know you don't mean to have proposed a comprehensive answer.

Today, in practice, given plea bargains and deference to victim's rights, it can sometimes in effect be the victim who gets to make that determination, which seems absurd. Beyond that, there's just some difficult line-drawing to do, but if that line-drawing is going to be revisited it should not IMO be a political exercise.

As for providing a deterrent effect, I can imagine how the registry might do so, for certain offenders. But I can just as well imagine how the registry might have the opposite effect; destabilization resulting in additional offenses that might not have otherwise occurred. It's an interesting and important question.

Collateral consequences - even if somehow limited to "those who genuinely belong" (see first paragraph :) - I have concerns there. One, that those consequences can be destabilizing and potentially increase marginal offending. Two, from an ex post facto standpoint, I don't think that the laws are constitutional - it resembles "punishment" too closely (registration is becoming quite akin to continued probation), and the severity of some punishments for not registering seems like it should at some point redound on the registration requirement itself, thus belying its purportedly "non-punitive" nature.

As for self-protection, I can see the appeal, but I'm not sure it really works that way in practice. If your neighbor two doors down is a repeat child sex offender, I understand that as a parent you would really like to know that. Far more common, though, would be as a parent to find that there are a number of sex offenders of questionable concern (e.g. outdated offense) within some rough but not necessarily immediate vicinity - what do you do with that information? And is there any truth to the notion that the registry distracts focus from the majority of offenders, i.e. not strangers but friends and family?


To your last paragraph. (none / 0) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:42:36 PM EST

That knowledge is often the reminder for the parents to re-visit the "don't go into a stranger's car or home" conversations, and is a general kick in the pants for us to keep a close eye on our youngest children, especially. In my case that certainly includes "friends and family," although I can't speak for anyone else.

And parents and other interested parties in these discussions need to better understand "friends."

For example, for many children, their abuser was a "friend" - or so they thought - of theirs, but he/she was certainly not a family "friend" nor a friend of the child's parents, nor, often, someone the parents were even completely aware of.

In general I think an increased awareness helps.

But I can just as well imagine how the registry might have the opposite effect; destabilization resulting in additional offenses that might not have otherwise occurred. It's an interesting and important question.

That is an interesting and important question, and one that is brought up on TL almost daily, it seems. To whit, "the punishment for the crime increases the criminality of the punished." So to reduce the criminality of criminals they should receive no punishment for their crimes?

Of course there's a reasonable balance - somewhere. It's deciding where that balance is that keeps these discussions from ever reaching a conclusion.


: I (none / 0) (#42)
by syinco on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:37:50 PM EST

appreciate your perspective on the practical value of the registry - I'm far from sure that the registry is the best means to accomplish that increased awareness; I certainly don't think it's the only means.

So to reduce the criminality of criminals they should receive no punishment for their crimes?
Genearlly, no, it's not "don't punish", but "punish differently, punish smarter". (And topic at hand, registration isn't punishment anyway, right? Whatever! :)
Agreed that with line-drawing or balancing, such discussions can be interminable, but I do value these interchanges as they help clear away the clutter of misguided assumptions and tend to help properly frame the issue and identify its fundamental elements.
(I'm planning on reading cdavidhess' linked article later, fyi.)

Actually, I think you know no such thing. (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 11:56:20 AM EST

but I know that many people wind up registered for stupid things like urinating in public (probably seen behind a tree in a park that didn't otherwise have "facilities"). Other people wind up on there because they were 18, had a 16 y/o girlfriend, and the parents of the girl objected.

But you did read it on the internet, so it must be true.

Here are the first three listees in the NJ town I grew up in:

Offense: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
Date of Disposition: 05/17/1989 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Adult x - Female
Modus Operandi / Significant Event Details
ENTERS HOMES WITH INTENT TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ADULT FEMALES

Offense: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
Date of Disposition: 04/15/1998 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Under13 x - Female
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offense: ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD
Date of Disposition: 04/15/1998 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Under13 x - Female
Modus Operandi / Significant Event Details
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED A TWELVE YEAR OLD FEMALE AQUAINTANCE THAT
HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH FROM HIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

Offense: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
Date of Disposition: 03/16/1990 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Under13 x - Under18 x - Male
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offense: AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT
Date of Disposition: 03/16/1990 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Under13 x - Under18 x - Male
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offense: ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD
Date of Disposition: 03/16/1990 Place of Disposition: MORRIS
Victims: x - Under13 x - Under18 x - Male
Modus Operandi / Significant Event Details
REGISTRANT HAD ACCESS TO HIS VICTIMS SINCE HE WAS THEIR
TEACHER

You love to (none / 0) (#8)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:09:19 PM EST

post these things, but "the first three" on a list of hundreds or thousands isn't representative of the list as a whole. And note that the first one on your list cites a disposition from 20 years ago for a crime that likely occurred more than 20 years ago, while the third one is also for a crime that occurred nearly 20 years ago. If these fellows haven't reoffended in two decades, why can't we accept that they've paid their debt to society, have reformed, and don't need to be harassed for the rest of their lives by forcing them to register as sex offenders?


"If these fellows haven't reoffended" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:38:27 PM EST

If these fellows haven't reoffended in two decades, why can't we accept that they've paid their debt to society, have reformed, and don't need to be harassed for the rest of their lives by forcing them to register as sex offenders?

No argument, that's why I support standardization of the lists to only those who pose a significant danger to society - whether that standardization comes from the feds or from the states just getting together and doing it themselves.

I post actual listings from the lists because absent them most commenters have no clue who's actually on the lists - they have just some abstract make-believe mind's eye picture of a rosey-cheeked 16 y/o HS sophomore who had a 14 y/o freshman girlfriend, and not this charming description of the second guy listed above:

Distinguishing Marks
SCAR LEFT FOREARM
SCAR NECK
SCAR RIGHT FOREARM
TATTOO LEFT ARM - DOGGIE STYLE
TATTOO LEFT ARM - TATTOO LEFT ARM
TATTOO RIGHT ARM - DOGGY STYLE,REMO

Oh gosh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:58:56 PM EST

tattoos and scars, how scary. We should lock the dude up for life.


: Considering his multiple offenses, (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:42:42 PM EST

maybe we should.

Question (3.00 / 2) (#10)
by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:30:28 PM EST

How do you know the first guy on the list hasn't re-offended? Maybe he just hasn't gotten caught.

And since one of his offenses was on someone 13 or under, and since many studies show that pedophiles aren't ever "cured", how can you be sure it was a one time deal? (And I'm going to assume this wasn't an 18 year old with a young girlfriend, since his "first" offense was in 1989).


I am so sick (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:58:01 PM EST

of the "maybe he just hasn't been caught" argument. Maybe he killed three busloads of nuns, too, but in the absence of proof, I (like other patriotic Americans) believe in the presumption of innocence.

Research conclusions are all over the map on whether sex offenders can be "cured" (whatever that means), but the best evidence we have is that most offenders who complete their sentences, with or without treatment, are never arrested or convicted for another sex offense. The question isn't one of finding a "cure," but of whether offenders can exercise volitional control. The evidence suggests that most can.


It was meant as a serious question (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:26:11 PM EST

Because honestly, most of the defense attorneys (very good defense attorneys) I know and have worked with as a judge's clerk, have freely admitted that most of their clients are guilty, have been guilty before, and in many cases, will be guilty in the future, so I don't understand why it's not reasonable to point out that there's a difference between saying they haven't "re-offended" as opposed to saying they haven't been convicted of any other offenses?

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, and I understand they've paid their debt to society for the crimes for which they were convicted, but I find it hard to believe that if you had a teenage daughter, you would feel comfortable living next door to an ex-con who raped 13 year-olds just because he had "paid his debt". Wouldn't you like to know that information as a parent? Would you assume your daughter was safe because this guy hasn't "re-offended"? Maybe you would be okay with that - I don't know. Personally, I like knowing what I'm up against, and if they had a registry for all people who were convicted of violent crimes, I'd like that too.


LOL (none / 0) (#22)
by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:47:10 PM EST

Maybe he killed three busloads of nuns, too, but in the absence of proof, I (like other patriotic Americans) believe in the presumption of innocence.

Well, now that you know that your concerns are just due to your lack of patriotism, I'm sure we can solve this debate straight away by continuing this compelling level of discourse.

BTW, have they come by to check whether you have your flag up or not?


: nope (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:33:15 PM EST

you need to see if he paid taxes, according to Biden.

If I may chime in.... (none / 0) (#35)
by kdog on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 09:08:49 AM EST

I, for one, have no desire to do background checks on my neighbors.


Maybe you should be sick of sexual offenders. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:55:35 PM EST

I know the adult man who abused me also abused my brother and at least a couple other of our friends. Who knows how many others kids that we didn't know. He certainly had a lot of opportunity, he drove the neighborhood ice cream truck.

afaik, he's never been convicted, he's certainly is not in either NJ or NY's RSO list.

One of my male friends from Catholic HS never reported the priest who tried to get in his pants. He feels guilty about that to this day, especially when 20 years later that priest was charged by another teenaged boy that he abused.

My friend feels like if he had said something at the time maybe the priest would have been stopped.

I don't think it's realistic to think that that priest was only did or tried to do stuff to my friend and this one other kid 20 years later.

Because many only get convicted one time out of several - or dozens, perhaps - of offenses, there is not a lot of confidence that they don't/won't reoffend.


I'm sure sick of them.... (none / 0) (#25)
by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:09:23 PM EST

I've seen too much of the psychological fallout from what they do.

I believe everyone has rights, including convicted sex offenders, but where their rights end and the rights of children and women to be safe begin is an age-old question that can't be answered in the simplistic, black-and-white manner you see so often. This is an ancient debate at it's core.

(I'm so sorry about the abuse you endured as a child.)


: Thanks Doc. (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:22:53 PM EST

Oh, and presumably, the SO's can, (none / 0) (#30)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:06:54 PM EST

and probably should, apply to be removed from the list:

Q7
How long must sex offenders register?
A7
All sex offenders subject to Megan's Law must register for the remainder of their lives. Sex offenders may apply to the court to be removed from the Sex Offender Registry if they committed only one offense, have not committed another offense for 15 years, and prove that they are not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.

actually sarc, (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:12:00 PM EST

i'm against the lists, any lists, for the very simple reason that they're violative of the constitutional provision against "double jeapardy(sp)). in effect, you're being punished twice, for the same offense. yes, i'm well aware that the USSC ruled otherwise. hardly a perfect group; their predecessors got it wrong on slavery too.

we don't do that for any other type of criminal activity, regardless of how dangerous to society the person has proven to be. myself, i'd kind of like to know if a mass murderer has moved into the neighborhood. unless it involved sex in some way, they aren't required to register on any list, once their prison term is finished.

i've had occasion to go online, and check out those registered in my area. too many to hide from, if you believe the list. i don't.

according to those lists, we are surrounded by sexual predators, just waiting to pounce on the unwary person who leaves their house. if that were actually true, you'd think we'd see some mention of it, somewhere. and yet, we don't.

go figure.

the "Adam Walsh" law is just another example of someone who made lots of noise; he was the squeaky wheel that some politician rode to re-election on.

Me too: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:17:22 PM EST

myself, i'd kind of like to know if a mass murderer has moved into the neighborhood.

My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jbindc on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 01:36:20 PM EST

If someone were a known mass murderer (where they would have to register), they probably won't be out on parole any time soon. Those are usually lifers or death row inmates, so the point of them registering is moot.


: What if they're reformed? (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 03:03:05 PM EST

/snark

Not only (none / 0) (#17)
by TChris on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:00:11 PM EST

made a lot of noise, but made himself a bundle of money by exploiting his family tragedy.


: Evidence he was (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:46:21 PM EST

exploitive? I've read a bit about the story and don't see his aim as that but motivated by unbelievable anguish at the horror of what happened to their son. I cannot imagine it.

Repeal now! (none / 0) (#18)
by Sumner on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 02:21:09 PM EST

ofc we must repeal the DAMNED (pronounced as two syllables) Adam Walsh Act. It is one of the foulest abominations to corrupt our laws. It represents one of the principal devices of misdirection from the financial crimes of the New World Order. (Think Charles Keating syndrome - causing moral panic as a cover for looting and plundering). The war on sex laws also serve the New World Order, the Illuminai, whatever you want to call them, in another way too. The people behind them are eugenicists. These laws, (and there are many more on the way, unless they are stopped), also facilitate the secret eugenics movement, that the Illuminati, the New World Order, have been obsessed with prior even to Hitler.

Behind the deliberately engineered financial collapse of global economy, the International Bankers will ride to the rescue with their solution to the crisis they engineered in the first place, a new world currency and a new world government. Plan on government cameras in the bedrooms, especially in the bedrooms of children, but in everybody's, in order to "protect the children", and cradle-to-grave life sexual histories compiled on everybody for political control, using humiliation and the robbing of personal dignity as their underlying aim. Such pilot sexual histories have already been compiled on many "sex offenders".

As the states continue to financially collapse under the engineered economic crisis, many are realizing that they cannot go on spending billions and billions of dollars for building more and more prisons and passing ever-harsher draconian laws for offenses created entirely from whole cloth, just to feed the greed of the prison guards unions that so heavily lobby state legislators to supply ever more product to them, in the form of wasted human lives. At least some states are now beginning to balk.

TChris does a giant service to us all, with his prictical sage writing and I never cease to be amazed at the scope of his wisdom.

Just a reminder, none of these laws could even exist if our US Supreme Court was not so dysfunctional.

All SOs are violent? (none / 0) (#31)
by Sumner on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:49:16 PM EST

In reality, I posit that examples of your more typical "sexual offender" can be found here.

And what was that report at this site recently that prosecutors are collecting and hoarding rape exam videos? Are those of kids too? Is that now a fetish?

Rarely does anyone even acknowledge, much less address, the truly heinous sex crimes, those where pre-teen girls' genitals are cut and sliced away, (FGM) by the millions, usually with broken glass or dull blades without any benefit of anesthesia. But perhaps those just don't count to most people, as those little girls usually just come from a different tribe.

Recent studies find registry laws have no effect (none / 0) (#38)
by cdavidhess on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 01:07:45 PM EST

One should note that just released studies have found that sex offender registry laws in NY and NJ have had no effect. Here is an abstract of the New York study:

Despite the fact that the federal and many state governments have enacted registration and community notification laws as a means to better protect communities from sexual offending, limited empirical research has been conducted to examine the impact of such legislation on public safety. Therefore, utilizing time-series analyses, this study examined differences in sexual offense arrest rates before and after the enactment of New York State's Sex Offender Registration Act. Results provide no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders. Analyses also showed that over 95% of all sexual offense arrests were committed by first-time sex offenders, casting doubt on the ability of laws that target repeat offenders to meaningfully reduce sexual offending.

Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law. Sandler, Jeffrey C.; Freeman, Naomi J.; Socia, Kelly M., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 14(4), Nov 2008, 284-302.

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2008-18509-003

The the federally funded NJ study found an overall recidivism rate for sex crimes of 9% over the 6 1/2 year follow up period. From the report: "Despite widespread community support for these laws, there is virtually no evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing either new first-time sex offenses (through protective measures or general deterrence) or sex re-offenses (through protective measures and specific deterrence)...Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable."

The report may be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/azskrd "

: Interesting article, I'm on page 3 or so... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:10 PM EST

Offenders subject to notification were arrested for new crimes much more quickly than were offenders not subject to notification. (Schramm & Milloy, 1995).
Isn't that a good thing? A re offender caught after "only" a couple re offenses instead of many re offences? And when they were not registered and not caught until after many re offenses wouldn't that be more recidivism, not less?
From google:
The following three states- Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio- have statistically significant
decreases associated with the introduction of the sex offender notification laws. In
addition, these states implemented the notification laws at different points in time. When
examining these results independently of the other analyses, this scenario provides strong
support for the notion that sex offender notification laws deter sex offenders. The idea
that chance error or simultaneity took place in three states at three different points in time
is difficult to argue. Particularly because a known intervention was implemented at this
point in time, this analysis provides evidence for the notion that sex offender notification
laws deterred potential sex offenders from offending and therefore, caused the observed
decrease in rapes.
In recent decades, sex offenders have been the targets of some of the most far-reaching and novel crime legislation in the U.S. Two key innovations have been registration and notification laws which, respectively, require that convicted sex offenders provide valid contact information to law enforcement authorities, and that information on sex offenders be made public. Using detailed information on the timing and scope of changes in state law, we study how registration and notification affect the frequency of sex offenses and the incidence of offenses across victims, and check for any change in police response to reported crimes. We find evidence that registration reduces the frequency of sex offenses by providing law enforcement with information on local sex offenders.

Although, admittedly, there is enough grey area in each/all of these studies to question the conclusions no matter what your position regarding the registries may be.

Congress Should Repeal the Adam Walsh Act

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal