This short analysis of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 and its implementation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeks to explore the background, philosophical failures and statistics to justify repeal of the AWA. Additionally, there are significant policy recommendations that provide real reforms that provide enhanced community safety while not violating Constitutional principles or denying the ability for former offenders to successfully reenter society. The AWA is a dangerous, destabilizing, retroactively applied law that: … Full Article
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
Outstanding read! This person hits it clearly. I’m pleased that he pointed out the autors of AWA (Foley and Walsh) both committed sex offenses with minors and aren’t on any registries. John Walsh is a very, very bad man. Check out his history of failure and lies.
Stable Employment.
Stable Housing.
Treatment for Mental Conditions or Chemical Dependency.
Positive Social Circles for Accountability and Support.
All important conditions for allowing most sexual offenders to escape social controls.
I think we can all agree that offenders need to realize they have broken sexual trusts which they need to work hard to regain.
BUT!!!
Law enforcement, legislators, judges and probably most of the public believe that the medical community is inept and therapy ineffective in it’s goal to control IMMORAL sexual activity.
Therein lies the crux of the problem.
While the medical community has learned a lot about sex offenses, its motivations, effective mental treatment, and the type of offender who responds accordingly – the powers at hand in their arrogance and ignorance refuse to release their power over the offender.
How ridiculous it is to see the courts constantly making therapy a part of most sexual offenses when the registry clearly denounces its effectiveness.
How blatantly offensive it is to order therapy and after the doctor and patient have spent years learning coping skills, gaining tools and effecting a cure or at least a significant remission of the illness which should be rejoiced as a triumph, well lo and behold, the ignorant and prejudiced discount it all and declare the patient a loss and a significant danger to the community.
How shameful it is to treat these patients with such indignity, especially those who have responded so well to treatment and walk the walk and talk the talk of a reformed offender.
Surely, if the courts recognized the mental community with the same degree of professionalism they claim for themselves than there would be no need for a worthless registry, tiered or otherwise.
Very good article about the facts and the situation; I strongly disagree with its proposals about how to reform SOR.
After presenting a very strong argument completely against SOR, all the article is calling for is that it not be for lifetime, but it urges retaining SOR for a minimum of 10 years for least offenses and longer, maybe at least 30 years for more serious offenses. And that is not be on the Internet.
Gee, it isn’t even logical; if you are going to present this strong a case that SOR is wrong and counter-productive and a waste of time and money, how can you think it is logical to then say it should be in place for a minimum of 10 years for even minor offenders?! If you are going to argue that SOR for non-violent offenses only diverts police from focusing on the real problems, then how can you call for a 10-year minimum of those lesser offenses rather than the obvious thrust of the argument that there should be no SOR for those?
I’m afraid the writer fails to understand his/her own argument so runs off with a solution that is very contrary to the argument presented. I’m afraid the writer was great with the facts and the argument, but then had no idea what to do so simply went along with the party line to make it a minimum of 10 years. How disappointing.
And as for not being on the Internet, your neighbors will still know when the police keep coming around and banding on your door and shouting for the sex offender to come to the door. And your landlord will know when they police ask him to confirm that the sex offender is still living there.
I note, this 10-year minimum bit is draconian. The standard for relief from the collateral disabilities of a conviction for even serious offenses used to be 5 years! Now we’re arguing that 10 years is nothing for lesser offenses! No, actually 10 years is draconian. And 30 years for serious offenses isn’t much help, as by then many or most such offenders will be hitting retirement — do you have any idea how long 30 years is! It means that if you were 30 when you committed your offense, you will be 60 before you have the first possibility of maybe finally being free — but far too late to make a career or a family or a life.