In the midst of a national economic struggle, has it become economy versus safety? Do our financial woes warrant the lack of implementing a system that would keep the public safe from sexual predators?
Seeing budgets slashed, stores closing down and people tightening their belts everywhere, it is not difficult to picture our state budget feeling the same economic pinch.
The situation has almost reached desperate levels, with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing the possibility of cutting 20,000 state jobs if the budget is not balanced soon.
Evidently, right now is definitely not the time to add more expenses to the state̢۪s already increasing bills.
The hefty price tag attached to complying with the law̢۪s requirements is the primary reason why different parties are arguing for the postponement of the set July deadline for, or even complete elimination of, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, a national system for keeping track of sexual offenders.
However, despite financial constraints, it is not reasonable to completely disregard the implementation of a federal law that would make children, as well as other vulnerable parties, safer from sexual predators. It is less so, when the option for delaying the deadline remains.
The Walsh Act would create a nationalized system to register sex offenders that would clarify their classification by the gravity of crimes and have them appear in person up to four times a year to verify their registered information, as well as provide an updated photograph that would be placed on a database accessible on the internet. It would most importantly create uniform databases where information on the location of convicted offenders could be easily shared between agencies and state governments.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, “there are more than 563,000 sex offenders that are ‘supposed’ to be registered in the United States and at least 100,000 of these offenders are actually ‘missing’ from the system.â€Â
With the Walsh Act in place, whenever a sex offender changes information in their registry, all other locations where the offender is required to register will be immediately notified, and in failure to do so, the offender would be charged with at least a year of imprisonment.
It is irresponsible to say that our current state laws work relatively well, even when facing economic constraints, especially when considering the benefits of being able to share sex offenders̢۪ files nationwide.
If the requirements of this law had already been active, perhaps people like Gariner Beasley, a sex offender convicted of raping two women in the ̢۪90s, would not have slipped through the state̢۪s cracks and would not have been allowed to work unsupervised with women at a Los Angeles health clinic.
Although an overhaul of this government system is not financially viable with the current economic situation, the state government would not be measuring up to their responsibility to protect the public, if measures are not slowly taken to meet the requirements of the Walsh Act.
Yes, Schwarzenegger and his people in Sacramento have difficult weeks ahead dealing with the budget crisis, but it is still essential to the safety of many, that an important measure like the Walsh Act is not placed on the backburner of the state̢۪s priorities.
LVMike • Mar 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm
If there was all the money to put this act into effect, then we could leave low-risk offenders alone and use that money to help victims. This act is more of another leap towards a federal police state than it is an act of a concerned government.
LVMike • Mar 1, 2009 at 7:45 pm
If there was all the money to put this act into effect, then we could leave low-risk offenders alone and use that money to help victims. This act is more of another leap towards a federal police state than it is an act of a concerned government.
LVMike • Mar 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The Walsh act is unconstitusional on many grounds: from state rights to due process. Where it fails in its practicality is that it has an enormous price tag while not actually preventing or punishing crimes, just making more requirements for previous offenders. The Dept. of Justice numbers show that this act is neither effective nor cost effective. Case in point: by re-tiering offenders going back over 50 years, we are gumming up the works with low-risk offenders; The more people we make appear to be high-risk (as this law does) the harder it is to identify and monitor those who are truly the most dangerous. So the bigger we make the system, the more likely it is that the ones we really want to monitor will fall through the cracks. We need to be evaluating low-risk offenders to get them off the registry so we can focus our resources on the most dangerous–not the other way around.
LVMike • Mar 1, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The Walsh act is unconstitusional on many grounds: from state rights to due process. Where it fails in its practicality is that it has an enormous price tag while not actually preventing or punishing crimes, just making more requirements for previous offenders. The Dept. of Justice numbers show that this act is neither effective nor cost effective. Case in point: by re-tiering offenders going back over 50 years, we are gumming up the works with low-risk offenders; The more people we make appear to be high-risk (as this law does) the harder it is to identify and monitor those who are truly the most dangerous. So the bigger we make the system, the more likely it is that the ones we really want to monitor will fall through the cracks. We need to be evaluating low-risk offenders to get them off the registry so we can focus our resources on the most dangerous–not the other way around.
Cato • Feb 24, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Sean,
I can’t tell whether you are being sarcastic or whether you have a point. I think your comment that “[t]hen all you stupid may be happy,” speaks for itself.
Daniela,
I assume from your lack of response that you agree with me, with is great news. Should I expect a retraction and apology at your earliest convenience?
Cato • Feb 25, 2009 at 4:51 am
Sean,
I can’t tell whether you are being sarcastic or whether you have a point. I think your comment that “[t]hen all you stupid may be happy,” speaks for itself.
Daniela,
I assume from your lack of response that you agree with me, with is great news. Should I expect a retraction and apology at your earliest convenience?
sean • Feb 18, 2009 at 3:24 pm
This is very bad rhing to do when you create group of pariahs strip them any rights and apply deadly laws to prevent them from getting any job. How many sex offenders are working
They just sitting without jobs for many years. US need law requiring killing all sex offenders in 10 minutes. Then all you stupid may be happy.
sean • Feb 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm
This is very bad rhing to do when you create group of pariahs strip them any rights and apply deadly laws to prevent them from getting any job. How many sex offenders are working
They just sitting without jobs for many years. US need law requiring killing all sex offenders in 10 minutes. Then all you stupid may be happy.
Cato • Feb 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I think you misunderstand the nature of our government. Whenever the federal government acts, they must act pursuant to some authority granted to them by the Constitution. It matters not whether the act is good or not; the Violence Against Women Act was certainly a good act as it purported to help the victims of domestic violence, yet the Supreme Court held that it intruded upon the state’s police powers. The same is true with the Gun Free School Zone (also found to be unconstitutional). The fact that a law is good or helps people does not make it constitutionally sound.
I will admit that the Walsh Act operates on the notion of public safety, but as I mentioned in my previous post, registration does nothing to prevent sex crimes from occurring. It simply makes it easier for the government to track sex offenders, label them for life, shame them by putting them on websites, banish them from living anywhere near cities, and hold them criminally liable for inevitably failing to meet these ridiculous registration requirements. Moreover, this ostracizing method is precisely the problem; how are we supposed to rehabilitate sex offenders if we simply label them, banish them, monitor them, and ridicule them?
Conveniently, your article fails to address these important legal issues. Of course any legislation could be passed through under the guise of public protection (ie Violence Against Women & Gun Free School Zone discussed supra), but that does not mean it is a constitutional expression of federal power, nor does it mean that California should allow the federal government to call the shots.
In sum, enacting an Adam Walsh-compliant law in California will only sacrifice state sovereignty in return for an empty feeling of safety. It will cost more to implement than legislators are willing to pay and for those reasons it will not happen.
Cato • Feb 11, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I think you misunderstand the nature of our government. Whenever the federal government acts, they must act pursuant to some authority granted to them by the Constitution. It matters not whether the act is good or not; the Violence Against Women Act was certainly a good act as it purported to help the victims of domestic violence, yet the Supreme Court held that it intruded upon the state’s police powers. The same is true with the Gun Free School Zone (also found to be unconstitutional). The fact that a law is good or helps people does not make it constitutionally sound.
I will admit that the Walsh Act operates on the notion of public safety, but as I mentioned in my previous post, registration does nothing to prevent sex crimes from occurring. It simply makes it easier for the government to track sex offenders, label them for life, shame them by putting them on websites, banish them from living anywhere near cities, and hold them criminally liable for inevitably failing to meet these ridiculous registration requirements. Moreover, this ostracizing method is precisely the problem; how are we supposed to rehabilitate sex offenders if we simply label them, banish them, monitor them, and ridicule them?
Conveniently, your article fails to address these important legal issues. Of course any legislation could be passed through under the guise of public protection (ie Violence Against Women & Gun Free School Zone discussed supra), but that does not mean it is a constitutional expression of federal power, nor does it mean that California should allow the federal government to call the shots.
In sum, enacting an Adam Walsh-compliant law in California will only sacrifice state sovereignty in return for an empty feeling of safety. It will cost more to implement than legislators are willing to pay and for those reasons it will not happen.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 11, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The safety of the general public, specifically from convicted sex offenders, can not be as effective as possible when each state is following a different set of guidelines for sentencing and parole. If there is not a systematic nationwide method to classify and determine sentencing and required years of being registered, how is the nation as a whole supposed to keep tabs on people that have been previously proven to be dangerous individuals?
If you recall, the Walsh Act came about after previously convicted sex offenders had slipped through the cracks of their state system by moving elsewhere and committing more crimes. Although this law may override the ‘state’s own public policy,’ it does so because a state’s registering system is not fully effective when that registered sex offender steps outside of state’s lines. By implementing such measures as having a sex offender physically show up to verify their registration information and at the same time provide an updated photo up to four times per year (depending on the gravity of the crime), the nation as a whole can monitor the whereabouts of offenders much more effectively, thereby making it harder to elude the system.
Although I agree that certain laws can be deemed as a ‘federal intrusion into the states,’ a federal method for keeping tabs on registered sex offenders does not fall in that category since it is a measure to secure the public’s safety from the dangers sex offenders pose, especially when they have the possibility of becoming ‘invisibles’ outside of their state’s system.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm
The safety of the general public, specifically from convicted sex offenders, can not be as effective as possible when each state is following a different set of guidelines for sentencing and parole. If there is not a systematic nationwide method to classify and determine sentencing and required years of being registered, how is the nation as a whole supposed to keep tabs on people that have been previously proven to be dangerous individuals?
If you recall, the Walsh Act came about after previously convicted sex offenders had slipped through the cracks of their state system by moving elsewhere and committing more crimes. Although this law may override the ‘state’s own public policy,’ it does so because a state’s registering system is not fully effective when that registered sex offender steps outside of state’s lines. By implementing such measures as having a sex offender physically show up to verify their registration information and at the same time provide an updated photo up to four times per year (depending on the gravity of the crime), the nation as a whole can monitor the whereabouts of offenders much more effectively, thereby making it harder to elude the system.
Although I agree that certain laws can be deemed as a ‘federal intrusion into the states,’ a federal method for keeping tabs on registered sex offenders does not fall in that category since it is a measure to secure the public’s safety from the dangers sex offenders pose, especially when they have the possibility of becoming ‘invisibles’ outside of their state’s system.
Cato • Feb 11, 2009 at 8:52 am
Why should the federal government intrude upon the police power of the states? The biggest reason why states are hesitant to enact Adam Walsh Act-compliant statutes (aside from budget constraints) is that the law contravenes the state’s own public policy. If the state doesn’t want to include juvenile sex offenders on its registry (for whatever reason), why should they be coerced into doing so by the feds?
Also, you don’t seem to indicate why you think ‘registering’ as a sex offender will reduce any crime at all. Even a person who is a registered sex offender can attack someone. In any event, the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by a relative or close friend and not a stranger.
The Walsh Act may have been written with the best of intentions, but that doesn’t mean we should support it. Aside from the various constitutional problems of the Act, it is yet another example of federal intrusion into the states. Laws like the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), Gun-Free Schools Zone Act (Lopez), and the Walsh Act are best left to the state’s discretion.
Cato • Feb 11, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Why should the federal government intrude upon the police power of the states? The biggest reason why states are hesitant to enact Adam Walsh Act-compliant statutes (aside from budget constraints) is that the law contravenes the state’s own public policy. If the state doesn’t want to include juvenile sex offenders on its registry (for whatever reason), why should they be coerced into doing so by the feds?
Also, you don’t seem to indicate why you think ‘registering’ as a sex offender will reduce any crime at all. Even a person who is a registered sex offender can attack someone. In any event, the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by a relative or close friend and not a stranger.
The Walsh Act may have been written with the best of intentions, but that doesn’t mean we should support it. Aside from the various constitutional problems of the Act, it is yet another example of federal intrusion into the states. Laws like the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), Gun-Free Schools Zone Act (Lopez), and the Walsh Act are best left to the state’s discretion.