Waco-- Waco members of the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment are against the Adam Walsh Act for the state of Texas. The Adam Walsh Act bases the risk level of a sex offender only on the title of their offense, rather than assessing each offender to determine how dangerous they really are.
Dr. Aaron Pierce, a member of the Sex Offender Treatment council from Waco, says, "Title of offense doesn't tell us how many victims the person has, doesn't tell us if their attracted to children, and it doesn't tell us if their violent. So, there is nothing about title that's useful in determining how dangerous a sex offender is, or what we need to do with them in terms of registration."
Mr. Pierce also says that under the Walsh Act, juvenile sex offenders will be registered for the rest of their lives. He believes that juveniles should be scientifically assessed when they become older, rather than being a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives.
He says the Adam Walsh Act will also cost the state of Texas 1.7 million dollars
Members on the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment believe that by adopting the Adam Walsh Act, sex offenders could be labeled as high or low risk offenders when they should be labled the opposite. This could possibly cause more overall offenses.
If you reviewed your own family tree and found you had a great-grandfather in his 20s or 30s who married a 14-17 year old, would you call him a child rapist? If you knew George Washington dated 13 year olds when he was in his mid-20s, would you say he was making "stupid mistakes" and should have been punished to some degree? If a RETROACTIVE law were passed which allows courts to punish anyone today for relationships you had in junior high or high school, would you consider it justice or abuse?
I agree with cindy219, a first time non-violent act should never be a felony and never be put on a registry of any kind. You'd sure fix the registry if that were the case I betcha!
I believe that every single person on the registry should be re=assed on the basis of the crime committed, their treatment, counseling, and facts. Many offenders have been out of prison for years with no desire to reoffend. They may want to hide, they may want to avoid the registry, but this does not mean they will reoffend. They probably just want to live in freedom and peace. And this is their human, and civil rights
It will cost Texas a lot more than 1.7 million dollars to implement AWA. You are around 20 million dollars off.
As one who advocates for reform of the public registry and for all the current laws that affect former sex offenders, I applaud Dr. Pierce's stance and statement.
I beg the editors of Fox to be more diligent in editing. My first impression at reading the article was that someone was fabricating he words of Dr. Pierce because there is no way that someone with his education would have written,
"... doesn't tell us if THEIR attracted to children, and it doesn't tell us if THEIR violent."
I think the sex laws have gone beyond the realm of public safety into the realms of religious and political persecution. Churches criticize making condoms available to teens but don't oppose sending them to prison as rapists for consensual acts. Politicians across the political aisle use the "boogey man" band wagon to seduce cheap voters while sacrificing countless innocent citizens across the country. Injustice is not solved by its perpetrators, don't expect the leaders who started it to fix it
The Adam Walsh Act doesn't even consider psychological testing or criminal history in figuring out how dangerous a sex offender is. It is just on whatever the charge is, or whatever the sex offender pleas down to. It doesn't make much sense to suddenly take huge leaps backwards in monitoring sex offenders.
As a retired Police Officer and someone who has worked with the laws and sex offenders (SO), I have some issues with the Adam Walsh Act (AWA). But I will put only part of those issues on this form. One of the issues I have with the AWA is that it will add so many more sex offenders to the sex offender registry (SOR), that law enforcement and the public will have no idea who they really should be watching. Who is a danger and who is not? Much more waste of law enforcement time on no danger SO.
I believe your right, I know a few sex offenders and they are harmless, they just made a bad choice in life and now they are labeled forever, we have all made mistakes we are not proud of, I believe, the First time non violent sex offender, should get a second chance but they need to be made to get help for their problem. Do you think it will ever come to that or will they always be labeled?
Cindy