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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.