ADAM WALSH WAS BEAT (part 2)

[baron555 934]

My statement made ws meaning this law is not unbeatable. this statment was to prove that this Adam walsh can be beat with the right evidence and proof. It does mean what it says rest at ease ADAM WALH FILERS.

I disagree. I think that some of the AW filers should not be allowed to do what they want.

Sorry for them and very happy for you.

[Angie Y Shane 2]

My statement made ws meaning this law is not unbeatable. this statment was to prove that this Adam walsh can be beat with the right evidence and proof. It does mean what it says rest at ease ADAM WALH FILERS.

I disagree. I think that some of the AW filers should not be allowed to do what they want.

Sorry for them and very happy for you.

It does only apply to certain offenders. As for proving you are not a risk. There are allot os SO's that cannot apply to beat this law. I do aggree with you on this. My point is that it can be beat depending on what type of conviction and how good your evidence can convince the CO to feel you are not a risk.

Again as far as I still know, I'm still the first approval with Adam walsh filers acroding to government staff.

[You Don't Know Me 6]

I disagree. I think that some of the AW filers should not be allowed to do what they want.

Sorry for them and very happy for you.

Baron,

I don't see anyone saying "every AWA Filer should be approved". Even as someone with a real sex offense in my past I would never agree with such a statement. All we are asking for is the chance to redeem ourselves on a case-by-case basis. Angie & Shane's success shows that we actually have this chance.

I'll even go one further: NOBODY should be allowed to "do what they want" if it causes harm to someone else (excluding things like self-defense etc).

I don't agree with the statement that the law was beaten though. I think in this case it was followed and he was allowed the chance to prove that it shouldn't block his case.

Edited October 8, 2009 by You Don't Know Me

[You Don't Know Me 6]

I really wish this could have a different name. I know you all are happy about beating the "system" but does anyone recall Adam Walsh and why this Act has its name? Not to be a wet blanket but celebrating beating Adam Walsh sounds kinda sick. That young child was raped and brutally murdered. Celebrating that is sick IMO.

Yes, Adam Walsh was abducted. He was left unattended in a Sears attached to a large mall in Florida by his mother. He was instructed to leave the store by a 17 year old security guard as a result of a fight between 2 other kids near the video game display where his mother left him unattended. When she returned some time later he was no where to be found.

Yes, Adam Walsh was murdered. His severed head was discovered in a nearby canal roughly 2 weeks later.

The names of several victims of sex offenses is used through-out the history of the "Adam Walsh Act" but they are used to stir emotions and earn votes for the politicians who spearheaded the draconian laws into existance.

Why doesn't the "Adam Walsh Act" address:

1) Neglectful parents who leave their young children alone in public places for no better reason than convenience?

or

2) Retail establisbments who hire "Security Staff" who are neither mature enough nor properly trained to be able to make on the spot decisions about safety issues.

These are the two major contributing factors leading to Adam's murder. Regardless of the intent of the man who later confessed to his murder (but was never charged with it and never confessed to any sexual abuse) if his Mother had spared 10 minutes of her precious time to stand with him as he played 1 video game Adam would have left that store quite alive and in her care on that day.

The simple fact is that it's easier for most people to let the govenmnet pretend to be responsible for our children's safety than accept responsibility for (or feel empowered to) protect our own children.

So, not to be a wet blanket on you but...

To imply that I deserve to be punished for the rest of my life for actions of over 20 years ago in the name of a crime that can't even be proven is sick...

[LaL 418]

I really wish this could have a different name. I know you all are happy about beating the "system" but does anyone recall Adam Walsh and why this Act has its name? Not to be a wet blanket but celebrating beating Adam Walsh sounds kinda sick. That young child was raped and brutally murdered. Celebrating that is sick IMO.

*snip*

So, not to be a wet blanket on you but...

To imply that I deserve to be punished for the rest of my life for actions of over 20 years ago in the name of a crime that can't even be proven is sick...

Uh, dude - she she wasn't suggesting anything of the sort - just suggesting that the language used in this thread ie: "Beating Adam Walsh" could be better stated. She didn't say anything about you, or others who fall into this category, so don't take her post so personally.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I really wish this could have a different name. I know you all are happy about beating the "system" but does anyone recall Adam Walsh and why this Act has its name? Not to be a wet blanket but celebrating beating Adam Walsh sounds kinda sick. That young child was raped and brutally murdered. Celebrating that is sick IMO.

Yes, Adam Walsh was abducted. He was left unattended in a Sears attached to a large mall in Florida by his mother. He was instructed to leave the store by a 17 year old security guard as a result of a fight between 2 other kids near the video game display where his mother left him unattended. When she returned some time later he was no where to be found.

Yes, Adam Walsh was murdered. His severed head was discovered in a nearby canal roughly 2 weeks later.

The names of several victims of sex offenses is used through-out the history of the "Adam Walsh Act" but they are used to stir emotions and earn votes for the politicians who spearheaded the draconian laws into existance.

Why doesn't the "Adam Walsh Act" address:

1) Neglectful parents who leave their young children alone in public places for no better reason than convenience?

or

2) Retail establisbments who hire "Security Staff" who are neither mature enough nor properly trained to be able to make on the spot decisions about safety issues.

These are the two major contributing factors leading to Adam's murder. Regardless of the intent of the man who later confessed to his murder (but was never charged with it and never confessed to any sexual abuse) if his Mother had spared 10 minutes of her precious time to stand with him as he played 1 video game Adam would have left that store quite alive and in her care on that day.

The simple fact is that it's easier for most people to let the govenmnet pretend to be responsible for our children's safety than accept responsibility for (or feel empowered to) protect our own children.

So, not to be a wet blanket on you but...

To imply that I deserve to be punished for the rest of my life for actions of over 20 years ago in the name of a crime that can't even be proven is sick...

You did not say that. You did not just imply that Adam Walsh or any other child gets kidnapped, raped, and murdered and it's the parents fault. ####### is wrong with you? I am sure nothing is wrong with the sick and perverted azzholes who kidnap, rape, and torture little kids.

What the hell. How dare you.

[You Don't Know Me 6]

"These are the two major contributing factors leading to Adam's murder. Regardless of the intent of the man who later confessed to his murder"

You did not say that. You did not just imply that Adam Walsh or any other child gets kidnapped, raped, and murdered and it's the parents fault. ####### is wrong with you? I am sure nothing is wrong with the sick and perverted azzholes who kidnap, rape, and torture little kids.

What the hell. How dare you.

Where did I absolve someone who kidnaps, rapes or tortures a child from responsibility for their actions & decisions? I didn't, all I did was state that had either of these other two choices been made differently then Adam would not have died that day.

I've been a parent for over 17 years, 10 of them a single parent. I am the first line of defense and protection for my children. The government (local, state or federal) can not be as effective protecting them as I can.

Many times my daughters have been annoyed because I have never let them go off alone in a store until they were 12 years old and carrying a cell phone so they could reach me in an instant. I know everyone in my daughters' lives and always speak to their friends' parents before my kids go to their house or anywhere with them.

I'm paranoid when it comes to my children because I know from my own experience as both a child victim and a teen offender just how easy it is for something to happen.

How much facts to you or the general public really know about the reality of Sex Offenses?

True the Stranger Abductions are great headlines for the news but they are in the minority of Sex Crimes against children. In more than 90% of Sex Abuse cases the victim (and their family) know the offender well and in fact consider them a close trusted friend or relative.

I've spent years trying to help educate the public, made television appearances been interviewd for the newspapers and participated in nationally broadcast radio shows. I finally gave-up a few years ago when I realized the most people are afraid of the truth for too many reasons to list here. One of those reasons is the realization that parents are the best place to start when protecting children but it means a lot of dilligence on the parents part. It is so much easier to believe that the government can effectively protect our kids for us.

My daughters' safety is no accident, I accept responsibility for their safety & well-being.

Edited October 9, 2009 by You Don't Know Me

[Angie Y Shane 2]

"Sorry but Adam Walsh was beat". I'm sorry for the victims families but it has nothing to relate too as for immigration. Unfortunately it was brought into this Immigration system by some idiot politician that jumped the gun.

This law has so many unconstitutional quarks in it.

Sex offenders in treatment are painted with the same paint brush just different colors if that makes any since, according to one well know therapist.

My point is this, An Approval is a Victory. Victory is archived by defeat.

I beat Adam Walsh and I'm a sex offender from 13 years ago. Statutory rape was my conviction. A class C felony. I was approved battling this unconstitutional immigration law for almost three years. But it's now over with the right evidence and legal council.

[eagerly 2]

I feel for you. Because I can sense that you know what you are talking about, having the first hand experience of how this ACT affected those who wanted to move on with life, and be happy. Some here freely give their opinions, just for the heck of saying something. Chances are they dont have any children of their own. A mistake is a mistake that one must own up to it. It becomes unforgivable if one tries to make a repetition of such. When God himself allows a person to CHANGE, I feel governement should likewise.

"These are the two major contributing factors leading to Adam's murder. Regardless of the intent of the man who later confessed to his murder"

You did not say that. You did not just imply that Adam Walsh or any other child gets kidnapped, raped, and murdered and it's the parents fault. ####### is wrong with you? I am sure nothing is wrong with the sick and perverted azzholes who kidnap, rape, and torture little kids.

What the hell. How dare you.

Where did I absolve someone who kidnaps, rapes or tortures a child from responsibility for their actions & decisions? I didn't, all I did was state that had either of these other two choices been made differently then Adam would not have died that day.

I've been a parent for over 17 years, 10 of them a single parent. I am the first line of defense and protection for my children. The government (local, state or federal) can not be as effective protecting them as I can.

Many times my daughters have been annoyed because I have never let them go off alone in a store until they were 12 years old and carrying a cell phone so they could reach me in an instant. I know everyone in my daughters' lives and always speak to their friends' parents before my kids go to their house or anywhere with them.

I'm paranoid when it comes to my children because I know from my own experience as both a child victim and a teen offender just how easy it is for something to happen.

How much facts to you or the general public really know about the reality of Sex Offenses?

True the Stranger Abductions are great headlines for the news but they are in the minority of Sex Crimes against children. In more than 90% of Sex Abuse cases the victim (and their family) know the offender well and in fact consider them a close trusted friend or relative.

I've spent years trying to help educate the public, made television appearances been interviewd for the newspapers and participated in nationally broadcast radio shows. I finally gave-up a few years ago when I realized the most people are afraid of the truth for too many reasons to list here. One of those reasons is the realization that parents are the best place to start when protecting children but it means a lot of dilligence on the parents part. It is so much easier to believe that the government can effectively protect our kids for us.

My daughters' safety is no accident, I accept responsibility for their safety & well-being.

[Old Dominion 26]

The Adam-Walsh act is not unconstitutional. Nor are the many state laws that require sex offenders to register for the rest of their life. It is my hunch, after working with child safe environment programs, that fear of these laws keep many molesters from harming someone. Not only that, but police internet sting operations have also been a deterrent. Let's face it, there is nothing unconstitutional about marking an offender for the rest of his/her life. Actions have their consequences. Many go on with their lives and their friendships without incident, except for that cloud over their heads that won't go away.

That said, AW is being carried out more sensitively than it was at first. Some limited standards appear to have been applied to deal with exceptional cases. The law is working, at last.

[Angie Y Shane 2]

The Adam-Walsh act is not unconstitutional. Nor are the many state laws that require sex offenders to register for the rest of their life. It is my hunch, after working with child safe environment programs, that fear of these laws keep many molesters from harming someone. Not only that, but police internet sting operations have also been a deterrent. Let's face it, there is nothing unconstitutional about marking an offender for the rest of his/her life. Actions have their consequences. Many go on with their lives and their friendships without incident, except for that cloud over their heads that won't go away.

That said, AW is being carried out more sensitively than it was at first. Some limited standards appear to have been applied to deal with exceptional cases. The law is working, at last.

Sorry you are incorrect. The act is extreamly uncontitusional ruled by many judges in fact 12 states will not adopt the new act. It's under supream court for being over turned. ACLU is fileing several law suites do to the act. Do may want to know what you are talking about before posting.

[Old Dominion 26]

Adam-Walsh is a federal statute. The states have nothing to do with it, one way or the other. It is not unconstitutional and so far no tests of it have made it to the Supreme Court.

Maybe you are referring to the way some of the states require sex offenders to register? Indeed, some have been ruled unconstitutional but no doubt they will be revised to fit the constitution. Many of our states have laws which stray from our constitutional principles -- usually they are the ones enacted in haste. Various bans on same-sex unions may end up being overturned the same way.

I am a member of the ACLU and keep pretty informed on what it's doing on behalf of individual rights. The ACLU is taking state sex offenders registry requirements and various restrictions on where SOs may live to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Old Dominion

[Angie Y Shane 2]

Adam-Walsh is a federal statute. The states have nothing to do with it, one way or the other. It is not unconstitutional and so far no tests of it have made it to the Supreme Court.

Maybe you are referring to the way some of the states require sex offenders to register? Indeed, some have been ruled unconstitutional but no doubt they will be revised to fit the constitution. Many of our states have laws which stray from our constitutional principles -- usually they are the ones enacted in haste. Various bans on same-sex unions may end up being overturned the same way.

I am a member of the ACLU and keep pretty informed on what it's doing on behalf of individual rights.

I'm also a memeber and I feel strongly from what lawyer's resources given Adam walsh will be a law that will be uplifted. the government is not able to produce the funds for one. Also immigration has it on iy's board agenda to reconsider this Act and may up lift it depending on some certain outcomes, meaning Uncontitutional flaws.

trust me i know I worded my responce back to immigration in regards to my intent to deny underlining my rights. again after three weeks of sending my evidence back, mmmm Approved.

I will respond with the amendments it's violating on my next post.

[Old Dominion 26]

In March 2009, the registry portion of Adam Walsh was ruled to be constitutional. See appellate court opinion: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200812764.pdf

The ACLU's last comment to the U.S. Attorney General on the federal act was almost two years ago. There is no ACLU challenge to the federal law pending anywhere in the federal courts; the organization is fighting some state statutes, particularly Nevada's.

The AWA specifically provides that a convicted SO may be successful in petitioning for a foreign spouse or fiance IF in the sole judgment of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the SO poses no threat to the beneficiary or sub-beneficiaries (minor children). DHS obviously is feeling its way along on that, and some petitions are succeeding.

[Perplexed 0]

I'm feeling the need to jump in here. I understand the emotional investment many have in AWA/SORNA, but the investment really is emotional, not rational, empirical, or logical. The section of AWA that applies to immigration petitions states specifically that anyone charged with a sexual offense against a minor cannot sponsor anyone for immirgation unless he/she can prove rehabilitation or that they are no longer pose a threat. The key word here is MINOR. The law wasn't written to apply to all those convicted of a sexual offense. Be clear about that.

Now to my point. These laws were written and passed more than 15 years ago. Since then, more than 100 empirical studies have been conducted examining their effectiveness at reducing recidivism and preventing sexually based crimes. Interestingly, not one study has found they accomplish either. In the 15 or so years the laws have been in place, there has been no significant reduction in either recidivism or sex crimes. Interestingly, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is the lowest of any class of felon - 3.5% (USDOJ). For those without access to scholary journals, a recent study found here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf. I think also the recent case of the man who held a woman captive for 18 or so years is also a good example of how these laws do not work. He was under the strictest supervision (even GPS monitoring) mandated by SORNA and he recidivated.

Now to the constitutionality of the laws. The original challenge to SORNA was held in Alaska - Smith v Doe case in 2002. The findings - Megan's Law is a regulatory law, not a criminal law, therefore, those bound by the SORNA have no protection from the constitution because the constitution only applies to criminal laws. This is why those challenging things like due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto have lost. There have been a few cases where people have won, but not through the Supreme Court. The regulatory/criminal distinction in these laws is purely semantic. When the law was written, the legislators called it regulatory - a public protection law but the consequences of violating are indeed criminal and more intense than all other regulatory laws and most other criminal laws. No other regulatory law has similar consequences for violating it. As an example, let's say in 2009 legislators changed the penalties for DUI/DWI laws (which are public safety laws). They decided to apply those changes in the same way they apply changes to AWA/SORNA - retroactively. They could then change the sentences of anyone previously convicted of a DUI/DWI. So if in 1997 you were convicted with a DUI/DWI and completed your sentence, these new changes in 2009 could be applied to you and so your original sentence could be changed and you would be bound by the additional penalties defined by this new law. The concept is the same and this is why many continue to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In reality, because these regulatory laws have severe criminal sanctions, they are criminal, not regulatory. Legally, however, because the word "regulatory" is in the text of the bills, they aren't criminal.

Finally, there was no evidence that Adam Walsh was raped and therefore, the police concluded it was a homicide, not a rape case. I do agree that if he hadn't been left alone in a shopping mall that he wouldn't have been kidnapped, but I think that's obvious. Would he have been abducted if his Mom was by his side? I'm not trying to be disrespectful or lay blame, just stating a fact. Interestingly, just last December, a man who died 10 years ago was identified as his murderer, without any hard evidence it was true.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Perplexed