September 11, 2008

NV- Mixed reactions to overturned sex offender law

Excellent Video Commentary to follow.

9-11-2008 Nevada:

A law that would have changed the way sex offenders are classified has been tossed out by a federal judge. But some may be applauding this decision. News 3's Anita Roman explains why the law won't hold up.

Nevada will not follow the national Adam Walsh Act, which requires all sex offenders to register their status. Currently, only tier three offenders are forced to register because they are the most likely to re-offend. Tier one and tier two offenders do not.

After hearing about the decision, the local Rape Crisis Center surprisingly supported the judge's ruling.

The Rape Crisis Center in Las Vegas helped 750 rape victims last year. Executive Director Lu Torres has some strong feelings about the laws that protect sexual assault victims. Her feelings toward the Adam Walsh Act, however, were mixed.

"I think that a victim is a victim all of his or her life, so I think an offender should be an offender all of his or her life," says Torress. "If all the tier one and tier two offenders are put to tier three, I really believe that some of the hard-core, high-risk offenders are going to slip through the cracks and be able to re-offend."

A federal judge ruled that changes to Nevada's sex offender law are unconstitutional. The changes would have grouped all of the offenders together so that, no matter how minor the offense, everyone convicted would have to register as a sex offender, dating all the way back to 1956.

Cameron Wolter was convicted 22 years ago. "My offense was with an adult. She said it wasn't consensual after the fact." Camerson says he obeyed all of the registration rules, yet was afraid that the new law would cost him again.

The ACLU agrees, and that's why it brought the lawsuit against the state of Nevada.

"I think the court recognized that the state of Nevada is safer under the old statutory scheme because it does provide an assessment of each individual law," explains Robert Langford with the ACLU. "We need to go back on the table and really think about re-victimization. And also, do we set ourselves up for failure by putting a law that they all become tier three - and parole and probation could not possibly keep up with it?"

Because these changes are not going to be implemented, Nevada could lose about $300,000 in Justice Department grants. It's possible that the federal government will appeal the ruling or try to pass the laws again.

The state Attorney General's office says it's disappointed by the court's ruling and will review its options to protect Nevadans. ..News Source.. by News3.com

1 comment:

Magister said...

That is an excellent video. Thank God some people are using common sense. Even those who do not listen to the experts can weigh the pro's and con's of the consequences of an action and see that those consequences often cause more harm than good.
Thumbs up for the thinking people of Nevada!