CA- Not every sex offender is Phillip Garrido

Sometimes Journalists get the concept right, other times they need to do a bit more research. Here is something for everyone to chew on: Below suggests combining the laws mentioned into one massive law. While that may sound good it ignores the 10th Amendment, states do not have to follow.

However, here is something bigger, see his mention of "Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act," do folks realize that has been repealed by the Adam Walsh Act?

But when was that repealed? Thats the real question, here is what AWA says (NoteL 14071, 14072, and 14073 are "Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (JWA)":

Adam Walsh Act:
SEC. 129. REPEAL OF PREDECESSOR SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal- Sections 170101 (42 U.S.C. 14071) and 170102 (42 U.S.C. 14072) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and section 8 of the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 14073), are repealed.

(b) Effective Date- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this section shall take effect on the date of the deadline determined in accordance with section 124(a).

SEC. 124. PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY JURISDICTIONS.
(a) Deadline- Each jurisdiction shall implement this title before the later of--
(1) 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) 1 year after the date on which the software described in section 123 is available.
(b) Extensions- The Attorney General may authorize up to two 1-year extensions of the deadline.

UPDATED: Viewers commented and are likely correct.

Preface:
Congress enacted the Jacob Wettering Act and issued Guidelines. Those Guidelines were for State legislators telling them to conform their laws to the Federal Guidelines. The Federal Guidelines were codified in Title 42 Sections 14071, 14072 and 14073. States then enacted laws to conform. Remember this!


Jump forward in time, the 2006 Adam Walsh (the new law) now says: When a state implements AWA, then immediately, the former Federal law that authorized existing State sex offender laws, no longer authorizes those state laws (Remember, those laws were enacted pursuant to that federal law mow repealed by AWA. i.e., 42 14071, 14072 and 14073 federal codification of Jacob Wettering Act)

For some time now, states have been claiming to make changes to their laws based on the requirements of AWA. ex: Ohio, Nevada, and many others. But, in states that have enacted AWA the former state laws are gone, zip zilch, but I have seen folks being prosecuted under those repealed laws.

Further, if a state implemented AWA only to have that implementation declared unconstitutional in federal court. Then how do we read that, there is no sex offender registration in that state at all? Think about it, once a state implements AWA changes, then automatically the former law is repealed (according to AWA). So technically, there is no sex offender registration law there.

So we are left with this question, when are former state sex offender laws repealed: A) When the state implements ANY PORTION of AWA; -OR- B) When the state FULLY implements AWA?

Either way, there are registrants being prosecuted, and possibly under repealed laws.

Finally, given every state had a sex offender registration law implemented under JWA, and every state implemented laws collaterally attached to their version of JWA (i.e., residency laws, proximity laws, etc etc etc.), does AWA repeal them as well?

Anyone, anyone, anyone? Think hard before blowing your top, I have!!!!!!

9-6-2009 California:

As we all know, Phillip Garrido was on the California Sex Offender Registry, but got away with holding Jaycee Lee Dugard hostage for 18 years in a makeshift tent and shed village in his backyard. Although the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which oversees probation officers, and the various police departments involved with this case. A search of Contra Costa county brought up listings for 933 sex offenders, 122 of which list Antioch, California as home. With that many sex offenders in such a small area, each of their yards can't be searched thoroughly and completely for the sake of time.

Laurie Essig said it best in her article "Why harsh sex offender laws made Garrido's crimes easier to commit" when she said "The harsher the laws get, the more people who are caught in the ever-expanding net of offenses, the easier it is for the real child abusers to go undetected," meaning too much law enforcement time is being spent on keeping an eye on streakers, public urinators, and teenagers having consensual sex.

In her article, she quoted a Human Rights Watch report, which read "at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers."

The men visiting prostitutes requirement is a little silly. Sure, they're breaking the law. Solicitation of prostitution is a crime. But, I don't think they're sex offenders. Encouraging them to patronize a prostitute would prevent them from trying to force someone to have sex with them later. Urinating in public is not a sex crime; therefore, someone who urinates in public shouldn't be considered a sex offender. Now, if the two states that force you to register as a sex offender if you urinate in public in front of children has Crimes Against Children registries, I would understand, but even then it gets a little hazy.

Five laws exist regarding sex offender registries:

* Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
* Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act
* Jessica Lunsford Act
* Jessica's Law
* Megan's Law

All of these laws should be combined into one to produce one cohesive piece of legislation that would be written into national law.

We need to fight sex offenders smarter, not harder. Reform is needed to clear out the registries, and fill them with real offenders. Each registry should have three sections where you can determine what level of offender you would want to search for, whether it be low, moderate, or high level. Yet, all of them would be looked at the same way because they're called the same thing: sex offender. ..Source.. by Allen Glines