Waco council on Sex Offender Treatment is against the Adam Walsh Act

We must remember that the Adam Walsh Act was conceived BEHIND CLOSED DOORS with a Bush appointed Secret Service agent in the midst of that tiny group of lawmakers, and other lawmakers were prevented from voicing their opinions, by use of "Suspension of the Rules" trickery when such a bill is not intended to be heard by suspending the rules. The aim of a law crafted like that, is not truthfulness, its control plain and simple, the classification system is one designed to harm registrants and prevent them from letting the public know the truth about registrants. Strange, people do change as they mature, we all know that, but this classification system, says NO they don't! Truth or Fiction? What is the aim of AWA's classification system? There are some who see the truth...

10-7-2010 Texas:

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. ..Source.. Katelin Kelly - Reporter