New Sex Offender Law In Effect

Well, 22 states will not come into compliance. What does that tell you about the Adam Walsh Amendment?

It's an ineffective law that actually "does more harm than good."

It is a law that actually "endangers children and our entire society."

It is NOT "Evidenced based" it criminalizes our youth and ruins their lives FOREVER!

SEE: Studies http://tinyurl.com/ns36qu

Listen to Congressman Bobby Scott http://tinyurl.com/yljz7gq

The general public needs to be aware that the statute dealing with provisions prohibit sex offenders from using social networking sites and installing hardware WAS NOT under the Sex Offender Registration Act. It is a statute in itself outside the SOR law. The SOR law is statutes 29-4001 through 29-4013. The social networking statute is 28-322.05 which was supported by the AG's office in LB97. The patrol submitted LB285 which focused on registration, no prohibitions.

Well, this should be a tremendous boon to the school-room bully. Instead of announcing to the class that Polly is a dork and a loser, he can announce that Polly's daddy is a sex offender. Of course the reason he is a sex offender, that he and Polly's mom had sex before they were married when she was only 15, will never be known. I suppose that would be a small enough price to pay--except maybe for Polly--if anything good could possibly come from this horrible invasion of privacy and legalized slander, but all evidence is to the contrary. Justice Department studies show that the vast majority--over 90%-- of people on sex offender registries never harmed a child or a woman or committed any violent act; they did foolish and stupid things; they are no danger to anyone. What possible benefit can come from the public in general knowing who they are and where they live? Justice Department studies also show that these sorts of laws and "public warnings" have not prevented any assaults against children or anyone else. There is NO justification for this action. We must return to the registry containing only the names of sexually violent rapists and child molesters, which was its original intent, and quit persecuting and publicly humiliating everyone else.

When Judge Kopf decided to make the Nebraska Sex Registry all-inclusive, adding non-violent, non-contact sex offenders, he did not consider these facts take from the Justice Policy Institute and other studies…

1. Nebraska can expect to incur significant costs if the state implements the Adam Walsh Act. 2010 estimated costs = $2,979,281, Bryne contribution of 10% funding = Nebraska can expect only $128,000.

2. “The chief probation officer in an Arizona county said, "Lawmakers have no idea the kind of burden they put on law enforcement when they increase the number of offenders who must register."

3. "The expansion of state sex offender registries to include more offenses and longer registration periods has really compromised our ability to monitor high-risk sex offenders."

4. Registering people for consensual, nonviolent, and statutory offenses and activities overloads the registry and distracts law enforcement and the public.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 5.3 of sex offenders (On the registry) released from prison reoffend.

6. Most people who commit sex offenses are first time offender… In other words, they are not even on the registry and could, therefore, never be considered a threat.

This law is about to be voted on here in Virginia, as well as other states. The following is a form letter that can be sent to your representative.

Dear Representative,

I am asking you to thoughtfully consider the ex post facto impact of several bills that have been proposed this legislative session.

These bills affect individuals in our community and our church. We'll refer to"John Doe" below, but please feel free to contact us for specifics of how the proposed bills translate into the real world for this individual.

Please vote NO on these bills until a better thought-out solution can be constructed:

HB1004 – Though John Doe has lived peacefully among his neighbors for years, a bus stop happens to be within 500 feet of his home. If HB1004 passes, he will be forced to leave his home, separate from his family, or relocate his whole family to a remote location without a bus stop near the property line.
HB1366 – My church runs a preschool facility during the week. John Doe attends services on Sundays and leads classes at the church on weeknights. HB1366 would prevent him from attending church.

HB172 – This bill removes an effective date, which overtly applies it retroactively, even for those who have completed their sentences.

HB227 – This doesn't address the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling in 2009 that the law is flawed. Regardless of what the court finds and orders, only the school board can decide these things, the Supreme Court ruled. So this bill makes no sense, and only adds ex post facto hurdles for those trying to move on with their lives.

HB912 – This appears to be preparing for the widespread homelessness that will result should HB1004 pass as written.

HB919 – Using wording such as "forever" in legislation disregards the specifics of individual cases and seals off any chance for a redemptive path.

HB23 – Layers of new rules and regulations imposed retroactively add peril for those who have long ago completed the terms of their sentences. This legislation takes something that is legal and criminalizes it for a subset of society.

I am troubled by bills that add probation/parole-like conditions that would be applied ex post facto, years after release from probation or parole.

Please consider the documented case of "John Doe." He was convicted more than 10 years ago as a non-violent offender. New laws were retroactively applied several years after his conviction, and he was reclassified as a violent offender. Though the facts of his case strongly indicated a situational, non-violent event, this was never considered in the backward-sweep of the legislation.

John Doe successfully followed a relief process outlined in Virginia law to be removed from the sex offender registry. Because a panel appointed by the court determined that John Doe possessed zero [0] risk factors of offending—in any way—in the community, a Circuit Court ordered him removed from the sex offender registry. He was, in fact, removed.

The law allowing John Doe this relief was also changed and retroactively applied, placing him back on the offender registry.

John Doe also followed new laws to required him obtain a court order to meet with his child's teachers and attend school events. The court determined there was no reason he should not be allowed on school property, and outlined a protocol for him to follow. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled last year that, despite following the letter of the law, the school board could overrule the Circuit Court decision. It cost him $5,000, and a school year of missed events, to follow a law that was unenforceable.

All this constantly-changing, after-the-fact legislation makes it tremendously difficult for this man to move on with his life. There is a paucity of contextual information posted on the State Police website, and anyone seeing it would assume John Doe was a dangerous, violent sex offender, which he clearly is not. Adding further reporting requirements so many years later only exacerbates the challenge of his good-faith attempts to move on with his life.

How you vote this legislative season can make a tremendous difference for hundreds like John Doe seeking redemptive accountability. We challenge you to craft intelligent legislation that offers a redemptive path. This will not be easy, but for the sake of the Commonwealth and the future of those accounting for past mistakes, your thoughtful stance on bills like those above will have a lasting, measurable impact.

Please feel free to contact me at the address above for more specific information.

I just want to know what level.
I want to know who had consentual sex with an underage teen or who likes babies. I don't think a life should be ruined for teen sex. To me there is a big difference. We want to know who the baby pluckers are. Is that blunt enough?