The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law on July 27th, 2006 by President George W. Bush with the intention of keeping tabs on sexual offenders. The Adam Walsh Act organizes offenders into 3 tiers. Tier 3, the most serious tier, mandates that offenders update their whereabouts every 3 months, with lifetime registration requirements. Tier 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every 6 months, with 25 years of registrations. Tier 1 offenders must update there whereabouts every year for 15 years. Failure to register and update information is a felony under law.
States had until last week to be submit a compliance plan, in order to avoid receiving a 10% decrease in federal justice assistance funding. Most states have found it be difficult to be in strict compliance with the law, but the process does include that being “substantially compliant” may be sufficient.
The ultimate focus for any law should be directed towards preventing more victims by reducing recidivism among offenders, which the Adam Walsh Act doesn’t really provide. There continues to be a tension between the good intentions of the Act to better inform community members of potential dangers vs. the reality of whether these kinds of notification have a long-term benefit. On one hand, it would be nice as a parent to know where the offenders are living, but on the other hand does it ensure community safety? This tension has been most evident when planning for how to comply with the Act as it relates to youthful offenders. An article on CNN, Alisa Klein, Public Policy Consultant for the Association of the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and coauthor of the report, “A Reasoned Approach: Reshaping Sex Offender Policy to Prevent Child Sex Abuse”, said “that public notification creates barriers to successful sex offender management and treatment and supervision….offenders reentering the community need strong support to prevent them from reoffending through family, faith communities, and a steady job.” Going on a public registry would do the exact opposite. A stigma would be attached to the offenders and prevent employment, prevent them from living with families, get them thrown out of faith communities; it has the consequence of putting someone in an emotional state that may make them more likely to reoffend, she said.
Another criticism of the act is that it uses an offense-based registration approach instead of using an approach based on risk-assessment. States like California and Texas already use a risk-assessment approach because they agree that that truly dangerous offenders like pedophilias and rapists should be heavily watched, but the act does the opposite. By using the offense-based approach it pulls too many offenders onto the registry and overburdens law enforcers, preventing them from keeping a close eye on the riskiest offenders.
Imposing public reporting and/or a lengthy reporting period on a youth before their brain is fully developed doesn’t make sense. We know that youth respond better to rehabilitation versus incarceration, and if the latter happens we know that there is a higher chance of recidivism, which makes our communities less safe. If we know this why make it a mandate to put kids on a registry? Since taking over beginning in 2009, the Obama Administration demonstrated a willingness to be more flexible in reviewing state’s compliance plans (Wisconsin’s was submitted about 10 days ago) and to be more proactive in looking at what works when confirming if states are or are not compliant with the law.
And, simple economics is playing a role, as more states are having trouble finding the resources to really be compliant. For many states, it may cost more to be fully compliant with the new law compared to the 10% decrease in justice funding they would lose. In an article on the Bangor Daily News website, “Maine one of many states failing to comply with federal sex offender laws” reported that Maine would be one of the states that would actually save money by not being compliant with the law. Representative Ann Haskell said that “I understand that a percentage of grant money could be withheld, but full compliance would be much more expensive for Maine.”
As of July 28th, 14 States, 9 tribes, and one territory have implemented the new requirements, WI not being one of them. Wisconsin’s plan does include some reasonable flexibility in how youthful offenders are treated, so time will tell whether it will be approved.
by Allan Goetsch
