3-19-2011; 3-21-2011 National:
Most folks know I have tried to document what had actually happened -eons ago- which ultimately led to the Morphism of the Adam Walsh Act (my earlier work covering Congress in 2006). Now I have found more to add to the Morphism work, but this predates that work, this is based on hearings held in 2005. My findings will be presented in 3-Parts. This is due to the amount of information that has been uncovered, and even now it is like a book with multiple chapters; no way to condense.
Further, this documents what happened in 2005, and the beliefs of those in Congress at that time. Whether or not what they did was good, bad, based on valid or invalid evidence or beliefs, is not the issue, the point is singular: This is Congressional thinking, in 2005! And one can never forget, there were little children killed and that acts as a call to action.
Most noteable comment from Part-1: "This bill will turn the tables, and make prey out of these predators." Quoting Mark Foley. (In Part-1 there is mention of the Congressional Mark Foley scandal) With that said, onto part 1:The Adam Walsh Act: Before Its Inception - Part-1 (109–30)
Prior to the Adam Walsh Act, in 2005, there were hearings held by Congress to gather information which would lead to new laws governing the nations' former sex offenders. The first hearing was held on June 9, 2005 and the witnesses are shown below (with direct links to their Oral Testimony).
Now, you can read their oral testimony, without my comments by using the links below, or you can see same with Highlights (in Yellow) on noteable portions and my Comments (in Green) in response, showing where they were -somehow incorrect or based on an erroneous belief- or -where time has proven them wrong-. Please note, I did not comment on every line of their testimony, just where something was questionable. CLICK HERE for Part-1.
Also note, that Rep. Bobby Scott was involved in all hearings and to see HIGHLIGHTS of his comments, you must CLICK HERE for Part-1. These hearings are alleged to be the evidence showing the need for a law such as the Adam Walsh Act.
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark Foley,
a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida:
Oral Testimony 6 ; Prepared Statement 7;
The Honorable Ted Poe,
a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas:
Oral Testimony . 9; Prepared Statement . 10;
The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite,
a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida:
Oral Testimony . 11; Prepared Statement . 12;
The Honorable Earl Pomeroy,
a Representative in Congress From the State of North Dakota:
Oral Testimony . 13;
Most noteable comment from Part-2: "Pedophilia is a condition, to give an example, in which persons are sexually attracted to young children. If the only thing we do is punish these individuals, there’s nothing about being in prison that can either erase those attractions or enhance their capacity to successfully resist acting upon them.." Quoting Dr. Fred Berlin. With that said, onto part 2:The Adam Walsh Act: Before Its Inception - Part-2 (109–31)
Now, you can read their oral testimony, without my comments by using the links below, or you can see same with Highlights (in Yellow) on noteable portions and my Comments (in Green) in response, showing where they were -somehow incorrect or based on an erroneous belief- or -where time has proven them wrong-. Please note, I did not comment on every line of their testimony, just where something was questionable. CLICK HERE for Part-2.
Also note, that Rep. Bobby Scott was involved in all hearings and to see HIGHLIGHTS of his comments, you must CLICK HERE for Part-2. These hearings are alleged to be the evidence showing the need for a law such as the Adam Walsh Act.
WITNESSES
Ms. Tracy Henke,
Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice:
Oral Testimony 4; Prepared Statement 7;
Mr. Ernie Allen,
President & CEO, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:
Oral Testimony 14; Prepared Statement 15;
Ms. Amie Zyla, Student, Waukesha, Wisconsin:
Oral Testimony 19; Prepared Statement 20;
Mr. Fred Berlin, M.D.,
Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University:
Oral Testimony 21;
When I finish Part 3, this post will be updated with that information.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
The NCMEC and it's head have a major conflict of interest here. That organization gets tens of millions of taxpayer dollars EACH and every year from the Feds. While, no one denies there are some dangerous and predatory people in the world, not all (now 700,000 plus) are. However, the powers that be seem to miss this point completely. Also, of course, there is no mention of the children who get placed on these registries too. Yes, a nation can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable-children. Oh, and the reason for the transience, which may come as a shocker to these pinhead lawmakers is that these laws, especially the Jessica Lunsford Act, literally force these people to live a nomadic lifestyle making them harder to track. Isn't tracking and monitoring the same as community supervision-which is, well established, to be PUNISHMENT? Lastly, let us not ever forget the legacy Mr.Foley left behind and how he himself managed to escape registration for his own pedophelic tendencies.
ReplyDeletePlease remember that Mark Foley was found sexting his aids.
ReplyDeleteThere were even fewer new convictions as we would expect, only 5 percent, and if that looks low to you, that number actually corresponds very closely with other research that has been done in South Carolina that was funded by the Bureau of Justice in a follow-up study to the three-year recidivism follow-up rate of all rapists and all child molesters. They found similarly low recidivism rates, as have recent reviews of national data.
ReplyDeleteSo, when you're looking at people, not people who are referred for treatment but if you are just looking at folks who have been arrested and convicted of sex crimes, their recidivism rates are low, and so that's actually not surprising. In any event, registration status was not a significant predictor of new sex crime convictions.
All of the predictors in our model predicted violent recidivism, except registration status and the same with nonviolent offense charges, and so we concluded a couple of things. Sexual recidivism was a rare event, and SORN did not influence it, and SORN did not influence any other type of recidivism either.
SOURCE: http://nij.ncjrs.gov/multimedia/transcripts/trans-audio-nijconf2010-sex-offenders.htm
Megan's Law Recidivism -Impact/NON Impact
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pagoppolicy.com/Display/SiteFiles/112/Hearings/8_17_10/Defenders_Association_Testimony_8_17_10.pdf
http://recidivism.samcaldwell.net/
ReplyDeleteThe collection of recidivism data presented here ignores many of the controversial academic studies that have been branded as "liberal" by advocates of sex offender legislation. The only studies included in this project are those studies specifically authorized by state legislatures, state departments of corrections, the US Department of Justice or other official source. The sex offender recidivism rates presented here identify the rate at which persons with a prior sex offense are convicted of a new sex crime. Where there is no re-conviction study available, re-arrest studies are considered.
It is important to note that some of these studies may consider the charge "failure to register as a sex offender" or similar offense as a "new sex offense," though this is increasingly seen as a flawed approach to measuring sex offender recidivism. For example, the sex offender recidivism statistics for the state of Connecticut have historically considered a sex offender's failure to register with law enforcement under the state's registration laws to be a 'new sex offense.' Recently this issue has been identified and it appears that future studies will discontinue this practice.
Sex Offender Recidivism Data (1983-2010) for 50 U.S. States and Federal System