Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act/Archive 1

NPOV Material, and Comstock Ruling
A review of the article reveals issues with grammar, construction, and NPOV issues that need to be addressed. I made a minor change, but and marking the page for other editors to repair and assist with before I do anymore editing to ensure all opinions are heard. SemperDoctus (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair?
The second paragraph of this article has a sentence fragment, which refers to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair "sheperding" the bill through the US Senate. I assume this was referring to Sen. Arlen Specter, who was the committee chair at the end of the last Congress, when the bill passed the Senate. But was he a sponsor of the bill? What role did he play? Seems we should fill out this sentence or remove it entirely.


 * I removed the sentence fragment ("who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and shepherded the bill through the US Senate.") before reading the entry above by Ipsedixit. In any case, the sentence fragment should be removed until the information is clarified.  The paragraph is also somewhat confusing as it states that the bill was sponsored by Sensenbrenner and then says that Foley originally introduced the bill.  Is there a difference between being "the sponsor" and being "the original introducer?" Kriegman 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Minors affected by the law
I edited the part in the introduction about Tier 1 offenders including minors as young as 14 to clarify that such classifications only apply to juveniles tried as adults. The only juveniles tried as a juveniles to be put on the registry are those who commit a Tier 3 offense. See Section 111(8) of the Act. In fact, I think it's a bit misleading to even include here, so if no one objects soon (and I remember) I'll take that part out of the introduction and include it in the main body somewhere to talk about how juveniles are treated under the law. biggins (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and done. biggins (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing.
I have just read the guideline on Canvassing. Can someone explain how Flyer22's alerts to specific editors, referring to edits as "problematic," does not count as canvassing? Her requests for input do not seem at all neutrally worded.Noterie (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for further proving to me that you are not new to editing Wikipedia. A new editor "just happened" to come upon the WP:Canvassing guideline? I doubt it. And you read that guideline wrong anyway. I contacted three editors, three editors who work in sexual topics and have experience with situations such as the one I contacted them about. Contacting such editors in that way, especially when there is a likely WP:Sockpuppet issue going on, is perfectly allowed by WP:Canvass. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Moreover...
Now would somebody explain why MONGO's deletion of the compliance section is okay, but my simply ordering the section got reverted?Noterie (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't add much to the article.--MONGO 21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking the discussion here as MONGO suggested. What was the problem with the last edit of mine you reverted? If it was "Treatment professionals such as ATSA generally criticize the lack of evidence supporting effectiveness of the laws...", I didn't mean to imply that majority of treatment professionals are criticizing the law (even though at least considerable minority might be). I tried to imply that majority of the criticism from professionals such as ATSA is aimed at the aspects I listed. Please rewrite it correctly if you wish. I'm not native english speaker, so I'm not sure if it came out the way I intended. Other than that, I honestly can't see the problem. It was pretty restrained edit in length, merely briefly describing few notable parties presenting the critique as well as their main points with references. I'm ok with reverts other users have made since my edits admittedly had some balancing/POV issues. This one I don't get at all. If you bothered to read trough the two ATSA's opinions you will see they are well sourced and coherent text covering their position on these matters, which would warrant more elaborate coverage in this article than just 1-2 sentences. The rest was pretty well sourced as well. I'm deliberately trying to take baby steps when adding coverage on criticism, since that's what I was told to do by more experienced editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex_offender But if that was too much then I guess there is no room for criticism and I don't have much to contribute :/ --ViperFace (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's post "diff" and wait a few days for feedback. I'm concerned that we may be facing a give an inch but it will become a mile situation, so I reverted to allow discussion to proceed.--MONGO 21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Sounds fair enough. There will be need for broader discussion if criticism is to be covered in more depth, in order to keep the balance. What I edited today was more like opening for further elaboration, if it is ever to be had. Anyway, I think I managed to cover the criticism broadly enough to survive as a stand-alone if further coverage on criticism is considered to mess up the balance. Will you revert it back if no one objects or do I have to do something for it? --ViperFace (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide copies of publications on the topic, for folks who are interested. FWIW, the research and professional literature on the topic is indeed very negative about the effects of the Adam Walsh and related laws (registration, community notification, etc.).  I have to agree that the lack of discussion of the professional consensus on the topic is rather a glaring omission of the article, IMO.— James Cantor (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we sure wouldn't want convicted sex offenders to be inconvenienced would we James. You'd be happy to provide...of that I have no doubt.--MONGO 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am simply relating that the research and professional organizations are essentially unanimous in indicating that these laws are not having the intended effects, and that they may even be making the problem worse. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but your comment is making me concerned about your ability to keep your biases out of your edits. — James Cantor (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise James. Since you have previously self (I assume) recused from similar topic areas, my guess is your POV would be pretty strong on this matter and slanted in a specific direction. It would be extremely hard pressed to expect you to be neutral on this subject.--MONGO 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

After Mongos latest post I'm not at all convinced that he is suitable to act as one of the "watch dogs" for articles related to this subject. After all James is someone with more professional insight than any one of us. ViperFace (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Curb your enthusiasm
Wow, some big changes made here, a lot of edits, by a number of editors -- an anon IP and two different named editors, who may or may not be the same person. Anyway, just looking at the lede paragraph, here's how it was before:
 * The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal statute that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. The Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three tiers and mandates that Tier 3 offenders (the most serious tier) update their whereabouts every three months with lifetime registration requirements. Tier 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every six months with 25 years of registration, and Tier 1 offenders must update their whereabouts every year with 15 years of registration. Failure to register and update information is a felony under the law.

And here's the proposed new lede paragraph:
 * The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal statute that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. By threatening the removal of federal financial support, it pushed states to enact several actions including sex offender registries and the establishment of civil commitment provisions. Many civil rights groups and professional societies objected to the Act, and multiple research studies have indicated that the Act fails to make society safer and may instead be making sex offender problems worse.

Erm.... I like the first version. This is more what what we're about for articles: describing what an entity is. Deciding whether the entity is good or bad is something I'd rather leave to the reader, and the proposed new lede impinges a little too much on the reader's responsibility for my taste. This is done by the use of "pushes" states as well as the multiple research studies and so forth. In the lede, a good rule is: just the facts, please.

Based on this, I'm skeptical of this whole "rewrite the article" project proposed by the editors (or editor, whatever), so I've rolled back these recent changes per WP:BRD. Let's work through this together, one small proposed improvement at a time, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not that critique of the Act is unwarranted, it just the entire tone is being altered to make the Act appear like an inherently bad thing.--MONGO 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the second version. The intro section should summarize the important points.  The tiers are a trivial detail.  That many major civil rights and professional groups object to it, however, is centrally important.  Go to "scholar.google" and search for "Adam Walsh Act."  Almost every one of the top 10 hits is a severe criticism of the act. If there is a bias here, it is the suppression of the criticism.  Noterie (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But it's inherently a political question. Looking at Google Books instead, I get a more mixed result, and the sixth result is from a book title "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US", which I think is probably about right. I mean, all laws are blunt instruments. There is no law -- none -- which does not both ensnare inoffensive (and even innocent) people while letting bad guys off. That is the nature of laws. The question is in what direction you want to skew that, and that's a matter of opinion, a political question. If the American people want to take the stance that they're willing to live with with fallout from having broad and draconian laws in this area -- and it looks like they are, AFAIK this law is reasonably popular -- in return for whatever benefit they convey, even if its only a symbolic benefit, you can't tell them that they are objectively wrong.


 * The effect -- and intent -- of the new lede was to say more or less "Here is a thing called the Adam Walsh Act, and it sucks". Relax, will you? If it really does suck than any sufficiently interested and intelligent reader will come to the same conclusion that you have, right? And if they're not interested or intelligent you can't make them be. Trust the reader, will you? Let the reader decide for herself how she feels about the entity. Let's not forcefeed opinions to the reader.


 * I'm not saying criticism shouldn't be in thar article -- of course it should be -- but let's use a lighter hand here. And the lede should be just descriptive. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to inform: "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US" is Human Rights Watch report and it is absolutely very critical.--ViperFace (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am relaxed. I am merely registering my agreement that the content of the article fails to reflect the professional literature. In addition to what I had read already (I am preparing for a court case), I have now gone through the first six pages (i.e., 60 scholar google hits), and have yet to find a positive evaluation of the Adam Walsh Act. As I said already, the wikipedia article does not resemble the professional consensus. If anything, it is actively ignoring professional consensus.

If not descriptive of the professional sources, exactly what should the lede be describing? As I search for examples on Wikipedia, the Global warming article discusses the professional consensus about it, not just 50/50 description of what the term means. The Evolution article describes what professional scientists say about it, not a 50/50 description of what the pro/anti groups each describe.Noterie (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But it is a law. AFAIK the main source of "professional literature" on a law is from the legal profession, on matters such as whether the law is constitutional and how the various provisions are to be interpreted by the courts and so forth. There are lots of laws that academics don't like, such as tax laws that academic economists don't like and regulatory laws that academic business professors don't like and so on, and it's fine to include some mention of that somewhere in those articles at a reasonable level of detail.


 * Exactly what should the lede be describing? It should be describing the entity. "Here is a law. Here is what it is named. Here is when it was passed and by whom. Here's why. Here are the provisions: if you do such-and-such, then such-and-such will be done to you, and so forth". Seems reasonable to me.


 * There's a Criticism section and there should be, and it'd be fine to work on that. The ex post facto angle is interesting and I'd like see some good refs for that, and so on. I don't have a problem with an article that ends with the reader questioning the law, if that's called for and depending on her predelictions and so forth.


 * But I dunno about bringing in the climate change model to point where want to be leading with "Here's a law, it's a horrible law and everyone now realizes this". But maybe. If it's true. I'm skeptical that you can prove prove that, just as it'd be very hard to prove that the PATRIOT Act or the Clean Air Act or whatever is objectively horrible because to some extent it hinges on what you want laws to be and do. But maybe you can. If you can point to sources saying "Forty Federal Circuit Court judges (or Ivy League law professors or whatever) were surveyed and 38 said its a bad law" or "The last five United States Attorneys General are on record as saying its a bad law" and so on. So you need some meta-criticism I would think to go to the climate-change level of criticism of this entity.


 * That's my take and I'd be interested in other views. Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms ARE from the legal profession. I already referred to the top 10 scholar.google hits on the Adam Walsh Act. Those top 10 hits are from: Washburn Law Journal, Criminal Justice Policy Review, Utah Law Review, Public Law, George Washington Law Review, Boston University Law Review, Catholic University Law Review, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, ... All negative. All from the legal profession. Opposition from the American Bar Association: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/poladv/letters/crimlaw/2007apr30_adamwalsh_l.authcheckdam.pdf

You're not blocking someone from expressing some personal opinion (that it's a bad law). You're blocking the obvious professional consensus (which in this case is uniformly negative). (This doesn't even start with the formal studies examining the effects of AWA, which also are overwhelming negative.)

You referred to the Patriot Act. The criticisms of the patriot act DO appear in the intro to that page, and comprise about a 1/3 of the intro.Noterie (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to side with Noterie on this one. The professional criticism is under-presented IMO, but I'm not sure which lede is better keeping neutrality in mind. Beyond the criticism from legal field there is also that of the treatment professionals. To the objectivity question raised by Herostratus and whether it can be proved that the law is horrible: Yes I it is a law and it is political question, but there is a objectively measurable metrics to judge the effectivity of these laws, that is, impact on the rate of recidivism. The rationale was to make regulatory rules that would decrease the rate of recidivism, not to punish (at leas that was the official explanation and that's why constitution is not on the way when new rules keep on piling up). The main premise used as an argument for the law was assumed very high risk of re-offending. There seems to be no evidence that recidivism is affected by the laws, the results are mixed. Also the high-risk of re-offense assumed on all offenders has been shown to be untrue, although some offender groups are known to pose considerably high risk. According to ATSA the few states applying risk-assessment tools and enforcing the laws on only those deemed to pose high-risk, have shown some statistically significant positive impact of reducing recidivism, but federal government is pressuring those states to comply with AWA and abandon risk-based approach. ATSA does not support this. If the law fails to demonstrate effectiveness and in addition has very adverse effects on peoples life (admittedly of which many are not very sympathetic), it is a bad law, even more so when it raises human right issues. ATSA also fears that some aspects might even increase the recidivism due to instability brought to offenders lives. This is heavy critique presented by those who have done their life's work on this field, and even some high level victim advocates are telling that maybe someone should listen what the professionals have to say. I think there should be at least some kind of mention on lead of the criticism and it should be elaborated more in criticism section, if it can be included in this article, although I recognize that we won't ever be able to cever that much of criticism this subject would warrant in my opinion, unless there can be a separate article covering criticism. Of course it can't be stated that this is a bad law, but the aspects of the laws and professional views on it should be covered, so that the readers can think for themselves. Like Notarie pointed out, there is relatively much criticism in articles covering other laws. Anyway, it's very positive sign that we are having this discussion and will hopefully find some balanced solution. These are my thoughts. --ViperFace (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)