Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act/Archive 4

RS's on this continue to mount...and continue to be missing from the page.
I have already expressed my view that RS's discussing problems with the law should appear on the mainpage. Despite that such information is not to the taste of a minority of editors here, the RS's themselves continue to mount, with the very groups that passed the law pointing out its flaws and calling for changing it:


 * http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/bill-would-repeal-adam-walsh-sex-offender-act-nevada

That the WP page on that very law contains no such information (again, due to a minority of page OWNers) is not very encyclopedic. — James Cantor (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How can the owners be a "minority"? That makes no more sense than your other POV pushing agenda.--MONGO 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, by WP policy and by math. For policy: read WP:Multiple-editor ownership. Also, from WP:OWN: "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it."  The OWN behavior is clear: The OWNers cite no RSs, cite no policy, make editorial suggestions that are clearly counter to policy (such as POVFORKing), offer no compromises, and repeatedly post name-calling and other ad hominems.  For math: A minority of the editors who expressed an opinion want to exclude from the mainpage all of the (rather overwhelming number of) RSs evaluating AWA.  Initially, some editors mistook edits to be potential violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT, but as the number of very high quality RSs continued to mount, those initial editors changed their minds, except for a few.  They are clearly fewer than a majority, but they are more than a single person, so seem enough for claiming that there is no consensus on the other side either.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is I think the article should be about he legislation...whereby all you want is to POV push your agenda which is in opposition to this legislation. Not sure why you are worried about it anyway since you live in Canada right?--MONGO 17:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While previously I had supported the idea of a short section on criticism of the law, I have come to believe that this was an incorrect stance. There is clearly a slippery slope here, and the increasing number (and decreasing quality) of the sources presented show a definite attempt to put a bias into the article.  This article should be maintained for what the law "is" and not for what the law "could be" or "should be." If the contributors wish to make changes to the legal system, it should be done through legal activism, and not through revision of public information archives.  Start a blog, or something. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not stand for "no points of view". We are required to cover all significant viewpoints, including critical ones. There is absolutely no support for excluding criticism in any Wikipedia policy, guideline or precedent. Compare Patriot Act or any other article about a controversial law. Per WP:CRITS, the section should be named Reception or Assessment, but that is no excuse to censor the view of an organization as notable as the ACLU. 24.215.88.81 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Significant viewpoints, certainly. I would have supported that.  I DID support that.  But that is not what is happening; rather, there is an increasing push to place insignificant viewpoints in, and it won't stop.  POV pushers will cry about every incident where a criminal is mildly inconvenienced in order to promote their activism.  Most of these sources are blogs and editorials; therefore, they are non-starters from the get-go.  The law is what it is, and the sources presented reflect a minority view that would lend undue weight to an extreme minority opinion, the Aberrant Crooked Lawyers' Union notwithstanding. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Err what?? I have checked through the sources multiple times, yet I repeatedly keep on finding zero blogs and one editorial stating the fact that aclu is involved. Unless you count Alternet as a blog (that citation is misplaced btw). Are you seriously implying that 1-2 out of 19 constitutes "most"??? Also which of the view points you consider particularly insignificant? Policy-makers' perceptions, HRWs' ethical objection, courts ruling AWA as unconstitutional or possibly counter productive effects pointed out by many? Pick one or more, please. ViperFace (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like ViperFace, I am having trouble reconciling ScrapIron's comments with the diffs in front of us. Scrap says "increasing push," but the edit history has talk page entries only weeks apart (and no mainpage entries).  Scrap says "insignificant viewpoint" from "blogs and editorials," but the RSs presented come from peer reviewed journals and high-end secondary sources (and there exist many more RSs that repeat it).  Scrap says the idea that negative statements about the AWA are a "minority opinion," but when (repeatedly) invited to present whatever RSs with that POV are missing, no one provides any.  There certainly exist crooked lawyers, but just because you are a 10 on the reactionary scale does not mean that the 9s are on the same side as the 1's.  What matters is that the mainpage proportionately matches the RSs, and you are opposing the content of a very large number of high quality RSs in support of an opinion that is not supported by any RS presented by anyone. — James Cantor (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How many actual incidents of inconvienence are caused by the legislation? I asked before if it was even 10 percent....no answer because each and everyone of your refs cite but one or two examples of how the law has been harmful. Then these advocates try to use those few numbers to say see, the law is bad. That's about as unscientific an approach as I can imagine...but if it supports their predetermined bias, it works for them.--MONGO 03:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just couple of quotes from the link James posted above: "We are at a very high suicide rate for juveniles,” she said. “We don’t want to push them over the edge." and “We had a really good sex offender law before the Adam Walsh Act,” Segerblom said. “Sometimes you just need to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ A bad law is a bad law.” If you care to read | Raised on the registry and | No Easy Answers by HRW you will get some kind of picture. "How many actual incidents of inconvienence are caused by the legislation?" is asking for OR which you very well know is not allowed. There will be no RS addressing you rather juvenile question. Measuring "incidents of inconvenience" would be arbitrarily subjective: Hard core child molester would consider any repercussion of the legislation unjust, while hard core christian would consider stigmatizing a person for life for exposing his willy as a prank decades ago as totally justifiable. If being listed as tier 3 offender (retroactively), when person was not required to be listed prior implementation of AWA may be considered as a measurement "incidents of inconvenience" it seems to be rather large: 59% of adults and 45% of juveniles who were not previously registered were assigned to Tier 3. ViperFace (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also ScrapIronIV, this latest proposal is pretty much what I think would be in balance with the huge amount of critical RS there exists, but since what goes on main page can't be solely decided by me I asked others opinion to titillate some discussion in hopes of seeing some progress. I have somewhere above stated twice that I would be and still am willing to settle if the piece that was subject to edit waring (and was ok'd by you) went on the main page, even though I still would hold that it does not give a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject per WP:NPOW balancing recommendation. I would not be happy, but it's better than nothing at all. Unfortunately even that is blocked by the page owners. Patriot Act article brought up by James contains controversy section that is by far largest section of the whole article. Assuming that Patriot Act article is in balance, then there should be no problem with my latest proposal. Google scholar results for Patriot Act are similarly unanimously negative to the act, precisely like is the case with Adam Walsh Act. Anyway, I move a slightly edited piece of this latest proposal to the main page under Effects section where it clearly belongs and strike the part from the proposal.ViperFace (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main difference between this and the Patriot Act is that the Patriot Act is, in fact, truly controversial. Controversies over that are mainstream, not fringe. I will not edit war here, or anywhere else. What I will do is remove my support for the inclusion of anything more than a passing mention of controversy here.  As I have stated before, and is reinforced by your own statements, there is a concerted effort to put far more into the article than is warranted. I would rather have nothing at all than to give undue weight to an extreme fringe opinion. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this effort to misuse this article to advocate a fringe viewpoint.--MONGO 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Three dozen high-end RS's does not a fringe viewpoint make. Indeed, it is the very definition of not fringe.— James Cantor (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom Harrison please explain your latest revert. Are you happy with effects section as it stands now? How is description of what changed due to AWA soapboxing any more than what is already in that section?? Soapboxing is ridicously artificial reason for this revert. Also MONGO, the viewpoint is not fringe in RS, It's the majority oppinion. Public or your opinion is not be considered, it's the RS that matters. You are experienced editor and should now WP:NPOV policy pretty well.ViperFace (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * High-end RSs reflecting criticism should in turn be reflected in the article. Guesses as to the agenda of an editor notwithstanding -- we don't censor such criticism, because of a guessed-at-agenda, even if it is the case. Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Having read through almost all of these (some are paywalled or just not readily available), and trying to be more open minded, I am just not seeing much actual content in them. There are some issues of costs with state implementation of registries, some states finding portions of their attempt to implement being overly harsh, but no real issues of public controversy.  The New York Times had an interesting little article here - about 100 people coming from around the country to a convention.  All of them criminals, all of them decrying their poor misfortune at having molested children, or committed rape.  Heck, I get more people coming to a local model plane convention.  So, no, I'm not buying any "majority viewpoint" nonsense out of these articles.  Throwing away the editorials, and the self published papers - even a government report in here that SUPPORTS the use of registries! - leaves us with organizations which are specifically biased. Human Rights Watch, ATSA, ACLU - all with a very specific agenda. We even have a lovely article by a contributor to Al Jazeera and Electronic Intifada.  There is no bias in there, I am sure; they have America's best interest at heart, right? So, NO.  It's not mainstream, and it does not deserve to be paraded before us to try to FIX the GREAT WRONG of punishing the offenders. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Public oppinion has no value in wp articles other than mentioning the facts about public oppinion. Public oppinion is insignificant in determinig what constitutes a fringe opinion in contecst of goal of Wikipedia. It is the RS that matters and peer reviewed RS should BE given the highest value.ViperFace (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources you have provided are either not RS, or they do not say what you want to believe they say. There is some serious bias involved.  But I will (again) make the offer I made before:  Write up what you wish to add, and we will discuss it here. So far there is no consensus to add a section on controversy, as there is no controversy.  Okay, maybe a few hundred sex offenders out there are sorry about their lot in life, but that's not controversy.  But, go ahead - give an example, and if it is truly NPOV and not fringe, it will get due attention. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If Scrap can be specific about which sources are not RS's, we can certainly discuss and remove them from the list. (The list is merely a tip of the RS iceberg, however; very many more can be found.)
 * In writing that some of these RSs "do not say what you want to believe they say," Scrap seems to suggest that there is someone with an end-goal here of inserting criticism for criticism's sake. That is an error: The only end goal I have (and that anyone has expressed) is to include ALL relevant RS claims about AWA.  That the negative ones (by far) outnumber the positive ones tells us how to cover these proportionately, but no one has suggested removing positive claims.
 * To write that "give an example, and if it is truly NPOV and not fringe" is to ignore the past several months of giving exactly such examples to which you (and one or two others) merely cry NPOV or fringe, despite that the RSs all say otherwise.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are unable to access the articles does not mean that I am distorting what they say. What I wish to add is what I have proposed above, but I would be ok with the unrepresentative passing mention of criticism of 5 rows that was subject to edit waring few months ago. BTW 90% of policy makers identified problems with current laws in this study. 90% of those who are involved in passing the legislation does not constitute a fringe just because you or rest of the general public is unaware of the critical viewpoints that 99% of RS presents. Also it's rather arrogant to point to either peer reviewed studies or studies conducted by government entities as non-RS and give more value to you personal gut feeling, although it's nothing new here. :/ ViperFace (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notice.
In light of the continuing impasse above, I have entered a request at WP:AN/I. Those interested in commenting may do so at (currently):
 * Disruptive editing and persistent incivility at Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

— James Cantor (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Still more RS's
As I've said, the RS's already listed on this talkpage are only the tip of the iceberg. The following 10 more are all from the first two pages of hits found by google.scholar. All are from major law journals. Calling it fringe is, of course, is to defy the meaning of fringe. — James Cantor (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Enniss, B. (2008). Quickly assuaging public fear: How the well-intended Adam Walsh Act led to unintended consequences. Utah Law Review, p. 697.  http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/67/60
 * 2) Farley, L. G. (2007-2008). The Adam Walsh Act: The scarlet letter of the twenty-first century. Washburn Law Journal, p. 471.  http://www.ilvoices.com/media/Adam$20Walsh$20-$20The$20Scarlett$20Letter.pdf
 * 3) Logan, W. A. (2009). Adam Walsh Act and the failed promise of administrative federalism. George Washington Law Review. http://groups.law.gwu.edu/lr/ArticlePDF/78-5-Logan.pdf
 * 4) Morse, R. (2009). Federalism challenges to the Adam Walsh Act. Boston University Law Review. http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MORSE.pdf
 * 5) Bowater, B. (2008). Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: Is there a better way to tailor the sentences for juvenile sex offenders? Catholic University Law Review. http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=lawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dadam%2Bwalsh%2Bact%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22adam%20walsh%20act%22
 * 6) White, E. A. (2008). Prosecutions under the Adam Walsh Act: Is America keeping is promise? Washington & Lee Law Review. http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wlulr&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dadam%2Bwalsh%2Bact%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C5#search=%22adam%20walsh%20act%22
 * 7) Young, C. (2008). Children sex offenders: How the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act hurts the same children it is trying to protect. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nejccc34&div=22&id=&page=
 * 8) Barker, E. E. (2009). The Adam Walsh Act: Un-civil commitment. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V37/I1/Barker.pdf
 * 9) Handler, M. R. (2011). A law of passion, not of principle, nor even purpose: A call to repeat or revise the Adam Walsh Act. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, 279-308. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7390&context=jclc&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D30%26q%3Dadam%2Bwalsh%2Bact%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C5#search=%22adam%20walsh%20act%22
 * 10) Duncan, K. M. (2009). A crime against common sense: How Louisiana’s implementation of the Adam Walsh Act exposes the law’s most significant flaw. Tulane Law Review, p. 429. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr84&div=15&id=&page=

Here's The New Republic


 * Sex offender registries themselves have been a policymaking disaster, a perfect example of lawmaking based on public emotion and political grandstanding rather than real-world data. There is very little evidence that registries reduce sex crimes. In fact, there’s evidence they may actually make crimes more likely by pushing offenders to the margins of society and raising the costs of living a lawful existence. Registries make the process of rehabilitation and reacceptance impossible by ensuring that no matter how much a person tries to better himself, he will remain a pariah.


 * But the real problem with public registries is that they’re inhumane, turning every crime into a life sentence. In branding people with a permanent public mark of shame, registries punish the convicted long after they have served their time. Sex-offender registries have resulted in long-reformed senior citizens being unable to use public parks, and in geographic living restrictions so exclusionary that they produce little colonies of sex offenders huddling under bridges. Registries should therefore be a cautionary tale in what happens when blind fear and hatred drives policy, not a model to be emulated for other crimes. [emphasis added]

The New Republic is neither a legal nor medical nor otherwise scholarly journal, but it is an influential magazine, but, even more than that, it's a representational magazine... it represents the neo-moderate-liberal policy-involved intelligentsia talking to itself. (It's also a notable secondary source BTW.) And if the received wisdom of the neo-moderate-liberal policy-involved intelligentsia regarding this law is that harsh, it's not something we can wave off.

Neither I, nor you, nor anyone can know of certain whether this law is or not a "bad" law. However, we can know this: AFAIK essentially everyone's who has seriously studied and thought about the matter thinks that it is. Not putting this front and center is a disservice to the reader, I think. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you taking part on this again. I could not agree more. Too bad it seems that many of the interested editors lost their interest when this turned into edit waring and all progress was halted... There seems to be new case from last week accepted to Ohio Supreme Court of whether the AWA constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" It is the first state supreme court to decide if the registration based solely on the conviction offense is ok to apply to all offenders without any judicial review or judges discretion. To my understanding the decision could strike down the whole AWA in Ohio. Also, on top of the currently suppressed opinions there should be section about constitutional challenges since parts of the act, (the retroactivity and application to juveniles), has also been ruled unconstitutional in at least three states, but I'm afraid such a section might get reverted :/ ViperFace (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the things on this issue is, I've changed my mind to some degree. I recommend this as an occasional exercise to everyone. it's supposed to be the purpose of these discussions after all. Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The mark of a critical thinker and excellent editor!— James Cantor (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Now avail: An interview with pedophilia/sex offender researcher, Fred Berlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgGaUEPBI38. In addition to other relevant material, he discussed the evidence regarding mandatory reporting a little after the 30 minute mark.— James Cantor (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Berlin mentioned that 90% of the sex offenders are first time offenders. Is that due to the registered sex offenders knowing that if they commit a second offense they are going to prison for a very long time, therefore they are unlikely to commit that second offense?--MONGO 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to precisely to that question, but what I found from quick glance into studies conducted in my country, which is distinctively lenient in criminal sentencing (to such a degree that Amnesty International, rightly so, quite heavily bashed us for the leniency of sex offender sentencing some five years ago), the re-offending rates seem to be similar to US studies. And by lenient I mean really lenient: maximum penalty for aggravated rape is 10 years, no matter whether it is first time or 3th time. Usually sentences for that offense seem to be between 2-7 years, most of the time leaning towards the lower end. Furthermore, if the person has been crime free for 5 years he will be considered as a "first timer" again (which is stupid), and first timers are generally allowed to parole after sitting half of their sentences in prison. Anyway, I think recidivism rates can be used to measure the deterrence effect of increased sentencing exposure to second time offenders.ViperFace (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase. Berlin says that 90% of sex offenders have never been convicted of a sex offense before... that it is their only offense. Berlin indicates that since the vast majority of sex offenses are from those never convicted before, the sex registries are not an effective way to prevent offenses. My point was if the registries did not exist, would previous sex offenders be more likely to commit a second or more offenses. Berlin, I don't think, touched on that issue. My opinion from dealing with similar statues such as this Act is that while there are surely flaws in the Act, the purpose of it was to try and prevent repeat offenses. The byproduct of many laws is that they are designed to minimize damage to the innocent, but of course there is always going to be some that have committed a smaller infraction that are unjustly penalized by being placed in the same egg basket.--MONGO 18:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally studies seem to find no effect in either direction when they study the community notification. Here are summaries of two papers (I thought these had been cited already, but apparently they weren't) and they actually indicate some increase in re-offending: Some of the ATSA's opinions I cited somewhere above mentioned about some studies that have found statistically significant decrease in re-offending, BUT the data of these studies came only from those states that apply risk assessment tools and reserve community notification to those that have been found dangerous. To my understanding there are only 3-5 states still using the risk based system and they are pressured to adopt AWA classification instead. I understand that efficiency of police only registries is well established in literature, but community notification does not seem to add any desired effect on top of that, at least not when it's applied as blanket policy as most US states do.ViperFace (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is quite comprehensive review on all kinds of studies (including surveys of officials responsible of monitoring and treatment, and sex offenders themselves) by Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART), which is subordinate of Office of Justice Programs. The correct answer to Mongos question seems to be: The results are mixed, and more often than not, the effects are statistically non-significant. The link is only to one section covering management of adult offenders but the site itself seems to cover practically everything around this subject. Very recommendable reading to everyone. ViperFace (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi
For those interested: http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2015/05/04/calif-supreme-court-ruling-reveals-unintended-consequences-jessicas-law/ Although that particular website might not make the best RS, it would not be difficult to find a non-political news source for the same state supreme court ruling. — James Cantor (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)