CLICK To access State Legislatures and their Sex Offender registration laws. These are on the Sex Abuse Treatment Alliance website.
|
| U.S. Congress: Bills affecting sex offenders: |
CLICK To review Federal bills.
|
|
How Federal laws are made and the procedures used by Congress. We suggest every advocate print this manual so they will be able to understand the terms used by folks in Congress, and the actions that result. On the Thomas website (click below) you can read it, or print the complete PDF file which is 67 pages:
|
How Our Laws Are Made
Table of Contents
Foreword
I. Introduction
II. The Congress
III. Sources of Legislation
IV. Forms of Congressional Action
Bills
Joint Resolutions
Concurrent Resolutions
Simple Resolutions
V. Introduction and Referral to Committee
VI. Consideration by Committee
Committee Meetings
Public Hearings
Markup
Final Committee Action
Points of Order with Respect to Committee Hearing Procedure
VII. Reported Bills
Contents of Reports
Filing of Reports
Availability of Reports and Hearings
VIII. Legislative Oversight by Standing Committees
IX. Calendars
Union Calendar
House Calendar
Private Calendar
Corrections Calendar
Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees
X. Obtaining Consideration of Measures
Unanimous Consent
Special Resolutions or "Rule"
Consideration of Measures Made in Order by Rule Reported from the Committee on Rules
Motion to Discharge Committee
Motion to Suspend the Rules
Calendar Wednesday
District of Columbia Business
Questions of Privilege
Privileged Matters
XI. Consideration and Debate
Committee of the Whole House
Second Reading
Amendments and Germaneness Rule
The Committee "Rises"
House Action
Motion to Recommit
Quorum Calls and Rollcalls
Voting
Electronic Voting
Pairing of Members
System of Lights and Bells
Recess Authority
Live Coverage of Floor Proceedings
XII. Congressional Budget Process
XIII. Engrossment and Message to Senate
XIV. Senate Action
Committee Consideration
Chamber Procedure
XV. Final Action on Amended Bill
Request for a Conference
Authority of Conferees
Meetings and Action of Conferees
Conference Reports
Custody of Papers
XVI. Bill Originating in Senate
XVII. Enrollment
XVIII. Presidential Action
Veto Message
Line Item Veto
XIX. Publication
Slip Laws
Statutes-at-Large
United States Code
Appendix
Select List of Government Publications
Earlier Printings
|
|
Did Congress Limit the USAG's Discretion on retroactivity? |
|
3-9-2007 Nationally:
Is the USAG's "interim rule" on retroactivity of the Adam Walsh Act the final word on retroactivity? |
I am quite sure most folks have read the USAG's "interim rule" issued as the result of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA, the USAG calls it SORNA). Just to reiterate, Congress did grant the USGA the power to decide whether AWA should be applied to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of AWA. See 42 USC 16913(d) where it says:
(d) Initial Registration of Sex Offenders Unable To Comply With Subsection (b)- The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this title to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this Act or its implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b). (Subsection (B) merely says one is to register when they are convicted, which is impossible for folks convicted before this law.)
Next, within the USAG's "interim rule" (p8896 col 1 at the bottom) the USAG said this as to who AWA will cover:
"The current rulemaking serves the narrower, immediately necessary purpose of foreclosing any dispute as to whether SORNA is applicable where the conviction for the predicate sex offense occurred prior to the enactment of SORNA.
This issue is of fundamental importance to the initial operation of SORNA, and to its practical scope for many years, since it determines the applicability of SORNA's requirements to virtually the entire existing sex offender population."
Notice the key word "virtually" and how it is used, he recognizes that AWA is not applicable to every single sex offender since the beginning of time. He is recognizing that there will be exceptions.
While his intent is to cover "virtually" everyone, he never mentioned anything about whether Congress specifically limited what he can do. They did, but you must look into AWA to see how and when he is limited.
Suppose a state said, we cannot make AWA retroactive to certain of our registered sex offenders? (Exceptions? Many states have already excepted some and it has been upheld in both state and federal courts.) Why? Because of a prior state law that exempted certain offenders from registration. Another example would be: California issued Certificates of Rehabilitation to some offenders in the past and that granted them the right to no longer register. Those folks will contest retroactive application to them. I'm also sure there are other examples.
The point is, if compliance would violate a preexisting law, then states cannot do that. So, technically, if a state did not follow the USAG to the letter, then they could be -considered- out of compliance and they may lose funding. AWA anticipated such circumstances may occur and devised a remedy, a mediation of sorts, between the USAG and the state. Here is what AWA says in 42 USC 16925(b):
(b) State Constitutionality-
(1) IN GENERAL- When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction's highest court.
(2) EFFORTS- If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction's constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction's constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction's highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction's interpretation of the jurisdiction's constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction's highest court.
(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES- If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction's constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(4) FUNDING REDUCTION- If a jurisdiction does not comply with paragraph (3), then the jurisdiction shall be subject to a funding reduction as specified in subsection (a).
All this is wrapped up in that little word "virtually" and I'm sure there are other places within AWA that will stop the USAG from retroactive application, including federal case law! We will get to one more in a minute. So while the USAG wants everyone to think he has absolute control in the interpretation of the AWA law, the reality is he does not, he is limited by various parts of AWA. RSO's are going to have to become quasi-lawyers to find these exceptions and contest them in court through their state's highest court.
Next, certain "foreign convictions" and certain "consensual sex offenses" and "juvenile adjudications" (42 USC 16911(5)(b)(c) and (8)), too involved for this commentary) are not considered sex offenses under AWA. Now, the USAG's retroactive application cannot cover those offenses, because Congress exempted those offenses and the USAG cannot override Congress. Many of those are juveniles or young adult cases which Congress chose to exempt, including those that predate AWA. The USAG is limited again, but he didn't say this in his interim rule, except by virtue of his word "virtually."
Does the USAG's "interim rule" foreclose claims by former sex offenders that they should not be subjected to AWA? The USAG has this to say:
"This rule forecloses such claims by making it indisputably clear that SORNA applies to all sex offenders (as the Act defines that term) regardless of when they were convicted." (p8896 col 2 near the bottom)
With respect to sex offenders who predate AWA, I see a conflict between where the USAG earlier says "virtually" and in the above where he OMITS "virtually" and now uses "all." Is he trying to create a factoid, a de facto standard, or ignore Congressional limitations? Can the USAG override state laws or state judges decision? I think not, while he is trying to give the impression that he is godlike on this topic, the reality is his word is not final we still have a judicial system, whether he wishes to believe it exists or not.
One final issue, within AWA it says, first that the USAG can make it retroactive, but it also says he must also notify each and every sex offender of their duties under AWA, including those whose convictions predate AWA, see the following:
SEC. 117. DUTY TO NOTIFY SEX OFFENDERS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND TO REGISTER.
(a) In General- An appropriate official shall, shortly before release of the sex offender from custody, or, if the sex offender is not in custody, immediately after the sentencing of the sex offender, for the offense giving rise to the duty to register--
(1) inform the sex offender of the duties of a sex offender under this title and explain those duties;
(2) require the sex offender to read and sign a form stating that the duty to register has been explained and that the sex offender understands the registration requirement; and
(3) ensure that the sex offender is registered.
(b) Notification of Sex Offenders Who Cannot Comply With Subsection (a)- The Attorney General shall prescribe rules for the notification of sex offenders who cannot be registered in accordance with subsection (a).
Notice carefully in the "interim rule" how he omits anything about sec. 117 which places a requirement on him. Notification, lets see, isn't that what due process is all about?
: by eAdvocate
|
3-6-2007 All Readers:
How to submit your comments on the U.S. Attorney General's "Interim Rule" with respect to the Adam Walsh Act. |
Remember that the rule issued is a "interim rule" which means it DOES NOT cover every issue created by the Adam Walsh Act. It appears the rule only covers the retroactive nature of AWA.
To display the rule:
1) CLICK on "Regulations.gov"
2) Set "Agency*" to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - ALL
Notice the "* (asterisk)" following the word "Agency" which the legend indicates "* Indicates an Agency can post supporting materials and public submissions." When you chose "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - ALL" there was NO "*" following that choice. Some choices have an "*" following their name. Accordingly, submissions and comments should not be public.
However, I note a possible conflict, which I will cover when we get to the actual page where you enter your comments.
3) Set "Key Word or ID" to sex offenders
4) CLICK on "any word"
5) CLICK on "submit"
Then the rule will be displayed
FYI: I strongly advise folks to review their "Privacy and Use Notice" at the top of the page, especially as to their tracking of electronic messages.
To enter comments for consideration:
On the right side you will see a yellowish comment symbol with 4-30-2007 (last date to enter comments) below it, CLICK on it. Then a form will be displayed to allow you to put in your comments. I have not found anything which prohibits multiple comments.
Notice the legend "# public viewable field" and the fact that no field contains a "#" which should mean that no fields are viewable by the public. Now the possible conflict I mentioned earlier, at the bottom of this page is "Privacy and Use Notice" if you read this it implies that comments may be made public, so which is correct, well that is up to the reader. You may want to ask them a question via their "Contact Us" link in the upper right hand corner.
Now in the "How to comment" instructions is says "When submitting comments electronically you must include OAG Docket No. 117 in the subject box. The problem is, I see no "subject box" so I suggest you place that FIRST in the comments area, lest your comments be ignored.
FOCUS YOUR COMMENTS: Please remember this rule addresses "retroactivity" of AWA to people convicted before AWA was enacted. Therefore, your comments should be addressing "retroactivity" in some way.
If you fill the comments with issues not related then there is a good chance they will completely ignore your comments. Further, if you throw a dozen other issues at them, you are likely wasting your comments, again they will ignore you.
However, if you see other issues in the way the Interim Rule is written, go for it and raise them.
The rest of the form seems to be self explanatory. When you have entered your comments CLICK on "next page" and complete that.
Alternate methods of submitting comments for consideration:
There are two other ways to submit comments:
1) You may also comment via the Internet to the Justice Department"s Office of Legal Policy (OLP) at olpregs@usdoj.gov;
2) Comments may be snail mailed to David J. Karp, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Room 4509, Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
In either case, remember to include OAG Docket No. 117 on your correspondence or in your e-mail.
Instructions prepared by eAdvocate, e-mail me if you find an error in these instructions. Thank you.
|
News & Noteworthy ©
Featured 7-12-06 |
|
A FEDERAL Juvenile Sex Offender Registry?
|
|
POLL ALSO: Should the names of juvenile sex offenders be made public? |
|
7-11-2006 National:
Congress Considers Bill To Include Juvenile Sex Offenders On Federal Registry |
.Congress has been considering a new bill that could help protect families from sex offenders by making the records of juvenile offenders public. (STATE) Web sites such as ... contain the names and addresses of registered sex offenders. However, some people have been pushing to require offenders under the age of 18 to register their information Online as well. [snip]
However, juveniles might soon learn the hard way. A new bill being pushed through congress could include juvenile sex offenders on a new federal registry. Currently, each state has a sex offender registry where the public can look up sexual predators or offenders. The names, photos and addresses of offenders can be found in the registries, but anyone under 18 is not be included on the lists. [snip]
The law protects the names, pictures, and addresses of juveniles. That could change if the new bill passes, but many Jacksonville residents said they think passing the bill could create problems.
..more..
: by News4Jax.com
|
.While the article says that "Congress has been considering a new bill .." that is simply not true, maybe the House has been considering such a bill, but the Senate, I doubt it very much!
Why do I say that, simply because in House bill HR-4472 (a morphed bill) juveniles are included, but in the Senate bill S-1086 only juveniles convicted as an adult are included.
Now, a little background: HR-4472 was passed by the House and sent to the Senate, and S-1086 was passed by the Senate and sent to the House. However, the bills are so vastly different that neither the House nor the Senate will pass the others bill. A stalemate so strong that even a Joint Conference seems unlikely. I could be wrong, only time will tell.
Referring to my Joint Conferees panel above I noted another possibility, quote "OR- either/both could craft a new bill as the result of the back office wrangling, pass it and send it to the other for their approval [all in one day] (however, the original bills passed would be dead).
Look at the news article "A new bill being pushed through congress ..." sounds like the House is tired of the stalemate and has crafted a new and likely more vicious bill. Now they specifically target juveniles and who knows what else at this point.
The comment "has been considering" is very upsetting in that, if true, it has been behind closed doors, secretly, something like how HR-4472 was morphed together without anyone's knowledge, except possibly a select few.
If folks remember, HR-3132 was passed by the House, sent to the Senate and died there (rightfully so it was harmful). So, Rep Sensenbrenner then crafted HR-4472 by putting within it all that once was HR-3132, then morphed in other bills (some bills never presented to the full house) as well. The result HR-4472 was even more harmful than HR-3132.
Now we have a similar circumstance, in that, an even newer bill has now been crafted targeting juveniles at a minimum. History is again repeating itself.
Juveniles came into the limelight when Amie Zyla (now 18) was molested at age 8 by Joshua Wade when he was 14. Then at age 24 Joshua reoffends (he videotaped children taking a shower) and is convicted, sentenced to prison for 25 years and 15 years supervision thereafter. Although he was registered at the time, the law did not require public notification of his juvenile offense against Amie.
Amie hears about this new offense goes to her lawmaker (Rep. Mark Green [WI]) and gets him to pass a law to make juvenile records public in Wisconsin. Then, with him, she goes to Congress to try to get them to do the same for the entire nation. This was part of HR-3132 and HR-4472 which the Senate would not accept.
Now, the story about Joshua Wade that Amie, Green and Sensenbrenner has not told anyone:
"A juvenile proceeding sent him to a treatment center for indecently touching a 9-year-old girl when he was 15. The records show that he made almost no progress in treatment and so was sent to Ethan Allen School until he was 18 because he was dangerous.
In a 8-2-2005 news article: Joshua M. Wade, who spurred lawmakers to broaden community notification procedures for sex offenders under the so-called Amie's Law, rebuffed treatment after an arrest on a sex offense charge when he was a juvenile, a prosecutor said. "He had an opportunity back in juvenile court to get treatment for this," Waukesha County Assistant District Attorney Brad Schimel said. "He didn't take advantage of it."
"Wade's public defender contended that the juvenile justice system was ill equipped to treat Wade after he disclosed that his makeup was shaped in part by being sexually assaulted by his grandfather. And, after he was released from a juvenile correctional facility, Wade, then 18, was left on his own, according to attorney Samuel Benedict. "There was virtually no planning for his discharge," Benedict told Circuit Judge Ralph Ramirez. "They took him to the Salvation Army shelter and left him at the door. "They essentially said, 'Go figure it out yourself.' "
No therapy, but that fact is hidden! I'd be remiss if I failed to mention how many other victims were killed by prior offenders who either, refused to take therapy -OR- the state failed to provide a therapy program for them. The victims names are: Megan Kanka, Jessica Lundsford, Dru Sjoden, Jetseta Gage, Amanda Brown, Sarah Lunde, Alexandra Zapp, Dylan Groene and his family. None of the bills coming out of Congress include any provision for therapy in state prisons!
Tomorrow morning, Thursday (7-13) at 10 AM the U.S. House has a scheduled session. Notice there is nothing significant on the calendar, except that, Rep. Sensenbrenner has the floor. Any bets on whether he, or someone else, will or will not introduce the talked about, new and likely, more revengeful bill?
|
|
|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 5-5-2006 |
|
A sad day in history when the truth no longer matters: U.S. Senate passes S 1086!
|
|
5-5-2006 National:
U.S. Senate Passes Crackdown on Sex Offenders |
.WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday passed sweeping legislation to set mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of sex crimes against children and set up a public database linking state lists of sex offenders.
By voice vote, the bill sponsored by Sen Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. The House passed a similar measure in March as part of a broader crime bill. The bills, which differ on matters ranging from courthouse security, hate crimes and registration of juvenile sex offenders, must be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber before the legislation is sent to the White House for President Bush ‘s signature.
The legislation also would require convicted sex offenders to register their whereabouts every month, in person, and would upgrade failure to comply from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said more than 58,000 children are abducted by people who are not family members and that 100,000 convicted sex offenders in the United States are unregistered. The Senate bill is S. 1086.
..more..
: by FOX News
|
.What will it take to get politicians to face the truth and facts?
"Crackdown on sex offenders" is absurd, what this is is further punishment of those already registered who are following the laws. This bill S 1086 as well as the most recent morphed House Bill HR 4472 both target ONLY registered sex offenders. They are not the ones causing new sex offenses according to the most recent 2003 Department of Justice sex offender recidivism statistics. Of course Congress refuses to review those statistics.
Tonight on Larry King LIVE, Larry was questioning John Walsh and Ed Smart (father of Elizabeth Smart who was abducted and held some 9 months by a self-proclaim prophet), quote: "KING: This new law, Ed, though wouldn't have covered her alleged abductor who had no prior record right? ED SMART: No prior record. KING: So, you're still for it even though it wouldn't? ED SMART: Absolutely. I think that in most cases they are -- they do have prior records. KING: Ninety-five percent (INAUDIBLE)."
The abducters of Elizabeth Smart had no prior record which means, nothing in either S 1086 or HR 4472 would have prevented that horendous crime. Here we have Bill supporters using misinformation to make a point, a broad sound bite. In fact, the DOJ also proved that nonsex offenders released from prison commit six new sex offenses to every one committed by a released sex offfender.
Congress has used the names of 27 other victims in support of these Bills, 98% of those crimes could not have been prevented by these bills. The simple fact is, Congress refuses to analyze the crimes, they are following sound bites and nothing more.
Sen. First claims that "more than 58,000 children are abducted by people who are not family members," what does that have to do with sex offenders? He is using a completely unrelated statistics and implying that registered sex offenders are the cause of that unrelated problem.
He also claims that "100,000 convicted sex offenders in the United States are unregistered" and cannot prove that at all. That figure comes from an unsupported flawed telephone survey from 2003. It is clear that sound bites control today.
There is no reason to have a NEW data base linking state registries as that already exists today. The reason they want a new one is so they can CHANGE today's definition of "Predator." The new definition will CREATE PREDATORS anytime a victim is under 13. While that may sound good, it will also make PREDATORS out of most of todays' juvenile offenders and they will suffer adult consequences for the rest of their lives, if these bills are ultimately made law!
This Congress is lacking vision and from all appearances it doesn't matter to them who gets hurt in order to achieve votes. It is a sad day in history for this country because the truth no longer matters.
|
|
|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Article 4-24-06 |
|
Why John Walsh is correct about Internet Predators but incorrect about HR 4472 resolving the problem? -AND- Why registered sex offenders (RSOs) want to solve the problem of Internet Predators!
|
|
4-21-2006 National:
Walsh slams Senate for failing to pass sex-offender registry |
.John Walsh, star of the "America's Most Wanted" TV show, is stepping up his criticism of the Senate for failing for a second year to set up a comprehensive national sex offenders registry on a public Web site. Walsh told Scripps Howard News Service that his show this week filmed a sting in Suffolk County, N.Y., where two convicted sex offenders were caught at an Internet-arranged meeting site where they expected sexual relations with a minor of the age or 12 or 13. Neither was properly registered.
"I think America is really, really sick of these sexual predators," Walsh said. "I am trying desperately to get this piece of legislation passed. I don't understand why it is held up in the Senate." Walsh got involved in victim's rights issues and then the Fox TV show after his six-year-old son Adam was abducted and killed in 1981 in southern Florida. The show (www.amw.com) in 1988 began airing photos and stories about criminals on the run and says its viewer tips helped capture more than 880 fugitives. He first complained recently about congressional inaction on the sex offenders registry on Wednesday on CNN's "Larry King Live."
..more..
|
.Clearly curbing those who are preying on children using the Internet is a valid goal. In that respect Mr Walsh and his followers are absolutely correct. The point in dispute is how does one accomplish that, some folks including Mr. Walsh believe that HR 4472 "Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006" is the way to accomplish that.
Is it?
There are two ways to measure whether a bill is good or bad:
1) You can evaluate the bill with respect to past crimes to see if it would have prevented them had it been in place before they were committed; -or-,
2) You can make the bill a law and wait to evaluate the results after the fact, however, this method could be costly especially when children's lives are at stake.
The thrust of HR 4472 is:
a) To increase the penalties for new sex crimes; and, b) To get everyone ever convicted of a sex crime registered; and, c) to track (monitor) them for the rest of their lives; and, d) to punish registrants severely if they fail to follow HR 4472.
Given that the thrust of HR 4472 is to track (monitor) former sex offenders it is obvious that, supporters of HR 4472 erroneously believe, tracking former sex offenders is the only way to prevent new sex crimes.
Accordingly, former sex offenders take the brunt of HR 4472 and within them is a tiny fraction of those preying on children on the Internet. (See: Porn Sting Nabs Federal Official by Anthony McCartney See also: Dangers children face online by NBC Dateline). Internet predators are a very special group of people with special needs. HR 4472 fails to distinguish between offenders and their individual problems and necessary resolutions. That is the main reason why HR 4472 fails.
Here is a list of sex crime victims which Congress has mentioned and believes would not have occurred if HR 4472 were in place beforehand. Lets analyze them.
Adam Walsh, Jacob Wetterling, JonBenet Ramsey, Amber Hagerman are all unsolved crimes so we do not know if they were committed by a former sex offenders. Chris Byers (Occult murder), Maryann Measles (revenge murder), and Wonderbaby (Parental Abuse) are not sex crimes. Why did Congress even mention these?
Cary Ann Medlin, Nicole Parker, Polly Klaas, Samuel James Ryce, Sherrice Iverson, Christina Long, Samantha Runnion, Danielle Van Dam, and Carlie Brucia were not murdered by former sex offenders so no provision of HR 4472 would be applicable to those offenders.
Christy Ann Fornoff and Pam Lychner crimes occurred by virtue of their employment (chance meetings) and nothing in HR 4472 would have prevented them.
Amie Zyla, Michelle Vick, Amanda Brown, Alexandra Nicole Zapp, Sarah M Lunde and Jetseta Marrie Gage crimes were committed by offenders that were part of the victims' daily lives and nothing in HR 4472 would have prevented them.
Dylan Groene and Dru Sjoden are crimes likened to John Wayne Gasey crimes and unfortunately it doesn't matter how many laws are enacted there are people who will commit such heinous crimes and must be dealt with. These offenders ignored all laws and there is no reason to believe they would follow HR 4472.
That leaves us with two crimes to consider Megan Kanka and Jessica Lundsford. These two crimes actually have a common thread, therapy. Jesse Timmendequas refused therapy while he was incarcerated. John Couey recognized his problem with children in 1977 and asked for help and was refused. Couey was told to go find help as best he can but given he had no way to pay for it he never sought therapy. HR 4472 has no provisions for therapy for offenders either while they are in prison or on probation in the community.
Some will say that, if John Couey's registration was up to date that he could not have committed that crime. To those people I would ask, why have the three other offenders who live within blocks of Jessica Lundsford's home not committed such crimes? The answer is in analyzing the offender's background which is something that Congress has failed to do and which HR 4472 does not do.
Believing that knowledge of over 551,000 offender addresses (residence, employment, or school) will prevent crimes is like believing in fool's gold. Megans' laws (fool's gold, tracking and monitoring) have been in effect for more than 10 years and have not stopped crimes. GPS is no better as it cannot be programmed for the bedroom of every child, nor for every school, park day care or other place where children congregate in the entire United States.
The costs associated with local police organizing a posse to obtain addresses are going to break local budgets and other crimes will be left unsolved, many involve deaths. It is foolish to expand prisons, and they will be expanded, for the sake of missing addresses. It is just as foolish to believe in GPS as an end-all answer to the problem as offenders cannot afford these devices either. Who will pay the price for the missing addresses? Society will pay and will learn that addresses will not prevent crimes!
The purpose of our education systems is to change people to teach them something so they can survive in society. It is not society's way to fail to teach and sit back and watch people flounder through life. Why is that lesson lost when it comes to folks who have committed crimes. Therapy is one way to change the offender. Vision!
If Congress would stop using victims' names as an emotional war cry and analyze past crimes, then Congress would know why HR 4472 will not prevent the next victimization. Further, there is a host of other reasons why HR 4472 is bad-legislation and mostly that has to do with today's youth. We must expect vision from those we elect and it seems to be lacking today.
|
|
|
