Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 11 December 2014

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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/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)

Some article proposals to cover public vs. professional perception discussion

Ok. I wish to see this moving in some direction, so while I wait if we are to find consensus that scholarly critique might be under presented, I'm trying to gather some peer reviewed articles that might be of use if we are to include general public vs. academic/professional views discussion. I would like to find surveys covering the views of general public, treatment professionals, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, parole officer, and sex offenders and their family members. I would love to see many editors contributing on this. — James Cantor already expressed his willingness to help. I'm looking forward to it as he presumably holds more knowledge of relevant literature from his field of profession. Also, I wonder whether we should take this discussion to Category talk page, since this is about more than just this particular article, IMO. To counter possible accusations of POV-pushing/bias by cherry picking articles suitable for my position, I encourage anyone in favor of the current state of sex offender related articles (that is, not sufficiently reflecting the professional consensus which is and has been for years consistently negative) to find even one peer reviewed article supporting current sex offender laws.

Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies

• Brief summary: 79% of general public wants ALL sex offenders to be subjected to community notification, 5,8% all offenders rated as high risk, 6,3% all but low risk offenders with no violent history and 1,6% wanted no community notification at all.
• When asked if one supports various sex offender policies "even if there is no scientific evidence showing that they reduce sexual abuse" 24% answered "Partially true" and 49% "Completely true".
• Also: "The hypothesis that community members hold inaccurate beliefs about sex offenders was supported."

Widening the Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System

• "The data indicate that, prior to reclassification, the majority of Ohio’s registrants (76% of adults and 88% of juveniles) were either not registered at all or were registered as “sexually oriented offenders” (the least restrictive management category) prior to reclassification. About 20% of adults and 5% of juveniles were classified as “sexual predators.” Following reclassification, this basic pattern was essentially reversed, with 13% of adults and 22% of juveniles placed in Tier 1, 31% of adults and 32% of juveniles placed in Tier 2, and 55% of adults and 46% of juveniles placed in the highest and most restrictive tier (Tier 3)."..."These data indicate, for example, that 59% of the 3,689 adults and 45% of the 271 juveniles who were not previously registered were placed into Tier 3 following the reclassification process. For those previously classified as “sexually oriented offenders,” 41% of adults and 43% of juveniles were assigned to Tier 3. Finally, 49% of adults and 36% of those previously classified as “habitual sexual offenders” were placed into Tier 3. Not surprisingly, more than 99% of adults and 98% of juveniles previously designated as “sexual predators” were placed into Tier 3."
• "Regarding the potential implementation barriers to meeting the federal classification standards, respondents raised a range of potential legal, operational, and fiscal considerations, with many expressing concern over the potential public safety impacts of supplanting established risk-based classification systems with a less discriminating system linked exclusively to conviction offense."
• "The SORNA tiers appear to classify a disproportionate number of offenders as high risk, placing increasing burdens—perhaps unnecessarily—on law enforcement personnel and fiscal appropriations"..."Net widening might ultimately compromise the efficacy of SORN as a viable tool in our efforts to prevent sexual violence by diverting attention and resources away from managing truly high-risk sex offenders in favor of capturing a larger pool of registrants."

Social Policies Designed to Prevent Sexual Violence The Emperor's New Clothes?

• "A survey of sex offenders in Florida indicated that housing restrictions increased isolation, created financial and emotional stress, and led to decreased stability. Such stressors are similar to the types of dynamic risk factors that have been associated with increased recidivism"
• "We do not intend to imply that sexual violence is not a serious problem, or that the aforementioned sex crime policies should never be utilized. The purpose of this paper is not to elicit sympathy or to advocate for sex offenders. We do not question the noble intentions of policy makers to create safer communities, nor do we wish to diminish the suffering of victims and their families. Clearly, sexual assault is an egregious and traumatizing crime which should not go unpunished. We simply suggest that social policies designed to prevent sexual violence will be most effective when they are informed by scientific data about sex offense patterns, recidivism, risk assessment, therapeutic interventions, and community management strategies... Naturally, following horrific and random acts of violence, particularly those against children, an outraged and frightened public demands solutions, and elected officials act quickly to serve their constituency. But hasty responses often result in laws that are not evidence-based in their development or their implementation, and the collateral consequences of such laws are poorly anticipated. The risks sex offenders pose to the public must be recognized as complex and not easily eliminated by blanket policies."
• "Some sexual perpetrators present a severe threat to public safety, and it is these most dangerous offenders that social policies should strive to control. Broad, overly inclusive policies, however, consume public resources while unnecessarily disrupting the stability of low risk, non-violent, and statutory sex offenders in ways that may diminish their likelihood of successful reintegration and even increase their risk."

--ViperFace (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

An excellent list! I would add that we need to apply caution in how the above it described on the mainpage: Public perceptions should be described as public perceptions, whereas the professional consensus can/should be described as encyclopedic information (that is, the actual facts).

Another RS I would recommend (and which is publicly available) is: http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/ppReasonedApproach.pdf

— James Cantor (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys seem to be very specifically focused on degrading articles. That isn't going to happen here or anywhere else on this website.--MONGO 05:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete well-sourced text, and despite your increasingly antagonistic and disruptive edits and comments, you have presented no content-based or policy-based reasoning. Please see the comment I left for you at Talk:Sex offender.— James Cantor (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section as it is now is remarkably tendentious, and takes a strong position in opposition to the act. Also, criticism sections are not a good idea. It might be better to work up something here on the talk page to be added if there's consensus. I've removed the criticism section. Tom Harrison 11:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether the criticism (or any other section) is positive or negative is irrelevant. What matters is whether it matches the content and consensus of the RS's. The RS's are essentially unanimous in indicating the faults of the Adam Walsh Act. I can ask Tom only what one can ask any Wikipedian: What RS's or views are missing? Where is the evidence that the relevant text is out of line with the RS's? The problem we appear to be having here is that there are folks who simply don't believe that the status of the RS's is what it is. I appreciate that the status of the RS's is not what many folks in society have been led to believe, but if otherwise experienced Wikipedians are not convinced by a long series of RS's and an entire lack of dissenting RS's, what exactly is going on? — James Cantor (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your argument of opposition to his act and other laws is well documented both in text here and in your own writings. While it's appreciated that you and Viperface may indeed be trying to show that there may be flaws with the law, its speculative at best. How do you demonstrate aside from opinion pieces that the changes made by his law which merely strengthened already existing laws that this strengthing is actually making it more likely that child molesters are more likely to commit that offense. I see.nothing in those reports that show that this act led to an increase in child molestations. Such deeds may be on the raise, but nothing in the references you and others have provided prove this correlation.--MONGO 12:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not addressing the issue: the content, the nearly unanimous content, of the RS's.

Regarding opinions, the relevant opinions of legitimate experts (such as editors of top journals of the field, official statements from state law enforcement, etc.) cited in well-regarded outlets (such as CNN and the BBC) are entirely legitimate to include. That includes me, but is most certainly not limited to me; just about every expert in this field (and whole professional associations) are of like opinion. (And was I myself cited somewhere on the page? I must have missed that.)

Moreover, the relevant RS's are not merely opinion, although it does include opinion (of experts). The relevant information includes numerous studies showing that this and related laws simply are not having the intended effects, and includes the ethical objections expressed by top civil rights groups (which, of course, cannot be evaluated by data):

• Agudo, S. E. (2008). Irregular passion: The unconstitutionality and inefficacy of sex offender residency laws. Northwestern Law Review, 102, 307–341.
• Berlin, F. S., Malin, M., & Dean, S. (1991). Effects of statutes requiring psychiatrists to report suspected sexual abuse of children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 449–453.
• California Sex Offender Management Task Force. (2007). Making California communities safer: Evidence-based strategies for effective sex offender management. Retrieved from California State Association of Counties website: http://www.counties.org/images/users/1/Making California Communities Safer -Evidenced Based Strategies for Effective Sex Offender Management.pdf
• Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 484–504.
• Kansas Sex Offender Policy Board. (2007). January 8, 2007 report. Retrieved from http://governor.ks.gov/files/Grants_Program/SOPBReport.pdf
• Tewksbury, R., & Jennings, W. G. (2010). Assessing the impact of sex offender registration and community notification on sex-offending trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 570–582.
• Zandbergen, P. A., Levenson, J. S., & Hart, T. C. (2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 482–502.

Even if what you are saying were true (which it is not), it does not justify the suppression of the entire literature evaluating the effects of the Adam Walsh Act and related laws.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Assembled references

1. Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 7 (1): 070619081026002–???. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x.
2. Harris, A. J.; Lobanov-Rostovsky, C.; Levenson, J. S. (2 April 2010). "Widening the Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act's Federally Mandated Sex Offender Classification System". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 37 (5): 503–519. doi:10.1177/0093854810363889.
3. Levenson, J. S.; D'Amora, D. A. (1 June 2007). "Social Policies Designed to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Emperor's New Clothes?". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 18 (2): 168–199. doi:10.1177/0887403406295309.

• Start-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles