There is a great deal of discussion (which will probably soon become 'controversy') over the Adam Walsh Act, a sweeping federal law requiring registration of 'sex offenders.' One of the key points of contention is that it has a blanket requirement for juvenile acts (apparently after age 14).

from a Chronicle story:
...said Bill Hawkins, chief of the juvenile division of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. "There are an awful lot of sexual assault cases, and then there are kids who engage in sex at an early age. The Adam Walsh Act wants to put them all together."

The act would in effect remove discretion from the State of Texas about whether or not individual juvenile offenders had to register. One of the fears, from a practioners side, is that it would make bargaining over charges exceptionally difficult. Without the ability to recommed "no registration", many prosecutors fear that every juvenile case involving sex will turn into 'battle royale.'

I wonder that posters think of this act, and what its potential effects might be on practice in Texas (particularly juvenile). Not having studied the act myself (at least yet), does anyone see any other potential issues?

When I checked into the status of the Act in Texas quite awhile ago for our juvenile judge, I was advised that DPS, which oversees the sex offender registry for the state, was working on the Adam Walsh rules/regs. I do not know the current status of those rules/regs.

Since it is a federal program / legislation, what could DPS do to change or alter any of the regulations?

Legislation to implement the revised Adam Walsh Act was introduced last session but failed to pass -- primarily because the bill's own sponsors (both of whom were quoted in that Chronicle article) decided it was bad public policy.

For the text of the bill, see here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB1740

Some other states have also backed away from coming into compliance, although I can't recall which ones. All states have until the summer of 2009 to come into compliance or face the loss of some federal funds (which just so happen to be getting cut in D.C. anyway, so the loss may not actually amount to anything anyway).

Apparently "the state" could choose to opt out of the program and not forward any data to the Feds, etc. [and I believe the act requires the states themselves to build/maintain the registry web sites, etc.] The Feds, however, would then fine the state by withholding certain law enforcement funding, specifically 10% of the money from the "Byrne justice assistance grant" program. Given that the grant program has been repeatedly slashed (by 67% last year alone), many states figure their part of that pie won't amount to much anyway.

Shannon, thank you for the good info.