According to the AWA guidelines: Adjudicated juveniles 14-18 is changed to a convicted juvenile under this act?
When Megan’s law registration policy states an adjudication of a juvenile does “NOT” count as a conviction? I don’t get it ? I thought laws were written so normal thinking people can understand them, I’m &^%$%^% CONFUSED and lost !!!

[A.G. Order No. 2196-98]
RIN 1105-AA56 : http://cl.bna.com/cl/19990120/2196.htm

Megan’s Law; Final Guidelines for the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, as Amended
Excerpts: 2. Juvenile delinquents and offenders. The Act’s registration requirements depend in all circumstances on conviction for certain types of offenses. Hence, states are not required to mandate registration for juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent–as opposed to adults convicted of crimes and juveniles convicted as adults–even if the conduct on which the juvenile delinquency adjudication is based would constitute an offense giving rise to a registration requirement if engaged in by an adult. However, nothing in the Act prohibits states from requiring registration for juvenile delinquents, and the conviction of a juvenile who is prosecuted as an adult does count as a conviction for purposes of the Act’s registration requirements.

In the AWA guidelines included children. Adjudicated children

Teenagers engaging in sex ARE NOT criminals. ANYONE having consensual sexual relationships ARE NOT CRIMINALS! If you are not FORCED – if you are WILLING and participating – THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CRIME!

Too many teens lie to achieve sex with someone a few years older. IF THEY ARE NOT HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE – THE PERSON THEY DECEIVE SHOULD NOT BE EITHER. The one’s they are having sex with are not “predators”; some of the teens themselves are. They will continue to do this because there is NO consequences for them regarding their actions or deceptions.

Neither of the above are a “threat to society”, but labeling them within the AWA allows the public to view them in that regard. Who is this truly helping? No one!

I have never been a supporter of the AWA. Since it was downplayed that John and Reve Walsh attempted to sue over Adam’s kidnapping – because Reve herself walked away from 6 year old Adam; allowing the opportunity for a sick deviant to take him.

I further have not supported the AWA since it has never been PROVEN Adam was sexually violated in any way. The Walsh’s have made this assumption.

Assumption being the case; it is then my right to make one of my own; they promote this act to rid themselves of guilt. The disregard for circumstance and judicial reasoning that come with the AWA leaves me no choice but to believe they blinded by revenge and care nothing about actually protecting children – only soothing their own conscious correlating to their loss.

If an offender has prior sexually deviant history; if their victim was a young child; if the offense was violent or forced; THOSE are the offenders the AWA should address. THOSE type of offender need the attention of law enforcement – and the public.

Broad scope does not a good law make.

The law is supposed to be fair and unbiased. The AWA is neither.