Talk:Jessica's Law

message: Lots of information there, poorly written. The paragraph is too large. I don't have the time tonight to re-write so if anyone else can before I can get to it, please do.-RomeW 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: Despite Leno's fighting to allow possesion of up to 100 CD-Roms filled with child pornographic images, public outrage prompted the legislature to include an outright ban.
This does not strike me as a sterling example of NPOV. Was Leno really fighting to allow this, or was he arguing that no sufficient reason had been given to depart from the status quo?
Oregon Bear 22:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for and against

message: The Florida Law is called "The Jessica Lunsford Act" as well, not just the Federal Statute. Maybe the Jessica Linford Act title should be changed or it should include all incarnations of Jessica's law and merged with this entry. Hoshbaron 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no Jessica Linford Act article, you should propose a move, not a merge.  -Selket Talk 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I misspelled the name. The correct name is "The Jessica Lunsford Act." There is an article. Hoshbaron 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Controversy

message: This section should be expanded,  perhaps with a list of states with counterparts. -- ozoneliar  10 October 2006
The Florida Law is also called "The Jessica Lunsford Act." Maybe the title should be modified to read "Federal Jessica Lunsford Act" to avoid confusion. Hoshbaron 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State level Counterparts

message: I did put up a couple of links, both pro and con. I also addressed some criticisms on this bill. Its important to remember that the reason this bill is controversal is because it contains some provisions which strike many as being conterproductive towards the reduction in crime. I am trying to stay neutral myself.
But, as this article must stay neutral, so I will not take a stand one way or another. 
I will only note the discussion related to this article should be one based on logic. To state that "Only a child molestor would not want this bill" is incorrect. A number legal and psychiatric experts oppose the law for a number of reasons. 
The principal reason for opposition to the bill is that it would be difficult to enforce and would cause many former sex offenders to "go underground" and fail to register.
It should also be noted that opponents of the bill have offered statistics to show that, if properly treated, sex offenders do have very low rates of recidivism. For more on this see this article.Piercetp 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Issues

message: There have been a couple other POV complaints above, but I just wanted to state why I specifically put up the tag for the controversy section.  Specifically, the section reads as an argumentative piece, listing facts to draw a conclusion instead of quoting other people who have drawn a conclusion.  Facts such as that "web offenders" are listed in the registry are true, but the section uses this fact to draw a conclusion (that web offenders aren't so bad and shouldn't be restricted like this)... which is POV. Furthermore, there are no cited quotes whatsoever, leading me to believe original research was used extensively. I'll give this a couple of days, and then start pruning. Fieari 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV section tag

message: As the bill was introduced in the 109th congress and the 110th congress is in session, the bill is dead.  Gront 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Status

message: Many of the links purporting to be about the federal act are in fact about California's state version, which passed last year. Should they be moved - is there a prop 83 article? - or just deleted? DanB†DanD 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CA's prop 83

message: I thought some folks might be interest in this NYTimes OpEd piece out today.  The information discussed in it is relevant to this and other pages. — James Cantor (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those interested. 

message: Here's a link to a NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html
--196.251.88.15 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent, 2017-09-12, New York Times editorial