Two such states are Arizona and Texas. Both of these states, after investigating the law thoroughly, have come out against implementing the AWA. The reasons vary, but cost is a primary concern. Also the offence based tier system that the AWA sets up is not as effective as the risk based system that is being used by a few states.
Critics point out that the AWA tier system will add many more offenders to an already bloated list; and most of those will be tier III, the most dangerous. However that is not an accurate view of the registry. A tier system based on risk assessments would have far less listed as tier III, and over-all the registry could be reduced by 70% to 80%.
What could that mean for parents who are concerned about the registered offender down the road? Under a risk based system, a parent would have a better idea of who is more likely to reoffend. This is certainly not the case under an offence based system.
Here is an example of why this is true. In the real world plea bargains happen every day. Part of the bargaining process is where the prosecutor makes concessions for a guilty plea. These concessions can include reduction of the severity of the charge. It is not uncommon for an offender to plea to a charge that is much less severe than the crime committed. Under the AWA that person who may have violently raped a child would fall under the plea agreement offence, in some states that could be a Tier II and in some it could be a Tier I. In this instance the parents are greatly misled. Also this offender could be removed from the registry after 15 of 25 years.
Under a risk based system this offender would be given rigorous testing to determine his/her true risk level to the public. Many things are taken into account under a risk based system including; Age9(s) of the victim(s), relationships, past crimes, sex of the victim(s) and much more.
As you can see states that have rejected the AWA are doing so with true public safety in view. Yes it is hard to say no to a law named after a victim, whose father is a well known activist, but a few law makers have the courage to read the wording of the law, to count the cost, to seek advice from professionals. In the end we will likely see that the states that reject the AWA will be safer for children and women than those who opt in on the offence based system that is based mostly on false information.
What about the cost. At this time school fundin is being diverted to law enforcement to watch over the nearly 750,000 offenders who are listed on the public registry. If the registry were carfully reduced to include only those who have been found by risk assessment to be a true risk, this money could be returned to its proper place, schools. If we look at this rationally, is it not child abuse to take away money from their schooling? We know it is and yet it is happening nationwide. At the same time law enforcement is digging its hands into the governments pockets so it can monitor an ever growing registry; a registry that is ineffective.