Jump to content

Megan's Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toolofthesystem (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 6 July 2007 (→See Also: Reversing vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Megan's Law is the term used to denote a number of state laws in the United States that require law enforcement authorities to identify what are generally called sex offenders to the public at large through various media, including in some cases the Internet.

Purpose

The characteristic feature of the laws that requires those subject to it to notify the local police department of any change of address after being released from prison. This requirement may be imposed permanently upon the offender or for a fixed period of time (usually at least ten years), depending on the individual state, and sometimes on the nature or gravity of the specific offense. Some states that have such a law require persons convicted of any sexual assault, whether the victim was a child or not, to notify the authorities of their whereabouts. Some states require notification only for certain types of sexual assaults; and at least one state, Kansas, extended the requirement to persons convicted of sodomy or consensual sodomy, which was illegal in that and some other U.S. states before the Supreme Court of the United States declared state laws prohibiting consensual sodomy unconstitutional in June of 2003 (see Lawrence v. Texas).

History

The first Megan's Law was passed in New Jersey in 1994 after the rape and murder of Megan Kanka. Jesse Timmendequas, who years earlier had pleaded guilty to the attempted aggravated sexual assault of a girl, was convicted of Kanka's rape and murder and was sentenced to death, although he maintains that he is innocent of the charges and continues to fight his conviction and sentence.

The Megan Kanka Foundation suggests, "Every parent should have the right to know if a dangerous sexual predator moves into their neighborhood." That is the core principle of the law: parents should know when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood so they can protect their children.

There is, however, considerable controversy regarding the question of whether the Kanka family may indeed have known that a sex offender (not necessarily Timmendequas, however) lived in the house across the street. Although the Kankas vigorously deny any such knowledge, evidence suggests that the criminal past of at least one of the residents of the house where Timmendequas lived was common knowledge in the neighborhood. This criminal past included sexual assault, rape, and gang shootings.

Timmendequas lived in a house with two other convicted sex offenders with whom he had served time at the Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center, the state's treatment-oriented correctional facility for sex offenders. One of the other offenders, Joseph Cifelli (who had been convicted of sexually abusing a 5-year-old girl), had lived in the same house as a child, and his past was well known in the community. According to a neighbor who lived on the same block:

"When I read that in the papers [that neighbors had no knowledge that three sex offenders were living on the block], I was pissed. They all knew what Joey Cifelli did. It was common knowledge. How could those neighbors go to bed at night and sleep and say that they didn’t know that he was a pervert?"

Other neighbors also stated that they knew about the three men's pasts, including one neighbor who trimmed back tree branches so she could keep an eye on her granddaughter when she was playing by the men's house. Kanka's father, Richard Kanka, admitting to having heard "vague stories" about the men, insisted that he knew nothing of their pasts. Maureen Kanka has stated she knew nothing of the men's past, but has also asserted that people should not have to rely on gossip and rumors about possible sex offenders living in the neighborhood, suggesting at least the possibility that she too had heard rumors about at least one of the men's pasts

Nonetheless, on May 17, 1996, the federal version of Megan's Law was enacted. Authored by Congressman Dick Zimmer, it requires every state to develop a procedure for notifying concerned people when a person convicted of certain crimes is released near their homes. The law has been amended several times since the original bill was passed, and different states have different procedures for making the required disclosures.

Arguments in favor of the law

The basic intention of Megan's Law, according to its proponents, is to give parents the ability to protect their children by making them aware of the presence of convicted sex offenders in their neighborhood. The individual who murdered Megan Kanka, Jesse Timmendequas, was a convicted sex offender of whose background the Kanka family claims not to have been aware. Maureen Kanka maintains that had she known about Timmendequas' prior conviction, she would have warned Megan to stay away from him.

Supporters of Megan's Law maintain that the law is essential because of the inability of sex offenders to be "cured" and what they maintain are the extremely high recidivism rates of sex offenders. The law's supporters vigorously oppose using the law for the purpose of harassing or otherwise violating the rights of sex offenders, even if only to prevent the law from being repealed on the grounds that it facilitates such illegal behavior.

In addition, proponents of Megan's Law correctly point out that information about convicted criminals has always been public information; Megan's Law, they say, only makes it easier for parents and other concerned individuals to access this information without having to do laborious research.

The supporters of Megan's Law also maintain that the law's retroactive application to offenders who committed their offenses prior to the law's enactment does not constitute ex post facto law because the intent of the law is not to punish, but to enhance public safety. Whatever incidental harm or inconvenience sex offenders may suffer as a result of the law, its supporters say, is the unavoidable consequence of their own illegal behavior and is outweighed by the community's right to know that a dangerous person is living within their midst.

Megan's Law also provides an easy and inexpensive way for schools, churches, daycare centers, and volunteer youth organizations (e.g. Boy Scout troops and Little League baseball teams) to screen applicants for positions working with children to assure that they have not been convicted of a sex crime. Similarly, parents seeking babysitters or live-in domestic help can check applicants against the registry database prior to offering them employment.

Proponents of Megan's Law often point out that it is not the law's purpose to promote vigilantism, harassment, or other illegal acts against registered sex offenders. Indeed, every state sex offender registry's web site contains a notice that the information contained must not be used for illegal purposes.

Criticism

People concerned with civil liberties and other groups such as various pro-sex activists have criticized Megan's Law claiming the sex offender registry unfairly includes those who committed consensual crimes in addition to sexual predators. Advocates for nudism and topfreedom claim that some arrests for indecent exposure could improperly include certain incidents involving public nudity in which one could become a sex offender. The activities in question include streaking, skinny dipping, public urination, and mooning. Consensual sodomy, adultery, and oral sex are also crimes for which one could be declared a sex offender and required to register under the law.[1]

Legal criticism of Megan's Law notes that it creates the problem of "double jeopardy" and "ex post facto protections". From this perspective Megan's Law is viewed as punitive and the notification requirement is analogous to public shaming. Legal critics maintain that the historical context of forced notification should be examined. If Megan's Law is considered punitive and that it is "punishment" then the law would have to be deemed unconstitutional. The opinion of the U.S. court varies greatly in interpreting the constitutionality of Megan's Law.

A number of police officers, prosecutors, and crime victims' rights advocates view Megan's Law as an ineffective and unreliable method of preventing sexual predators from repeating their crimes because of their inability to be "cured". Some of these critics view life imprisonment for high risk sex offenders (especially child sexual offenders) to be better than community notification[2].

The registration database is built on information provided by former offenders who are complying with the law, and who are therefore inclined toward accepting responsibility and living law-abiding lives. The registry therefore becomes, in effect, a database of those former sex offenders who presently are law-abiding citizens, and who therefore may be the least likely to re-offend. The real threat, critics maintain, is posed by those offenders who do not bother to register or who provide false information. Another similar criticism is that while parents in the neighborhood are informed, it does not order the offender to leave. It is also unknown if Timmenquedas would have been stopped if he had been made to abide by such a law, in which critics of the law have often stated "Megan's Law would not have saved Megan".

The law may give parents a false sense of security. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the overwhelming majority of minors sexually assaulted were victimized by a family member or acquaintance. This weakens the notion that children are most likely to be victimized by a stranger with a history of sexual misconduct, such as would appear on a sex offenders registry.

Some mental health professionals and social observers speculate that overly harsh laws imposed on released sex offenders may increase, rather than decrease, their likelihood of committing new sex crimes. These critics assert that the combination of legal restrictions on where an offender may reside, and shame and harassment resulting from community notification, may force offenders to live in isolation in rural areas (or conversely, in heavily industrial neighborhoods of cities), far from their families, treatment providers, houses of worship, and other sources of social and emotional support.

Also of concern to civil rights advocates and law enforcement officials alike have been instances of vigilantism against registered sex offenders. There have been some highly-publicized cases of vigilantes using state-run sex offender registry web sites to gather information about registered sex offenders, which was used to murder those individuals. Two of the more notable cases were the murders of two men in Washington State in August of 2005 and of two men in Maine in April 2006. It is difficult to precisely quantify the frequency of vigilante incidents because neither the Justice Department nor any other governmental agency maintains a database of such incidents. In addition, many lesser incidents (verbal harassment, vandalism, etc.) probably go unreported by the offenders themselves, either because they believe that reporting the harassment is pointless, or because they fear retribution. Critics of the law assert that the government's intentions are meaningless compared to the undeniable fact that information made available pursuant to Megan's Law has repeatedly been used to commit violent crimes, including murder. These critics would assert that the government is guilty of gross negligence by reason of intentional and deliberate indifference to the potentially fatal consequences of the law's requirements.

Sex offender registration laws are often based on an assertion that the recidivism statistics frequently cited by politicians to justify the laws are inflated and are not borne out by actual evidence. Statistically, sex-offenders are less likely to re-offend than many other types of criminals.

Megan's Law also targets a specific type of adult, and ignores all others that pose a threat to children. Car drivers who regularly break the speed limit, drive while under the influence, do not maintain their vehicles properly, or parents who let children ride in the car without belting up kill more children each year then child sex offenders. Yet Megan's Law ignores such ordinary people.

Between the extremes

In between the camps who are respectively in favor of and opposed to Megan's Law, there is an increasing number[citation needed] of people who believe that the negative aspects of the law can be ameliorated through thoughtful reforms, while still preserving the law's core purpose of making information about convicted sex offenders available to the public.

Opinions of ordinary Americans sometimes seem at odds with the legislative trend toward "toughening" Megan's Law. For example, two respondents suggested that registry information should only be available to adults who walk into a police station, present identification, and make an inquiry regarding a particular individual [citation needed]. They contend that such an approach could allow parents to inquire about an individual about whom they have suspicions, while at the same time discouraging vigilantism by eliminating anonymous access to registry information.

Some of the proposed reforms include repeal of the laws prohibiting consensual sodomy, adultery, and oral sex. Narrowing the legal definition of indecent exposure to public masturbation and unwelcome display of the genitals is another.

Many states have three strikes laws as an alternative to Megan's Law. Applying it to child sex offenders and rapists who have been convicted on three or more counts of such an offense or have two or more prior felony convictions would result in a sentence of life in prison for a repeat sex offender.

See Also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megan%27s_Law&oldid=142841383"