megan

Purpose

The characteristic feature of the laws 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 (usually the more egregious crimes); and at least one state — Kansas — extended the requirement to persons convicted of 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 Nicole Kanka by Jesse Timmendequas, a convicted sex offender who was living across the street from her.

The Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation suggests that "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: that 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.

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? [1] p. 37

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. Megan's father, Richard Kanka, also admitted to having heard "vague stories" about the men, but insists 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 shouldn't 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.[2]

Nonetheless, in 1996, the first federal version of Megan's Law was passed (U.S. Public Law 104-145)[3] as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. 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.

Authorities in the United Kingdom are currently holding talks about the possible introduction of a variation of Megan's Law, called Sarah's Law, named in memory of Sarah Payne.

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 whose background the Kanka family claims not to have been aware of. 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. [4]

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. ^{citation needed]}

The supporters of Megan's Law also maintain that the law's retroactive application to offenders who commited 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 (Boy Scout troops, Little League baseball teams, and so forth) 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.

Criticism

Despite the near-unanimity that tends to characterize legislative attempts to "toughen" Megan's law (especially during election years), the law does have its critics.

Libertarians, pro-sex feminists and gay rights activists have criticized Megan's Law because the sex offender registry unfairly includes those who committed consensual crimes in addition to sexual predators. The arrests for indecent exposure would improperly include incidents involving public nudity in which one could become a sex offender including streaking, skinny dipping, public urination and mooning. Consensual sodomy (pre Lawrence v. Texas), adultery and fornication are also crimes for which one could be declared a sex offender and required to register under the law.

Another criticism of Megan's Law comes from police officers, prosecutors and victims' rights advocates who view Megan's Law as ineffective. These critics favor life imprisonment for high risk sex offenders (especially for child molesters) instead of community notification.

Others maintain that 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 reoffend. The real threat, these critics would maintain, is posed by those offenders who don't bother to register or who provide false information.

Another criticism comes from those who maintain that 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. ^[1] 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. It's 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.

Nonetheless, 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 they then used to murder those individuals. Two of the more notable cases were the murders of two men in Washington State in August of 2005 [5], and of two men in Maine in April, 2006 [6].

Sex offender community notification has also led to incidents of attempted murder, such as a thwarted attempt against an 82-year-old registered offender in Florida in July of 2004 [7], innocent people being mistakenly identified as sex offenders [8], arson [9], and harrassment of the families of registered sex offenders [10].

Proponents of Megan's Law often point out that it is not the law's purpose to promote vigilantism, harassment, discrimination, 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.

Critics of the law, on the other hand, 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.

Another criticism of sex offender registration laws is 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. A 2004 study commissioned by the Solicitor General of Canada found the five-year recidivism rate for child sex offenders to be 13 percent and the 15-year rate to be 20 percent; however, the recidivism rate dropped dramatically the longer an offender remained offense free, with the rate for an offender who had been offense-free for 15 years being only 4 percent. [11] In the United States, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics rates the three-year recidivism rate for all sex offenders at 5.3 percent. [12]

Some civil libertarians liken the sex offender registration laws to those passed in Nazi Germany in the period from 1933 through 1936, under which which homosexuals and other "deviants" were required to register their whereabouts and wear pink triangles, lost their voting rights, and were subjected to draconian punishments, all in order to "protect the children." Adolf Hitler himself, referring to the laws, wrote:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

The similarity between Megan's Law and the Nazi laws of the 1930's also has been noticed by more than a few ordinary citizens. In an Internet article published shortly after the murders of two registered sex offenders in Maine in April 2006, visitors were asked to comment regarding the Maine sex offender registry Web site and whether it should be taken offline. As of September 20, 2006, 23 visitors had commented, with the great majority favoring abolishing the sex offender registry Web site, and many citing the similarity to the Nazi laws as part of the reason for their positions. [13]

The comparison of Megan's Law with the sex offender registration laws passed by the Third Reich is not just a matter of unpleasant similarity for individuals who are opposed to the law on this basis. Rather, they see the intentional, systematic deprivation of the rights of a particular, generally despised class of people as the first step on the "slippery slope" toward a broader dismantling of civil rights in general [14].

See also

• AMBER Alert
• Amie Zyla
• Sarah's Law - campaign for a similar law in the United Kingdom
• Wetterling Act

External links

• Illinois Sex Offender Registry Web site
• California Megan's Law web site, CA Dept. of Justice
• New York Megan's Law web site, NYS Div. of Criminal Justice Services
• Politics and Irrelevance: Community Notification Statutes - Critical view of notification laws.
• Megan's Law - More info about Megan's Law.
• Parents for Megan's Law