Breaking Down Megan's Law from a Constitutional and Effectiveness Standpoint
Politics are an interesting phenomenon. A topic that has never been an issue before can all of the sudden be brought into the spotlight that is our political system. Megan's Law was such an issue. In the mid 1990's, a girl was abducted and raped by a convicted sex offender that had moved into the neighborhood. People were horrified, how could a sex offender move into the community without anyone knowing about it? The families lobbied their state to get a law passed that would make it mandatory for sex offenders to register with local police, and then when they moved into a community, the citizens would be notified. This law was given the title "Megan's Law" named after the girl who was abducted. The issue has since gone to a national level, and now the federal government is requiring all fifty states to enact some type of legislation that deals with Megan's law (Menedez, 251). But is registration constitutional? The Supreme Court isn't so sure, and other courts have yet to agree on the subject. In today's paper, we will examine the laws of registration and notification of sex offenders, and their constitutionality. It is the contention of this paper that having sex offender's register and then having communities notified of their presence is an additional punishment that only convicted sex offenders must face, and that the law should be struck down.
Comments
Alicia
(Guest)
(Guest)
11/24/2009
I am writting on here to speak my option I am in a public speaking class at my local college and we are doing a debate on Megans law. My group is arguing that megans law is a great thing. I belive with all I got that it is. I have two lil ones and I often get on and take a look at me surrondings to see who has moved around us. I belive it doesnt matter what your charged with any sex crime is unacceptable. Luckly I have not had anything happen to me but my younger sister was raped and my older sister was molested and that is a life long effect to them and there life. So I guess if you are worried about you rights mind your p and Q's. Sickos
NaN
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/05/2009
parents need to watch there kids most molestations could have been prevented by the parents not neglecting there kids. Megan%27s family knew about there neighbors past yet they left there 7 year old roam the neighborhood alone. Adam was left by him self at the arcade in the store. I was nearly kidnapped at the age of 3 in a grocery store%2C if it wasn%27t my mom i would have been just another number. I know of three cases where a sex offender lived in the neighborhood but it wast them that molested any one involved in thoes cases. it was people that the family%27s trusted. Megan%27s law gives people a false sense of security. both megan and adam died from bad parenting%0D%0A%0D%0ANaN %28Not a Number%29%0D%0Abecause my mother loved me enough to watch me.
Our entire system of justice is based on crime and punishment after conviction by a jury of one's peers. These individuals really are convicted for the rest of their lives the way the system is set up. Maybe the probationary periods should be increased, and that should be contained within the terms of the probation, registration and disclosure of that information only for a certain amount of time included. This is for life though from what I understand. Once you have repaid your debt to society, that debt should be erased. I also feel that those questions on employment forms need to be reevaluated and, again, once the offender is released from court or state supervision after release, then the slate is wiped clean. How can anyone ever start again otherwise?
James Lyons
(Guest)
(Guest)
08/15/2008
Living in Downtown Los Angeles, I was harassed and molested by several individuals. I hate that feeling. And I hate those people, but I still maintain that it's more important to protect rights than individuals. We should have the government keep track of those people, but if we allow this law to continue, then we must ask ourselves to reframe the moral question as to what we want our criminals to be: rehabilitated or punished.
We'll live in a safer world when we focus on rehabilitation.
I understand where you are coming from Amy, being a parent I would love to know if there is a sex offender living nearby, but as Joyce states, the law doesn't make a distinction between someone who was 18 and had sex with a 17 year old and was charged by the 17 year old's parents and is therefore serving a life sentence. I'm not for the rights of sex offenders, but our constitution says we should only be punished once; we single out this population because of emotion, nothing else. Why don't we single out people who have committed armed robbery or breaking and entering? That was my point.
JOYCE
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/21/2007
IT IS VERY UNFAIR TO ASSUME ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SEX OFFENSE AGANIST THEM, ARE CHILD MOLESTERS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE 20 YEAR OLD CASES INVOLVING YOUNGER GIRL
FRIENDS, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO RE-OFFENSES IN 15 TO 20 YRS. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SERVE LIFE SENTANCES. THE LAW IS UNFAIR WHEN EVERYONE IS JUDGED BY IT. I DISAGREE WITH PARTS OF THIS LAW, IT SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO REAL OFFENDERS, AND HIGH RISK OFFENDERS, THE LAW KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. YET WE PUNISH EVERYONE.
hay
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/13/2007
In all honesty, convicted child molesters should be chemically castrated.
Marshall
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/10/2007
I am the author of the article "Sex Offenders Have the Right to Privacy" which was cited by the author of this article. Please keep a few things in mind: My article was merely a journaled opinion in a college newspaper and was only meant to stir open and thoughtful dialogue on the topic, albeit in a somewhat provoking manner. The theme of my article echoes Erik's thoughts here, which is that the issue of public safety is paramount. By releasing dangerous, unrehabilitated offenders (murderers, rapists, etc.) into the community and simply exposing their identities, we are doing nothing to ensure the safety of citizens and we are letting our democratic ideals go unsatisfied.
Amy
(Guest)
(Guest)
09/06/2007
I find it unbelievable that the majority of your argument is for the privacy rights of sex offenders! Don't you think that, when a person chooses to violate some of our most intimate privacy rights, that their privacy should be the least of our concerns? I can't think of anything more private to a person, especially a child, then what a sex offender violates when they act. It's at that moment that our consideration for their privacy should become a non-issue and the protection of our children and loved ones innocence should be our utmost concern. If it's purely singling out sex offenders that is the issue, make it a list of convicted felons. Anyone who has made the choice to commit such acts has already exhibited disregard for the laws this country and the privacy of others. Concern for the privacy of these people should be the least of our concerns.
Erik
(Guest)
(Guest)
08/30/2007
The root of the problem is that sex offenders are released in the first place. If someone commits rape or molests a child, the only realistically appropriate punishment should be death or life in prison. How does it benefit society to have them serve 2 years and then turn them loose?
Of course, the idea that it is cruel or unusual, or otherwise unconstitutional, to notify a community when a dangerous criminal is released is absurd. Given that they're released in the first place, the community should be notified of anyone who has committed a crime which suggests a potential danger to the community.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 10)
|
|