Megan's Law--what is more important?

Great Debates
21

ok first off, no big deal, but I don’t like to mislead folks. I’m female. and, by the way, thanks for the attempt again to let AnnieXmas know what we’re trying to point out
My position on Megan’s Law doesn’t relate to “embarassing or cruel and unusual” , it’s more that I have seen no hint as to what possible outcome it’s looking for. “inform” the population at large? to what purpose? The population was already informed when the conviction was published (pretty standard for all communities to publish lists of criminal convictions as they happen). What ** is ** very different is that Megan’s Laws are publishing not only conviction information but present residence of some one who’s conviction was in the past. Why only child molesters? Why not other criminal convictions? (there’s that slippery slope) for example, there’s a lot of attention of “drug dealers” do you really think it’s significant for anyone to know that ol’ Fred there sold some weed back in the 70s? or that as a teen Mary shoplifted from the local grocery store? At what point will you concede that some one has rehabilitated?

What exactly would you do differently given the knowledge?
You would possibly find out that Mr. Smith at that address has a history. In the first place you don’t know what kind of history, but even if he was the scum variety, what are you going to do that’s different? Teaching your child the issues will prevent pretty much anything except the snatch and grab variety of offense (which are relatively small in number). And nothing, sadly, can prevent that one.

Now as for why it’s not necessarily a good idea for all of this: I work with re-entry issues for ex offenders. My goal is to assist them into becoming good tax paying, employed non trouble making citizens. Their Parole agents and I do various things, like make referrals for counseling if warrented, assist in finding suitable employment (a busy ex con has less time to get into trouble), and other issues as they arise.

Why would you want to put into place yet another HUGE hurdle for them to overcome and especially in the case of the ones you’re most afraid of? Adjusting to the outside world is a difficult process. It would only add to the burden… But, you say “who cares, they’re scum, their burden should be higher”. well, again, to what purpose? to make it MORE difficult for them to be adjusted, tax paying good citizens again? That seems to be a good idea?

See, to increase the pressure on some one who already has issues to overcome and problems to solve, cannot be a productive manuever. Especially since there’s no reason to believe that by notifying all of the neighbors that it would prevent any specific crime. THe scum that killed Megan (for whom the law was named) would have snatched up any child at some time. Notifying her parents that he’d had priors MIGHT have prevented Megan herself (and yes, that’s a wonderful thing) but would NOT have prevented SOME other child from dying.

So, for me, it’s back to: if ya want to lock em all up, then by all means change the laws etc. If you want to prevent harm to your child, take up the suggestions that I’ve made.

Megans laws are expensive, difficult to manage, prone to factual errors that can have tragic consequences, and sadly will probably not prevent abuse of children.

22

You might not be lulled into a false sense of security, but that doesn’t mean others won’t be. In my opinion, certain sex offender laws ( those that go door to door notifying neighbors)but lull some people into a false sense of security. Let’s say A down the block is a sex offender ( in terms of safety). How differently should you treat him than B down the block, who you don’t know, but who is not a sex offender?You shouldn’t treat them differently at all. You certainly wouldn’t let them go into A’s house, but neither should you let them go into B’s.The only possible beneficiary of these laws is someone who knows and trusts A, was unaware of the conviction, and then believes that when notified that A did do what he was convicted of ( if they feel that “A who we’ve known and trusted for years, couldn’t possibly do such a thing”,they won’t change their behavior). Same goes for notifying schools. I don’t want schools to treat a sex offender hanging around outside the schoolyard differently than any other unidentified man doing that- the police should be notified in both cases.
To get back ( in a way ) to Wring’s point about age, in some states, someone who as an 18 year old had sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend has to register as a sex offender.Regardless of whether you think that behavior is acceptable, that’s surely not who anyone is worried about
moving in next door and that’s not what they think of when they hear sex offender.

23

Hmmmmm…

I commit a crime, get convicted, don’t get a Presidential pardon, serve my time, and get out.

Then I expect complete privacy for my public act.

Looks like I can run for President again.

There has never been, nor should there be any “protection” for people who commit criminal acts - of any kind.

Just imagine if Bush or Gore had got caught smokin’ dope but were shielded by this non-existant right to privacy. After all, they’d paid their debt to society! Most people would be demanding to know all the details.

Through Megan’s Law, the people are using the tool of government to disseminate knowledge of public acts. With it one doesn’t have to rely on rumor about one’s neighbors.

As for the predators’(sorry perpetrators) “rights”, Megan’s Law limits nothing that was there before. If a sex offender stayed in his old neighborhood after jail, the community was fully aware of his criminal past and present rehabilitation.

IIRC correctly, the two small Canadian studies cited above do not change my belief that sexual predators are more likely to repeat their offenses than other felons.

While working to rehabilitate criminals is a thankless, neverending task, acquaintences of mine who have done time just loved attending counseling sessions in jail. A great way to pass the day and they all knew the necessary lies to show how much progress they were making.

24

Wow, wring, I had always heard the exact opposite about recidivism rates for molesters & pedophiles for the very real reason that they have no control over it, but you seem to have a lot of experience in the field so I will defer to your statement of the facts.

My hubby was a prosecutor who put away several juvenile sex offenders. Were these 16 year olds caught groping their 15 year old girlfriends by pissed parents? No, one was a 16 year old monster having sex acts which included multiple penetrations with a 4 year old. Needless to say, due to his age I’m not sure that a “Megans” type law will ever apply. Were he to reoffend as an adult, I believe the info will be accessible to authorities (a strike? Not sure).

I don’t know how I feel about these laws. Would I like to know if a pedophile lived in my neighborhood? Yeah, I would. Same with a violent criminal, a perpetrator of check fraud, or whatever. What would I do about it? Don’t know, I hope nothing violent or scary. And frankly, it is probably none of my business anyway.

I’m reminded of a similar case with a violent criminal that may ring some bells. A woman lives around here who, as a teenager, was hitch-hiking. A guy in a van picked her up, raped her and chopped her arms off at the elbows with an axe. He then pushed her out of the van & left her for dead. Well, she survived and he was prosecuted & convicted, but due to the CA laws at the time, he only served 8 years.

After he was released, the system lost track of this man, failed to notify the victim of his release etc. That is, they lost track of him until a pizza or other type of delivery person came to a house in Florida and this guy answered the door with blood all over him and a body in plain sight behind him. No remorse; he even asked what had taken them so long to find him.

If it were widely known what this man had done in CA, would it have made a difference? Maybe. I believe the woman was a prostitute, and I don’t know if she would be comparing her johns to the flyers on the lamppost. I believe that the first victim has said that, had she known of his release and whereabouts, she would have told the whole world what he had done.

The point? I don’t know. Most of the time I feel like whatever collateral fucking you get as a result of your crime is tough shit. But I have also read several well-thought-out arguments here that have me wondering.

25

You’d better believe it. In 1994, there were 3.14 million reports of abuse. Of that number, 1.036 million reports were actually substantiated. These numbers represent total abuse, and weren’t specific to sexual crimes. http://www.fullpower.org/stats/stats3.html
for the full information. Sadly, it doesn’t take much to make a claim of sexual abuse, and less to convince a jury to convict. Witness the McMartin and Edenton (N.C.) preschool cases, the Washington state cases, and who-knows-how-many others.

Unfortunately for our society, crime and justice issues are becoming very politicized. Careers are made and broken on the number and kinds of laws that are passed, whether they make sense to anyone or not. Megan’s Law, like zero-tolerance policies regarding drugs and weapons in schools, and mandatory reporting for suspected abuse, is an example of legislation that legislators can take back home to let their constituents know that they’re at least doing something. And prosecutors can get convictions on these laws to tell potential supporters and voters that they’re getting scum off the streets. And citizens are lulled into thinking that, finally, someone’s doing something!

Oh, well. Can’t please everyone, I guess.

Robin

26

Have I been wrong all this time? Was I ill-informed in my government class? Once you have served your time --all of it-- for the crime you have committed aren’t your rights returned to you?

Who wants to argue in favor of child molesters? I certainly don’t. But Megan’s Law goes against every civil rights instinct in my body. The government should not be following around ex-cons and pointing fingers at them.

However, if anybody hurt my children in this way, I’d find out where the perv moved to. I’d send out letters to his neighbors. I’d make his life a living hell. Forever. But I’m an individual acting out of spitefulness and dealing out revenge. This is not how I want my government to act.

27

There have been, are, and should be - they’re called basic human rights, granted to us by the Constitution. Should every crime committed result in lifelong persecution? Jail is not only supposed to punish, but also to rehabilitate and, in a sense, absolve.

Agreed - the information they’re publishing is already of public record, which is why, so far, Megan’s laws are perfectly legal. I still think they go too far.

Megan’s laws were specifically designed for the offender who moves to a new neighborhood where his or her history is unknown (and gives a second community the chance to smear his/her name and hang a scarlet “P” for pervert on him/her).

Nobody is saying the system is perfect, or even that Megan’s laws don’t have their plus points, but from an overall standpoint I’m against them.

Esprix

28

Imagine your typical week: You get up, rouse your kids, prepare for school and work. you go to work, kid goes to school, you feel safe and confident 'cause due to Megan’s Laws, you KNOW that, well as of the last time you checked, there are NO child molesters listed as living near your home, your babysitter’s home, your work or your child’s school. Maybe you stop at a store on the way home from work. On the weekend, you take your child to the movies, to a park, to worship, to friends houses etc.
Just take a moment to think about how FEW people you meet on a daily basis for whom you have an address. Megan’s Laws may give you some semi current, correct information about past history of some of the people whose address you know. It will give you zero information on the person who’s delivering pizzas to your neighbor, the cousin visiting the folks across the street, the man walking his dog, the customer in line behind you, the person sitting next to you in the movie theater, the other parent visiting their child at school.

But you sure are feeling safer 'cause you know there’s no molesters 'round here.

29

Or, worse, having solidly told your child to avoid Mr. Smith on the next block, as you’ve been notified he’s a sex offender, you rest assured that, since your child is aware, no harm will come to them. Never mind that Johnny next door, with a few secrets of his own, is hoping you’ll ask him to babysit someday soon…

(Eek! I’m starting to sound like an episode of the “X-Files!”)

Esprix

30

Someone who molests a child has crossed a line, and I’m not sure there is ever any coming back.

What that person has decided, is that a few minutes of their sexual pleasure is worth torturing a child for life. Either they have made that decision, or worse yet, they just don’t care.

I have heard no argument how a jail sentence will fundamentally change such a person so that he would be unwilling to make the same decision again.

Such a person represents a known danger to society. To deliberately ignore this is a crime itself.

At the very least, forewarned is forearmed. At the very least, Megans law is likely to make it a little more difficult for such a person to make a repeat offense.

The fact that knowledge is not always used responsibly, does not mean that knowledge is undesireable. Withholding this kind of vital information on the grounds that there are other dangers, or it might be misused, is like not telling a child to be careful of strange dogs becuase that might stop him from worrying about snakes. WTF?

Megan’s law is a good thing. It warns children and parents about known threats to children’s safety. The fact that it makes sex-offenders uncomfortable is also good.

There is no reasonable argument against Megan’s law.

If you are against this law you are putting the convenience and privacy of a human animal that preys on children before the basic right of those children to live unmolested.

31

The arguments against Megan’s Laws are specious and ultimately totalitarian.

A criminal act is by its nature a public act, just like setting up a business, getting married, graduating from school, or many of the countless things we do in our community each day.

There is no expectation of privacy nor should there be.

Megan’s Law was not (as some here so cynically imply) as result of big government or grasping politicians’ but a legitimate response by an outraged public.

Exactly what a representative democracy is all about.

The more serious question is whether the dissemination of a public act by government infringes on the rights of felons.

I think not.

First, common law does not grant back to felons all of their previous rights, even after they have been released back to society. In many states, they may not vote nor hold certain public offices or private jobs. Thus “lifetime” punishment (if you will) does exist and further restrictions do not violate the Constitution.

In this case, the “restriction” is simply the dissemination of the public record by a government agency. I don’t have a problem with that.

Nor really should anyone.

The “solution” advocated by opponents of these laws is to use government to block dissemination of the public record. At its core, this is totalitarianism at its worst -unless you believe that the public does not have the right to know its own business.

With such a “right” to restrict public knowledge, I think quite a bit more than the addresses of sex offenders will be withheld from the people.

As for the scarlet letter analogy - it’s totally false. Any act against ex-cons is also a criminal act that should be persued vigorously. IMHO, lingering anger against these offenders would be best served by extending their prison terms - preferably to a minmum of 20-25 years.

In that time, at least one generation is spared from a “relapse”.

Nor do I have a problem with the “excessive cost” - like funding prisons for violent offenders, I’m more than happy to open my wallet.

Ultimately, Megan’s Law should be extended to all violent felons. As I stated before, in small communities this kind of public knowledge has been long established - with few problems.

I simply gets down to what do you believe in - the people’s right to know their business or restrictions of that well established right.

32

Nope, not all of them anyway. We routinely remove voting rights from ex-cons in certain jurisdictions, and also the right to bear arms. As far as privileges go, criminal pasts may have you barred from being a doctor, a lawyer, or other state certified/overseen professions too. There are probably others I haven’t heard of or can’t remember right this instant as well.

33

** Nixon, Scylla** I am not arguing about it the information is “public information”. Nor am I arguing from the standpoint of exoffender rights. No reason NOT to have it? how about : it’s expensive, often wrong leading to other tragedies, does not actually prevent a molester who intends to re offend from reoffending, and lulls people into a false sense that “there, NOW we’ve really done something positive towards ending child abuse”.

Remember, it only tells you about people who’s address you know. If you don’t know the address, you can’t look up the name. If you don’t know the name, you can’t look up any information. THINK - how often during your day do you KNOW the name and/or address of the people you encounter. And, unless you live in a gated community, you aren’t able to restrict other people access to where you live, either.

Criminal convictions are a matter of public record, however, in general, you are not able to run a criminal background check on everyone you want. As an employer, I can run a check on a prospective employee. I cannot run a check on my next door neighbor. And publishing the addresses alongside it,too? wow. How about, instead of Megan’s law, we just include criminal stats on everybody in the phone book?

AND so far in ANY of these threads, there have been multiple people making unsubstantiated claims that “molesters almost always re offend” and “there’s no cure” and so on. And so far*** not a single one of you ***has come up with a shred of evidence to support your claim, other than "I have a friend who was FBI/police/socialworker etc and THEY said… Not one.

I, on the other hand have provided links to studies done. I had another one that linked to a large US study, but my computer got swapped out and I’ve got a crappy new search engine.
and, by the way ** Nixon**
**

Please be a bit more clear about the distinction. I work on the outside. I’m well aware of the “entertainment” value of prison groups (although I do actually conduct one weekly at the county jail). My clients are NOT required to use my services, are here by choice and by appointment. THEY have to extend effort to get to me. and as far as the “necessary lies” - I make sure they know I did 14 years in residential treatment services. Does this mean they don’t try nonsense? no, but it sure cuts down on it.

** EJ’s Girl** - I understand that many of the younger offenders are in fact molesting very young children. I have, however, seen cases of the other.

The ones where the teen is molesting the very young child, tho’ all the one’s I’ve known of, the teen had fit this description:

  1. Been a victim of molestation themselves.
  2. The person who molested them was never prosecuted.

Does this concur with what your hubby sees?

There was one case in particular young man whose dad and uncle repeatedly molested him. They had their “guy games”, and unfortuantly, these two were the boy scout leaders. It became public when the two adults and the teen were all prosecuted (the teen had been with some one about 3 years younger than he was). the two adults were sentenced to life. the teen got a 3 year sentence, has been out now, for roughly 8 or 10 years now, and hasn’t had so much as a traffic ticket.

34

Yes wring, I believe those two items fit. Many offenders were themselves victims (see my pit thread on a similar subject). And it may be that younger offenders victimize young children simply because they don’t have the power to victimize older kids.

I find it hard to believe that what I’ve heard about pedophile recidivism rates all these years could be an urban legend, but you’re right, no cites contrary to yours yet.

Bottom line- yes, I want to know; yes, I believe my government can tell me; no, this is no different than other cases of disenfranchisement of criminals.

Boy, my conservative streak is a mile wide today…