Megan's+Law

= ** Megan’s Law ** = **The Start of Megan’s Law** Megan Kanka was a seven-year-old girl from Hamilton Township, New Jersey (Fodor, 2001). On the evening of July 29, 1994 Megan crossed the street to see if her friend wanted to play, but the friend was not home (Fodor, 2001). The friend’s next-door-neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas, asked Megan if she would like to see his puppy and led her into the house where he sexually assaulted her, murdered her, and disposed of her body miles away (Fodor, 2001). Jesse Timmendequas had previously been convicted and spent 6 years in prison for sexually assaulting two young girls (Etzioni, 1999). Police, Megan’s parents, and the community were previously unaware of the sexual offender living in their neighborhood (Fodor, 2001).Accordingly, they later discovered that not only was Jesse Timmendequas living in the neighborhood, but also were his two roommates that were both previously convicted sexual offenders (Fodor, 2001). Timmendequas later confessed to the murder of Megan Kanka (Etzioni, 1999). It became a focal point for the media, public, and political action centering on the issue of the public’s ‘right to know’ if sex offenders were residing in their community (Levi, 2000). By the end of October 1994, ‘Megan’s Law was enacted in New Jersey (Levi, 2000)

Megan’s Law bridges the issue of sexual offenders who are released into the community and their threat to society (Cling, 2004). For example, the public has rightful fears that pedophiles will continue to molest children sexually and that they are an invisible threat to children in communities where the sex offenders reside (Cling, 2004). In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a national version of New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, which consisted of sexual offenders registering with police in the town they reside, as well as the public being made aware of high risk convicted sexual offenders living in the community (Fodor, 2001). Megan’s Law consists of all sexual offenders, not just offenders against children (Fodor, 2001). Yet, states differ in the requirements they impose on sexual offenders after their registration with the local law enforcement (Etzioni, 1999). Anyone who commits an offense that is sexual in any nature must register for at least 10 years to life depending on the risk and the jurisdiction of the state (Cling, 2004). Some classifications for who is registered by state are narrowly crafted, while others are overly broad. For example, the registration of an eighteen-year-old boy who wanted to marry his fifteen-year-old pregnant girlfriend or the ninety-year-old man who was convicted of lewd conduct in 1944 for touching a man’s knee in a parked car are registered under broad registration requirements (Etzioni, 1999). Others that are more narrowly crafted include New Jersey and Washington who operate under a tiered system (Etzioni, 1999). The tier system can differ between the states that do use them, but many usually operate as follows: Tier I is low risk with information being shared with other law enforcement agencies, an example being a teenager who is arrested for being in a sexual relationship with a girlfriend that is under the age of legal consent (Fodor, 2001). Tier II is moderate risk that consists of everything in Tier I with the addition of notifying schools, child-care centers, day care providers, organizations, businesses and community groups (Fodor, 2001). Finally, Tier III is regarded as holding the most dangerous sex offenders with the risk of a similar crime reoccurring (Fodor, 2001). This consists of Tier I and II with members of the public being notified (Fodor, 2001). Ultimately though, the means of notification and risk assessment differ from state to state.
 * Megan’s Law**

**Controversy: Communicating to the public about sex offenders** The safety of America’s children is of great importance, especially from the threat of child molesters, pedophiles, and kidnappers (Jones, 1999). Supporters of Megan’s Law feel that the safely of American’s children is more vital than the rights of sex offenders (Jones, 1999). Moreover, Megan’s Law is enacted with the belief that communicating to the public about sex offenders will limit offender’s opportunity to victimize children while allowing community members to protect their children from convicted sex offenders (Jones, 1999). Consequently, the controversy against Megan’s Law deals with communicating to the public about sexual offenders. The extent and methods of community notification vary from state to state; from notifying the local police, to how the information is directly communicated to the general public (Holmes, 2002).For example, Louisiana subjects all registered sex offenders to publicly communicate their status as sex offenders, and can be required to do so through signs, labels, or bumper stickers (Levi, 2000).

Sex offenders who were convicted long before the creation of Megan’s Law are also fighting registration and notification. Their argument is that Megan’s Law violates their due process right because the laws are enacted after a crime and causes additional punishment for the crime (Moon, 2002). However, reviews such as the South Carolina Supreme Court review of State v. Walls found that the law did not violate the //ex post facto// clauses of state and federal constitution because their state explicitly relays that Megan’s Law is enacted to protect the public from offenders, not to help violate the constitutional rights of offenders (Moon, 2002).

Another main issue is whether or not it is constitutional for the sex offender registry to be made available for the public on the Internet (Moon, 2002). New Jersey, ruled that unrestricted access to a sex offender’s home address on the Internet was an unconstitutional violation of their privacy and that the information should be “limited to people who had a statutorily defined need for the information” (Moon, 2002). As of 2002, over 30 states allow their sex offender registries to be accessible via the Internet (Moon, 2002). Similarly, there have been challenges, such as against Connecticut’s notification law, which argues there should be a hearing first to determine a sex offender’s danger to the community before they are placed on an Internet registry (Levenson et al., 2007). For example, should tier I offenders be listed alongside tier III offenders via the world-wide-web?

Finally, there are controversies over how the public deals with the notification of sexual offenders in their area. One concern is vigilantism. Acts of vigilantism have occurred resulting in severe consequences when community members violently lash out at sexual offenders or believed sexual offenders (Cling, 2002). Vigilantism has on occasion jumped to conclusions, especially when some sexual offenders do not update their addresses or register when they move. Thinh Pham found this out when he was beaten by other men who thought he was a sexual offender, when in reality Pham had moved into a house that was previously occupied months before by a sexual offender (Cling, 2002). Accordingly, many states issue forewarnings for vigilantism and the repercussions (Cling, 2002). Additionally, there have been discussions of making the public more aware about sexual offenders through education (Cling, 2002). For instance, the knowledge that the majority of offenders know their victim, as well as including basic information about sexual offenses with the notification of a particular offender (Cling, 2002). This information could help distinguish offenders who have not committed a crime against another, such as mooners and people urinating in public are required to register, from high risk offenders (Jones, 1999). Overall, Megan’s Law’s purpose is to protect children from sexual offenders, but some have an issue with who is registered, communicating to the public about sexual offenders, and the debate about legal rights of convicted sexual offenders.

**__References__** Cling, B. J. (Eds.) (2004) //Sexualized violence against women and children :a psychology and law perspective// New York : Clifford Press

Etzioni, Amitai. (1999) //The limits of privacy// /New York : Basic Books

Fodor, Margie Druss. (2001) //Megan's law :protection or privacy// Berkeley Heights, NJ : Enslow Publishers,

Holmes, Ronald M.Holmes, Stephen T. (Eds.) (2002) //Cur////rent perspectives on sex crimes// /Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications

Jones, K. (1999). The Media and Megan's Law: Is Community Notification the Answer?.//Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development//, 38(2), 80-88. Retrieved from EBSCO//host//.

Levenson, J. S., D'Amora, D. A., &Hern, A. L. (2007).Megan's law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders.//Behavioral Sciences & the Law//, 25(4), 587-602. doi:10.1002/bsl.770

Levi, R. (2000). The mutuality of risk and community: the adjudication of community notification statutes. //Economy & Society//, 29(4), 578-601. doi:10.1080/03085140050174796

Moon, M. (2002). Moving to the Internet, Megan's laws lists find trouble. //News Media & the Law//, 26(2), 12.Retrieved from EBSCO//host//.

**__References for Images__** City of Torrance - Megan's Law.(n.d.).//Home//. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from []

Signposts warn of sex pest | The Sun |News. (n.d.).//The Sun | The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities | The Sun| The Sun//. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article957654.ece

Welcome to the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Information Website. (n.d.).//Illinois State Police Home Page//. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from []