Ethical Problems in Megan's Law

Introduction

The topic of this paper is the ethics of Megan's Law.  More specifically, this paper will examine the responsibility of law enforcement to the community at large versus the rights of an individual that has fulfilled their debt to society.  It is the thesis of this paper acknowledges that some crimes are so heinous that special considerations should be given to certain individuals.  But society should not be tempted into punishing an offender twice for the same crime.  Also, it should not use such crimes as pretexts to punish a wider proportion of society. 

This paper is in five sections: the first section is the background that is followed by three sections that each reviews ethical issues in three key related policy areas, the fourth section includes a brief discussion of the definition of a sexual offender and the fifth section is the conclusion. 

Background

Megan's Law is named for a range of laws, the earliest of which was passed in New Jersey in 1994.  The purpose of the law was to notify members of a community whenever a known sex offender moved into their neighborhood.  The details of the case of Megan Kanka, the 7-year-old girl for whom the legislation was named, were so heinous that the legislation passed in New Jersey with impressive rapidity.  This is due to the efforts of the victim's parents who collected 400,000 signatures to get their notification proposal passed. Within two months the New Jersey state legislature passed the law (Rodriguez 1029).  The passage of Megan's Law set off a nation-wide wave of similar legislation.  By the end of 1995 22 states had passed laws providing for the registration and community notification of sex offenders (Rodriguez 1029). By 1997 the number of states with some version of Megan's Law had reached 47 states and the District of Columbia (Rodriguez 1029). There is some concern that the pace at which these laws were passed left little time to assess its impact on law-abiding citizens or its cost to the larger society (Freeman-Longo 2). 

As noted above, the details of the case are heinous.  Megan Kanka was abducted, raped and murdered by a neighbor who was a twice-convicted sex offender by the name of Jesse Timmendequas (Woods par. 1; Rodriguez 1027). Megan's mother believed that had she known the offender lived in their neighborhood she could have better protected her daughter.  This is likely due to certain facts of the case.  These included that Megan was lured to the offender's home with the promise to pet his puppy (Rodriguez 1027). Megan's mother argued that, had she known the identity of the offender, she would have warned her daughter to keep her distance from him.  

Ethical issues in Megan's Law

This section will examine three key ethical issues inherent in Megan's Law movement: the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment prohibition.  

Ex Post Facto Clause

Ex Post Facto laws are those that prohibit imposing punishment for an act that wasn't punishable at the time it was committed.  These laws are most applicable in sex offender cases where punishment has already been served and the offender has been released back into the community (Rodriguez 1043).  Megan's Law would nullify the ex post facto legislation.  It would punish the offender a second time and before any new criminal act has been committed.  In the assessment of many critics of the law, it is an attempt to punish the offender a second time with a far more permanent punishment.  This is often the case because Megan's Law sex offender registries can be for a lifetime. One pertinent question for the community at large to consider is: is it ethical to continue punishing an offender even after his debt to society has been deemed paid in a court of law?  

Another issue related to the use of sex offender registries as ex post facto punishments is that they encourage vigilantism.  Due to the heinous nature of many sex offenses, vigilantes often respond with a level of psychopathy and violent crime bordering on sadism.  There is also the fact that sex offender registries may contain inaccurate information.  Woods and Rodriguez both refer to cases where vigilantes have gone to the wrong addresses published on sex offender registries and severely beaten individuals who had no connection to the crime. 

Fifth Amendment Takings Clause

The Fifth Amendment takings clause prohibits the government from confiscating private property for official uses without due compensation.  Rodriguez reports a case where a convicted sex offender purchased a home, which was at the time, in compliance with the sex offender laws of the state of Georgia.  These laws state that a known sex offender can't establish a residence within 1000 feet of a location where children are.  Sometime after the home purchase, a daycare center opened within 1000 feet of Mann's home.  He was forced by state residency restrictions to move.  The key issue raised here is if it's sensible to have a law that prohibits residence within 1000 feet of a certain facility if the offender in question never visits the site. Indeed, critics argue, the residency requirement aspect of Megan's Law should be modified to refer to loitering around establishments where children.  This would be instead of a simple residency rule. The alternative is the offender will be forced to move every time some unforeseen circumstance occurs that violates the residency statute.  This is considered onerous and another example of punishment after the fact. 

Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment prohibition

The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment prohibition outlaws the imposition of punishments which are disproportionate to the crime.  For instance, in 2006 the Georgia legislature passed laws that extended punishments to sex offenders who gave false information to authorities (Rodriguez 1047). This punishment would be a prison sentence of ten to thirty years for a first offense and a mandatory life sentence for a second offense.  This is in light of the fact that no significant harm to society occurs as a result of the falsehood. 

Sex offenders: a problematic definition

Although the initial impetus behind Megan's Law was to protect children from sex offenders, many states have definitions of a sex offense that are far broader than the original intent.  For instance, in the state of Georgia, sexual relations involving individuals under the age of 18 is illegal.  This is true even in cases where both individuals are under the age of 18.  Indeed, one woman was placed on a sex offender registry for an act that occurred when she was 17 and her partner was 15 (Rodriguez 1035).   It doesn't seem prudent to label such an individual as a lifelong sex offender.  Doing so has caused her considerable harm and ostracism (Rodriguez 1035-1036).  This is also a case where no demonstrated harm to society from her act was established. 

Conclusion

In sum, this paper has reviewed ethical issues in the application of Megan's Law across three key policy areas.  It appears that Megan's Law is having many unintended and negative consequences due to its wider than intended application across society.  These problems have affected citizens who have no connection to any violent sex offenses and demonstrate their unethical character.  There are also cases where individuals who have not committed any sexual offenses have been punished by misguided persons.  Also, one has to consider what societal benefit is derived from persistently punishing individuals who already have been punished for their crime.  Such a persistent punishment could actually prove counter-productive in the long run. 

Works Cited

Freeman-Longo, Robert E. "Revisiting Megan's Law and Sex Offender Registration: Prevention or Problem." Appa-net.org, 2000. http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/RML.pdf. 

Rodriguez, Rachel J. "The Sex Offender Under The Bridge: Has Megan’s Law Run Amok?" Rutgers Law Review, vol. 62, 2009, pp 1023-1061. http://ilvoices.com/media/DIR_109112/e8cdcb74bf2b54beffff8822ffffe415.pdf. 

Woods, Keith.  "Megan’s Law: 'Naming' a New Ethical Dilemma." Poynter, Aug. 25, 2002. http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2131/megans-law-naming-a-new-ethical-dilemma.