How Did Megan's Laws Lead To Innocent Victims Of Sex Offenders?
In light of several tragic events leading to innocent victims of sex offenses, namely that of Megan Kanka, laws mutually known as Megan’s Laws have been established mandating sex offenders to register their locations of residence and employment to alert those in the vicinity to exercise caution. While these laws have been known to generate awareness of sex offenders, they also have been known to cause more harm than good. The laws allow for public roasting of the sex offenders, deterring them from moving on and somewhat enabling them to commit a crime again. Not to mention the costs associated with these laws are quite steep, although it is not possible to put a price on one less victim of a sexual offense. In comparing sexual offenses before and after the enactment of Megan’s Laws, no improvement has been shown, other than faster arrests.
Keywords: sex offense, Megan’s Laws, community registration MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 3
Current Event Analysis of Megan’s Law On July 29, 1994, Jesse Timmendequas told Megan Kanka he wanted to show her his puppy (Megan’s Law, 2013). When she …show more content…
entered his house, he raped her and strangled her to death. Timmendequas put her body in a wooden toy chest and left it in a park (Megan’s Law, 2013). The next day, he told on himself (Megan’s Law, 2013). Megan was only seven years old when she was first raped, then murdered in Hamilton, New Jersey (Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, Veysey, 2008, 3). Timmendequas, who was a convicted sex offender, had just finished serving the maximum sentence for a different sex offense (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Timmendequas moved in across the street without the Kanka Family knowing about his past (Megan’s Law, 2013). Unfortunately, Megan is just one of many innocent children who have become prey for sex offenders. Following this tragic event, the community was adamant about generating awareness of sex offenders who are in the area in hopes of preventing a similar crime from happening (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Currently, every state in America has their version of what is known as Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). This law requires anyone who is a convicted sex offender to register their address to the local police department within a certain amount of time (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). The reason for this registration is to alert those in the surrounding areas to protect themselves (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Studies have found the alerts prompted by Megan’s Laws have caused people to take vigilance (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5).
Studies conducted on sex offenders has also shown they face “social stigmatization, loss of relationships, employment and house, and both
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 4 verbal and physical assaults” (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5). Furthermore, studies revealed Megan’s Laws may not do anything to prevent future crimes, and even encourage them as sex offenders are less likely to seek help (Zgoba et al., 2008, 6). As far as effectiveness, a study conducted revealed that arrests made for sex offenses has not changed since the enactment of Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 6). However, arrests for crimes occurred faster following Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 7). Additionally, just in New Jersey, Megan’s Law cost almost $4 million (Zgoba et al., 2008, 39).
Policy
Analysis Protecting citizens is the very reason public policies exist. Megan’s Law and all those similar exist to protect people who may become victims to a sex offender by alerting them when a known sex offender lives or works in the neighborhood. These laws are also designed to assist law enforcement in knowing where sex offenders reside (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 1). The Bureau of Justice Statistics said more than 66 percent of those released from prison are sent back to prison for another crime (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 1). However, as controversial as it may seem, the government still has a responsibility to also protect citizens who are also registered sex offenders. Megan’s Law and the like do not protect sex offenders. In fact, it does the opposite by effecting where they can live and work. Not to mention, it could lead them to commit the same crime out of reluctance to seek help for fear of public opinion. Furthermore, what would stop the sex offender from going to a different location and attacking someone there who is not aware of their status (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 13). Moreover, family members and acquaintances are the most common victims of sex offenders (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008,
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 5
18). Megan’s Laws make it harder for sex offenders to establish a residence or become employed, so most of them stay with family members or acquaintances, but who protects them (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 18). Studies have shown these laws are largely ineffective and cost more than they benefit. However, it would be largely unpopular to protect sex offenders over innocent people. No one is willing to suspend the Megan’s Laws. Politically, this would be detrimental, as it would seem the politician sympathizes with sex offenders. Plus, an argument such as the Kanka’s would still stand – the crime could have been prevented if they knew (Megan’s Law, 2013). No politician would be willing to stand by the decision to suspend community notifications, especially if someone else was sexually offended. Plus, saving a potential sex offense victim is priceless.
Despite the laws’ fallacies, it will most likely hold true to the notion that it is hard to eliminate a government program. “Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs” is the first reason (Dye, 2008, 345). Those who benefit are mostly victims or the families of victims, with police coming in second, while the costs are dispersed among federal, state and local governments. The second reason is “legislative and bureaucratic interests” (Dye, 2008, 346). Many people are employed to maintain the alerts set in motion by Megan’s Laws, not to mention it is a huge win for a politician to endorse any action against sex offenders. The last reason is “instrumentalism at work” (Dye, 2008, 346). Megan’s Laws go by different names. Some were established before Megan Kanka’s murder and many have been established afterward. They all differ. Plus there are not absolute measures, making it hard to show the laws that fall under Megan’s Laws to be ineffective.
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 6
This means, there really aren’t many alternatives. The best alternative is the Kids Live Safe website, which provides the same services as other websites but does not cost the government. Additionally, the website sends alerts to parents if a sex offender moves into the neighborhood (Kids Live Safe, 2011). The downside is it costs $1 for a trial fee and then $29.97 a month (Kids Live Safe, 2011). This would not go over well, because of the fee involved. Perhaps the government could fund this website, if it costs less than what already exists. Other private organization funding and selling advertising space are other ways to reduce costs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if the laws collectively known as Megan’s Laws were established to notify people if a sex offender moves in to their surrounding area, aside from some issues finding the information, this objective has been met (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5). If the laws are also in effect to assist the authorities in tracking sex offenders, this objective is also met (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 3). However, on a grander scale, if these laws were intended to reduce sex offenders from committing the same crime again, this has not been met (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 34). On the contrary, the laws could be doing the opposite and at a cost to the government, making the Megan’s Laws ineffective (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 34).
Keywords: sex offense, Megan’s Laws, community registration MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 3
Current Event Analysis of Megan’s Law On July 29, 1994, Jesse Timmendequas told Megan Kanka he wanted to show her his puppy (Megan’s Law, 2013). When she …show more content…
entered his house, he raped her and strangled her to death. Timmendequas put her body in a wooden toy chest and left it in a park (Megan’s Law, 2013). The next day, he told on himself (Megan’s Law, 2013). Megan was only seven years old when she was first raped, then murdered in Hamilton, New Jersey (Zgoba, Witt, Dalessandro, Veysey, 2008, 3). Timmendequas, who was a convicted sex offender, had just finished serving the maximum sentence for a different sex offense (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Timmendequas moved in across the street without the Kanka Family knowing about his past (Megan’s Law, 2013). Unfortunately, Megan is just one of many innocent children who have become prey for sex offenders. Following this tragic event, the community was adamant about generating awareness of sex offenders who are in the area in hopes of preventing a similar crime from happening (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Currently, every state in America has their version of what is known as Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). This law requires anyone who is a convicted sex offender to register their address to the local police department within a certain amount of time (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). The reason for this registration is to alert those in the surrounding areas to protect themselves (Zgoba et al., 2008, 3). Studies have found the alerts prompted by Megan’s Laws have caused people to take vigilance (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5).
Studies conducted on sex offenders has also shown they face “social stigmatization, loss of relationships, employment and house, and both
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 4 verbal and physical assaults” (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5). Furthermore, studies revealed Megan’s Laws may not do anything to prevent future crimes, and even encourage them as sex offenders are less likely to seek help (Zgoba et al., 2008, 6). As far as effectiveness, a study conducted revealed that arrests made for sex offenses has not changed since the enactment of Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 6). However, arrests for crimes occurred faster following Megan’s Laws (Zgoba et al., 2008, 7). Additionally, just in New Jersey, Megan’s Law cost almost $4 million (Zgoba et al., 2008, 39).
Policy
Analysis Protecting citizens is the very reason public policies exist. Megan’s Law and all those similar exist to protect people who may become victims to a sex offender by alerting them when a known sex offender lives or works in the neighborhood. These laws are also designed to assist law enforcement in knowing where sex offenders reside (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 1). The Bureau of Justice Statistics said more than 66 percent of those released from prison are sent back to prison for another crime (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 1). However, as controversial as it may seem, the government still has a responsibility to also protect citizens who are also registered sex offenders. Megan’s Law and the like do not protect sex offenders. In fact, it does the opposite by effecting where they can live and work. Not to mention, it could lead them to commit the same crime out of reluctance to seek help for fear of public opinion. Furthermore, what would stop the sex offender from going to a different location and attacking someone there who is not aware of their status (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 13). Moreover, family members and acquaintances are the most common victims of sex offenders (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008,
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 5
18). Megan’s Laws make it harder for sex offenders to establish a residence or become employed, so most of them stay with family members or acquaintances, but who protects them (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 18). Studies have shown these laws are largely ineffective and cost more than they benefit. However, it would be largely unpopular to protect sex offenders over innocent people. No one is willing to suspend the Megan’s Laws. Politically, this would be detrimental, as it would seem the politician sympathizes with sex offenders. Plus, an argument such as the Kanka’s would still stand – the crime could have been prevented if they knew (Megan’s Law, 2013). No politician would be willing to stand by the decision to suspend community notifications, especially if someone else was sexually offended. Plus, saving a potential sex offense victim is priceless.
Despite the laws’ fallacies, it will most likely hold true to the notion that it is hard to eliminate a government program. “Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs” is the first reason (Dye, 2008, 345). Those who benefit are mostly victims or the families of victims, with police coming in second, while the costs are dispersed among federal, state and local governments. The second reason is “legislative and bureaucratic interests” (Dye, 2008, 346). Many people are employed to maintain the alerts set in motion by Megan’s Laws, not to mention it is a huge win for a politician to endorse any action against sex offenders. The last reason is “instrumentalism at work” (Dye, 2008, 346). Megan’s Laws go by different names. Some were established before Megan Kanka’s murder and many have been established afterward. They all differ. Plus there are not absolute measures, making it hard to show the laws that fall under Megan’s Laws to be ineffective.
MEGAN’S LAWS FAULTS 6
This means, there really aren’t many alternatives. The best alternative is the Kids Live Safe website, which provides the same services as other websites but does not cost the government. Additionally, the website sends alerts to parents if a sex offender moves into the neighborhood (Kids Live Safe, 2011). The downside is it costs $1 for a trial fee and then $29.97 a month (Kids Live Safe, 2011). This would not go over well, because of the fee involved. Perhaps the government could fund this website, if it costs less than what already exists. Other private organization funding and selling advertising space are other ways to reduce costs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if the laws collectively known as Megan’s Laws were established to notify people if a sex offender moves in to their surrounding area, aside from some issues finding the information, this objective has been met (Zgoba et al., 2008, 5). If the laws are also in effect to assist the authorities in tracking sex offenders, this objective is also met (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 3). However, on a grander scale, if these laws were intended to reduce sex offenders from committing the same crime again, this has not been met (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 34). On the contrary, the laws could be doing the opposite and at a cost to the government, making the Megan’s Laws ineffective (Prescott & Rockoff, 2008, 34).