Tuesday, April 10, 2007

"Megan's Law" could set a precedent

The UK government has announced a trial of a version of "Megan's Law" in certain areas, and a children's charity has expressed fears that the experiment may put children at increased risk rather than protect them.

Sexual abuse of children by predatory adults is a particularly horrible crime, and "Megan's Law" is supposed to help families protect their children by letting them know if convicted sex offenders who have targeted children in the past are living in their neighbourhoods.

There's a lot wrong with this law on many levels. Someone who committed a terrible crime, was convicted, served a sentence - and hopefully received treatment and counselling for the psychological illness that caused them to offend - and has now been released. The police and probation services know who these people are and where they are living, and there are supposed to be checks in place to monitor their behaviour. And it's certainly within the realms of possibility that the offender has now recognised their own problem and doesn't want to offend again. He or she is endeavouring to rehabilitate themself. "Megan's law" doesn't allow them to do this, as it completely negates the idea of the possibility of rehabilitation. The attitude seems to be once an offender, always an offender. The next logical step would be to say that these people should never be released from jail, and I am sure some tabloid newspaper columnists would say just that.

The next problem is what the public is supposed to do with the information that a sex offender is living in their neighbourhood. Are they going to move house? Unlikely. Are they going to watch look after their children more carefully? Possibly. Are they going to start vigilante action against people they suspect? Quite probably, judging by past experience. And then everyone with "pead-" or something similar in their job title needs to be on their guard.

But the biggest problem is that "Megan's Law" sets a great precedent for future laws. There is no logical reason to apply the idea of "the public has a right to know" just to sex offenders. What about people convicted of drug peddling, or of dangerous driving? Many more children are in danger from these sorts of criminals than from sex offenders. And why stop there? The public surely wants to know if any convicted burglars live in their area, so they can protect their property with better locks and alarms. Or find someone convenient to beat up when their homes get robbed.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Since I posted this message the Government has decided not to introduce this law, despite the pleas of The Sun newspaper and others. I would like to feel I was in part responsible for their change of heart...

Anonymous said...

Child molesters are not the only ones listed on Megan's List. In many of the states, people who have committed anything approximating a "sex" offense are listed, making the registry useless. In California, there are 107 different offenses which can get one with the lifetime requirement to register and many are not related to offenses against children. So the act is a misnomer.

Anonymous said...

IT IS TOTALLY WRONG I BELIEVE TO LUMP WHAT A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 20 DOES WITH WHAT A PERSON OVER THE AGE OF 20 DOES. AND IT IS EVEN WORSE WHEN THEY MAKE THE PUNISHMENT FOR OFEENDERS UNDER THE AGE OF 20 EVEN MORE SERVERE. THIS IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PROBATION OFFICERS DON'T EVEN TAKE ON THE RESPONSABILITY OF PROVIDING THE PROPER HELP FOR REHABILITATION!!!!