On The Next Law & Oder: SVU...

Joseph Edward Duncan III, who's an alleged murderer, child molester and all-around good-time guy, is asking to be his own lawyer at his sentencing hearing. Here, he blogs. Here, he may soon be blogging while serving a life sentence. I am just glad he is not here, in my living room.

Shasta and Dylan Groene: Shasta was kidnapped by Duncan, and her brother Dylan was murdered. It has already been turned into a true crime book. Those authors work fast!

Duncan was particularly peeved by Megan's-law-like public registry laws pertaining to sex offenders; I have to say, I think that the practices of the registry are questionable with regards to protecting the safety and legal rights that these criminals have. I used to troll the CA Megan's Law website constantly, thinking "Hey! This thing is great! Now I know there are like 10 sex offenders around my place!" But then one asks oneself, later, when one is turning off the light in bed, perhaps, or strolling to the 7-11 at one in the morning to buy a pack of smokes or something, "But wait a second...I can't do anything about it."

That's not to say some people don't try -- and that's where much of the debate about the effectiveness and lawfulness of Megan's Law come into play. It's hard to quantify the number of crimes that occur against sex offenders committed by folks who have seen them on the registry and want to drive them out, as sex offenders usually do not report these crimes for fear of retribution (or perhaps thinking, man, the law's been really great to me so far, I'm sure they'll continue to be of service), and these acts are not tagged with handy blog "Vigilante Justice" tags in the legal database. There's also the creepiness of people in the database who are there for consensual sex acts, statutory rape (say, a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old and a couple of pissed-off parents).

Pardon me for the blockquote, but I had to post the entire Wikipedia section on Arguments Against Megan's Law:

Critics of Megan's Law reject the notion that sex offenders have higher recidivism rates than other types of criminals,^[4] and argue that efforts to establish sex offender registries are based on the widespread misconception that child sexual abuse is commonly committed by strangers. In fact, most children are abused by someone they know and trust -- 96 percent of child rape victims knew their attackers.^[5] Critics also argue that these databases unfairly and improperly include the names of those who have engaged in consensual sexual activities (especially, non-marital sexual activities) along with sexual predators, even if that particular individual is not charged or convicted of a sexually based offense.^[6][7][8][9] A number of police officers, prosecutors, and crime victims' rights advocates view Megan's Law as an ineffective and unreliable method of preventing sexual predators from repeating their crimes. Some of these critics consider life imprisonment for high-risk sex offenders (especially, child sex offenders) to be a more effective measure than community notification.^{[10][11][12][13]}

Legal criticism of Megan's Law notes that it creates the problem of "double jeopardy" and "ex post facto protections". From this perspective Megan's Law is viewed as punitive and the notification requirement is analogous to public shaming. Legal critics maintain that the historical context of forced notification should be examined. If Megan's Law is considered punitive, and thus additional "punishment," then the law would have to be deemed unconstitutional. The opinion of the U.S. court varies greatly in interpreting the constitutionality of Megan's Law.

The registration database is built on information provided by former offenders who are complying with the law, and who are therefore inclined toward accepting responsibility and living law-abiding lives. The registry therefore becomes, in effect, a database of those former sex offenders who presently are law-abiding citizens, and who therefore may be the least likely to re-offend. The real threat, critics maintain, is posed by those offenders who do not bother to register or who provide false information. Another similar criticism is that while parents in the neighborhood are informed, it does not order the offender to leave. It is also unknown if Timmenquedas would have been stopped if he had been made to abide by such a law, in which critics of the law have often stated "Megan's Law would not have saved Megan".^[14][15]

Some mental health professionals and social observers believe the laws imposed on released sex offenders may increase, rather than decrease, their likelihood of committing new sex crimes. They assert that the combination of legal restrictions and the shame and harassment resulting from community notification may force offenders to live in isolation. A survey of 133 mental health officials by the University of Memphis revealed that most do not think internet based sex offender directories will be helpful in stopping future attacks. ^[16]

Also of concern to civil rights advocates and law enforcement officials alike have seen instances of vigilantism against registered sex offenders. There have been some highly-publicized cases of vigilantes using state-run sex offender registry web sites to gather information about registered sex offenders in order to plan the murder of those individuals. Two of the more notable cases were the murders of two men in Washington state in August of 2005 and of two men in Maine in April 2006. It is difficult to precisely quantify the frequency of vigilante incidents because neither the Justice Department nor any other governmental agency maintains a database of such incidents. In addition, many lesser incidents (verbal harassment, vandalism, etc.) probably go unreported by the offenders themselves, either because they believe that reporting the harassment is pointless, or because they fear retribution. Critics of the law assert that the government's intentions are meaningless compared to the undeniable fact that information made available pursuant to Megan's Law has repeatedly been used to commit violent crimes, including murder. These critics would assert that the government is guilty of gross negligence by reason of intentional and deliberate indifference to the potentially fatal consequences of the law's requirements. (Wikipedia)

Megan Kanka, who was raped and murdered by a neighbor when she was 7 years old. Critics of Megan's Law claim that the current incarnation, at least, of the sex offender registry would have been useless in preventing the crime.

Others criticize the confinement and solitude for sex offenders within a neighborhood (where people can legally distribute pamphlets disclosing the offenders' address, name, photo, and the circumstances of their crime), and how useful that is for preventing the crime. Little Children gives you a good idea of how this could both a) suck, b) violate an individual's constitutional rights, and c) not prevent them from committing more crimes.

It seems insane that we can release a person from prison for a violent sexual offense, especially one involving a child, and essentially deprive these people of their rights -- thus admitting that we do not consider them safe, they are not equal citizens, we are, essentially, afraid of them -- without helping prevent further crimes. The Wiki article cites studies suggesting that Megan's Law has not been effective in preventing the kinds of crimes it intends to, and how could it? There's no protection against the crimes we are told will probably be committed by these offenders coming from anywhere but our own actions as a community. That's dangerous stuff.

Joseph Edward Duncan's probably done more harm by arguing against Megan's Law than good. No, definitely, he definitely has. It's a shame, though, because if we admit that these are people who are compelled, again and again, to commit the same crime, our job should not be to punish them for things they might do without preventing these actions from occurring. If they can't stop doing it, and we admit it, regardless of punishment or threat of punishment, then isn't it time to re-evaluate our penal and legal system as it pertains to sexual offenders? To me, it seems as though Megan's Law is a relatively cheap and irresponsible, not to mention ineffective, way of handing over the responsibility of exacting justice from lawmakers to citizens. And without any guidelines of how to protect themselves, some people make up their own -- jeopardizing the lives and well-being of fellow citizens who just moved to the wrong neighborhood.

That's not to say that some intended purposes of Megan's Law are not good ideas -- having the ability to screen babysitters, for instance, seems pretty A+ to me. However, these documents (criminal history, for instance) are available to the public, and there's no reason a nervous parent couldn't do their homework with a little more legwork; in fact, if I were a parent, I'd probably want to know if my babysitter were an armed robber, a drug addict, or a dude who takes the radios out of cars and breaks the window (or worse, breaks the window and DOESN'T EVEN TAKE THE RADIO). There are no websites, pamphlets being handed out, or addresses being given for folks who beat little old ladies or set dogs on fire.

What about zoning laws, differentiating between violent sexual crimes/sexual crimes against children (and maximum prison sentences for those who commit them) and non-violent or consentual acts, and long-term mandatory psychiatric help?