Psychology

The Megan Law has derived its name from Megan Kanka, a minor who suffered sexual assault and died in the hands of Jesse Timmendequas, a serial sex offender. The law states that the public should be provided with information regarding sex offenders. The information is made available to the public and potential victims in order to help them protect themselves from being attacked by such predators. The law requires each state to determine on how the information would be disseminated to the public (Saleh, 2009). One such method mostly used in most states is posting of the offenders details on public websites. The information may also be availed in magazines and newspaper publications, poster, pamphlets and through different means. The information details the name, picture, nature of offence and address.

Megans Law is also referred to as sexual offender act of 1994 and is used by the federal law enforcers. This law requires sex offenders against children to inform the authorities of any change of address or job, immediately after leaving jail or rehabilitation centre. The requirement for notification may stay for a period not less than 10 years or forever. One important feature of this law is that it not only provides the public with the information about the sex offender but notifies the community as well. But whether it minimizes the sex offenders recidivism through community notification is still debatable. (Fulero  Wrightsman, 2008).

The debate rages on as to whether registration as well as community notification helps to reduce sex offence recidivism. The little research that has been done shows no significant decline in recidivism. The community notification has not helped much in mitigating recidivism of sex offenders. Studies conducted in 2008 in New Jersey showed that the community empowerment through notification had no demonstratable influence on reducing re-occurrence of sexual offences. According to Fulero and Wrightsman (2008), the recidivism rate has been low prior to the implementation on this law and even after. They contend that recidivism has reduced by at least seventy percent under the notification laws the different is quite small when compared with the previous result.

The accuracies of registries of sex offenders at the state offices have been found to be incorrect. According to Saleh (2009), a thorough scrutiny of the details concerning about 25 sex offenders in Kentucky was found to be incorrect. Dorsten (2002) says that almost a half of registered sex offenders were found not to be living in their respective stated addresses in Florida. These reports put the capability of the state office to provide reliably and most immediate information to the public, under much questions. To sum it up Saleh (2009) says that the reports shows that notification of the public about sex offenders in their midst, does nothing much to ensure the communitys safety and prevention of sex offenses. Rather, the question should be whether the state registry records could be relied on to help in the prevention efforts.

Concerns have been raised over the potential effects of this law on the public. Surveys have shown that most people are aware of this law. They also believe that community notification would deter re-offenses and other potential offenders from committing sex offense. Majority therefore believe that it is important that the community be provided with information regarding sex offenders amongst them. The potential risks of notifying the community about sex offenders, research has shown, is the anxiety created in the community. There are a few strategies that are available to help one from falling into the predators hands. Avoiding the sex offenders and their territory makes the public more worried than ever before. There are doubts as to whether it really prevents child sexual abuse, and most mental health practitioners have claimed that it creates a false sense of security for parents (Dorsten, 2002).

There are many legal issues that have been raised concerning the notification laws. The debate has been that the public notification laws have been breaching the privacy rights. There are concerns as well on the potential risk the laws may put the offenders in. In one such legal challenge in Connecticut, the opponents of public notification argue that the state should first hold hearing to ascertain the risks the offenders pose to the community before they are posted on the internet registry (Adler, 2004)). In Alaska, the challenge has been on the punishment of people who committed the offense before the Megan law came into law (Fulero  Wrightsman, 2008). The opponents claim this amounts to ex post facto punishment. Although in both challenges the Supreme Court upheld the law and its constitutionality, the public backlash and discrimination against sex offenders has increased enormously.

There have been too much collateral damages caused by the registration and notification law. The impact has been great and the sex offenders have been hit hard by this law. A research conducted in Kentucky and Florida have shown that almost a half of sex offenders have lost their jobs and homes (Saleh, 2009). There has been public harassment, threats and loss of properties because of public disclosure (Adler, 2004). The adverse effects have not only befallen the sex offenders but also members of their family. They face harassment, isolation, physical assault and loss of social relationships. The consequences would get worse if the name of a sex offender stayed longer on the registry (Saleh, 2009). If the sex offenders recidivism is to be reduced, the potential collateral damage it causes the sex offenders has to be looked into. The psychological disturbance caused by foul moods, poor lifestyles and lack of social support are factors that may exacerbate recidivism. Criminals or sex offenders would find it hard to re-enter a community where heshe is shunned. If he or she is deprived of the most important factors that may help in rehabilitation such as employment, housing and even friendship, then reduction of recidivism would be hard to attain. It is therefore clear that the public notification not only work towards erecting obstacles but also undermines the very aim of its establishment, to protect the public ( Saleh, 2009).

Research has also showed that child molestation was still rampant, so community notification and registration of sex offenders had no influence on the type of sex offense that would be re-committed. (Fulero  Wrightsman, 2008). Despite the tough measures put in place by the Megan Law, the study showed that there was still high number of victims in the hands of sex offenders.

Most authors contend that the law is wastage of resources and its high cost has never been justified through results. The law has simply no effects on the sex offenses. Therefore there is need for more research that would analyze the cost and benefits the Megan Law has on the sex offenders as well as the community. Although the law enjoys much public acceptance and popularity, whether it has served its stated goals is a matter that is still in the jury court. The little research, however, shows that the law is quite counterproductive. It undermines the reintegration of sex offenders into the community and reduction of sex offenders recidivism untenable under the circumstances.