The next big problem in America: Megan's Law. (employment, legal, accuse)

[revelated]

Yeah, you clicked in this thread faster than any other thread, ready to berate me. Well, it's not what you think.

Once the economy is somewhat stable, stem cell research is up and running, and our troops are back from the war, I'd really like to see the government tackle this whole sex offender deal from the ground up. It's becoming a huge problem and it's causing more issues than it's resolving, really.

For those that don't know, Megan's Law is effectively 'justice' by coercion: if you are found guilty (whether or not there was actual evidence) of sex crimes against or with a child, you're going to be required to register on the sex offender list, which is publicly posted for all to see and returned via background checks. The minimum term a person can be on this list is 25 years, but most commonly it's a life term. It exists due to the fear present in Americans for their children's inability to make choices regarding their own sexuality and America's belief that nobody under the age of 18 should be having sex with anyone over the age of 18 (or whatever age of consent is in the state of consideration). All well and good.

There are issues with this though: First, and most notable, is that the law is not applied equitably between males and females. About half of the females who are charged with the act are not required to register on the list and instead get off with maybe a year jail time (news article of the most recent offender is here: Local Teacher Accused Of Sex With Former Student - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego - and there is a link to other offenders. If you search those names against the full registry, you will find roughly half of them listed.) If an adult female has sex with an underage male, it's the same crime as if an adult male has sex with an underage female. Yet for whatever reason, our justice system doesn't see it that way. In some cases the female doesn't even serve jail time! This must be fixed.

Secondly, there needs to be more consideration given to the amount of time you're on the list. If a 19 year old kid had consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, why should he then be blacklisted from getting a job or making a living for ~25 years? It's not the same severity, in my honest opinion, as some babysitter who effectively blackmails some toddler who definitely doesn't know any better, into sexual acts, nor is it the same severity as some 40-50-something old man who forces himself upon a 10 year old. Severity of the crime should definitely play a factor.

Third, the sexual history of the alleged "molested" should be assessed, and taken into account during sentencing. If we're talking about a 13-14 year old kid who's not a virgin, already had sex with like three people, clearly the child knows what they're doing. The whole argument behind Megan's Law is that a child, by definition, is incapable of dealing with the emotional impact of sex. If they'd already had sex numerous times as a child, that blows that theory out of the water. Also, why is it okay for a 14 year old girl to have sex with her 16 year old boyfriend, if the problem is maturity? Shouldn't that also be outlawed?

Finally, we have ambiguity with what to do about kids who post and/or share nude pictures or videos of themselves with others. There was even talk about locking up both people - the sharer, for distributing "child porn", the receiver(s), for accepting it. They want to put the receiver on the sex offender list - why? Is it "child porn" by definition? Yes. But again, if it's an 18 year old kid getting pics from his 17 year old girlfriend, I just don't see why that should justify ruining his life.


So what am I saying: that the law is useless? No. I think it has solid applications, but we don't effect the law with a proper definition. By that I mean, it should be for those people who committed an offense against one or more children so egregious that they forfeit their right to freedom. Anyone who is knowing doing anything sexual in nature to a child between the ages of 0 to 12 should be on the list and jailed for at least 10 years. When you start getting into the 13-17.9 range, that's when the system needs to advance with the times, and do its due diligence in applying justice: for girls, these are the times they're wearing thongs and lip gloss. These are the times they're asking for piercings (tongue, most notably) and tattoos (lower back, most notably). Nowadays it's extremely rare that a 13-17.9 year old girl that has not done anything sexual, even as benign as stroking a guy. For the guys, these are the times of the greatest pressure from friends to start having sex, and it's even more rare to find a boy that hasn't done something. For both, the curiosity is too great.

I really think the law needs to be cleaned up. It's too broad, does not consider the scope and severity of the crime, doesn't do anything when both parties are underage (which defeats the theory of why the law even exists), isn't applied equitably based on gender, and does not take into account that 13-17.9 year olds are way more sexually oriented than they were in the 40's-60's.

[ovcatto]

On a scale of 1 to 10 this is about 237 on my list of problems.

[Pawporri]

The Megan Kanka Story
In July 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka accepted an invitation from a neighbor in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, to see his new puppy. The neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas, was a twice-convicted pedophile. He raped her, murdered her, and dumped her body in a nearby park. Megan's parents said that they never would have allowed her to travel the neighborhood freely if they had known that a convicted sex offender was living across the street. Megan's Law (aka Megans Law) was later enacted in an effort to provide community notification.
[Source: FAQ About Megans Law]

Carrie

[detshen]

I agree with the OP, it may be a good idea, but it's gone way too far, and should be cleaned up. There are people listed who are currently married to the person they supposedly raped. This can happen because parents didn't like their teenage daughters having consensual sex with their nineteen year old boyfriends. Also, if this listing idea is such a great thing why aren't people who commit child (or adult) murder on a list. Why not burglary? Wouldn't most of us like to know if there is a convicted burgler living down the street?

[Pawporri]

What is Megan's Law?
Megan's Law, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, allows states discretion in establishing criteria for disclosure, but compels them to make private and personal information on registered sex offenders available to the public. It is deemed that such public notification:

1.assists law enforcement in investigations,
2.establishes legal grounds to hold known offenders,
3.deters sex offenders from committing new offenses and
offers citizens information they can use to protect children from victimization.
Questions? Comments? Contact us

[detshen]

Originally Posted by Pawporri

The Megan Kanka Story
In July 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka accepted an invitation from a neighbor in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, to see his new puppy. The neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas, was a twice-convicted pedophile. He raped her, murdered her, and dumped her body in a nearby park. Megan's parents said that they never would have allowed her to travel the neighborhood freely if they had known that a convicted sex offender was living across the street. Megan's Law (aka Megans Law) was later enacted in an effort to provide community notification.
[Source: FAQ About Megans Law]

Carrie

The problem is there are many non dangerous people with ruined lives because of that list. It's gone too far, there should be extremely careful consideration before putting someone on that list.

[texdav]

First of all if a adult gets such pictures he has to show them to others or dsitribute them to volate the law. of cou5rse;i9f a minor he sho8uold report egtting them.Any minor it really doesn't matter her past sexual history;that would be discrimination;on those with any history.Spounds like waht yopu want is to allow sexual explotation of juvene which is what the law is about ans wahy most staes have a withion two of the same age in the laws on sexuaol assult. if you think any politicain is goping to say wait until they have to or three violations ;you will be waiting until doomsday.It does have rape charges when the children are the same age or as I satted within two years usually;but that does prevent both from being handled by juvenile courts for child in need of supervision which juvenile law is based on.Not knowing the age is a defense that the person must prove at trial. I really thnik we are lookig at more severe punishmnet coming in both child pron and rape of a juvenile;not less. People aree ready to put tehm away how that they know how many predatiors there are out there.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by texdav

First of all if a adult gets such pictures he has to show them to others or dsitribute them to volate the law.

News, my friend.

MySpace Child Porn Arrest: New Jersey Teenager Charged Over Nude Pictures On Website | World News | Sky News

Regarding any recipient(s), you do realize that "Possession of Child Pornography" is a crime, right? Distribution and/or showing them to others is not required. Just having it is a felony. If they charge this girl (which they want to), they'll end up tracking back to the boyfriend (who she knowingly and willfully sent them to) and try to lock him up for possession.

What's interesting is that even the ones that got the law put in place don't think this little girl should be locked up for this. But it's what I'm talking about: the government has left it way too wide open and it's out of hand. Those that don't think it's a big deal are missing the point that the more people end up this list for consensual sex with 17 year olds, the less people there are to work. No workers, no business gets done. It directly impacts the economy, whether you want to admit it does or not.

In fact, let me give you an alternate way to address the problem:

Update the EEOA (Equal Employment Opportunity Act) expressly prohibits discrimination due to presence on the list unless that individual job requires unsupervised exposure to children. That means Libraries, Schools, Daycares, Parks, Playgrounds, some janitorial, Theme Parks, etc...where there is a definitive reason to prevent them from getting hired. If it's any other job, that company cannot discriminate against a registered sex offender, nor can its employees, or be open to civil suit. That way people can still make a living, even though they screwed their one-day-away-from-18-year-old mate.

Make punishment for men and women equal under the law. No more preferential treatment just because she wears a skirt.

Make the tenure of listing fair based on the nature of the crime. If some old pervert exposed himself to a child in public, put him on the list for 5, jail for 5, years. That's less severe than someone actually raping a child, which should get the 25 year term.

Update statutory rape definitions to identify any non-consensual sex with a minor, and default that a child of 12 years of age or less cannot consent to sex. 13-17 must require evaluation of sexual history unless there is clear evidence of rape. If the child was whoring and no actual rape occured, a 5/5 sentence is reasonable. If the child had not had sexual contact with anyone prior to encountering this person, and there is evidence of coercion (i.e. MySpace), increase the term, because there were evil intentions there.

[GOPATTA2D]

Well written post. I agree with you. Intent and context is important. Regretfully, I don't see a this changing soon.

I am opposed to the death penalty, except for crimes against children. I think rape of a child is worthy of the death penalty. That said, I understand that many 18 year old boys have 17 year old girlfriends.

[oldyeller]

Pedophiles should all be shot.