Derek's Rantings and Musings: Megan's Law Nonsense

Megan's Law Nonsense

So I read this on CNN.com today. Basically, this sex offender was convicted, did his time, and is now released from custody after paying his dues just like the framers thought it should be.

Except that now, thanks to Megan's Law, he has literally been run out of four states, been filmed by TV news choppers, been bought a ticket out of town by the police department, people putting up signs on the fence of his property warning people to stay away and to lock up their women, etc.

I can respect the desire of a parent to know "who that weird guy is who lives across the street", but ya know what? In a free society, it's none of your goddamn business who he is.

Here's the sick thought of the day: If people stop hounding him (or others like him) maybe he might be able to put the past behind him and move on. Instead, he's reminded day in and day out of what he's done by people who don't have anything to do with it. Eventually, they'll push him to the breaking point, and he'll go do it again not because "he's incorrigible", but because the only place he's not hounded and stalked by citizens with no life is when he's in an 8x8 with three square meals a day.

Are these people actually protecting their neighborhood, or just ensuring that something will happen in the future?

Posted by Dredd on January 17, 2003 11:28 AM Permalink
Comments
He's a convicted felon. He forfieted his rights when he molested the child.
Period.
Posted by: ric January 17, 2003 12:40 PM
He doesn't forfeit his rights. Even IN prison, he doesn't forfeit his rights.
Posted by: Derek January 17, 2003 12:50 PM
However, I should have the right as a free, law-bidding citizen to be aware there is a pedophile living across the street?
Other crimes I might make accomodations for. "Do the crime, pay your time." However, an individual who would molest a child doesn't quite have their wiring straight upstairs. I'm not sure that it's a condition that could be reformed.
So here's your papers and Scarlet Letter. :-)
Posted by: Chris January 17, 2003 01:00 PM
Who a person is is THEIR business, not yours. You don't have some right to know the criminal history of that person just like they don't have some right to peruse YOUR personal background.
If we can't respect the privacy of other people, how can we expect others to respect OUR privacy.
Posted by: Derek January 17, 2003 01:19 PM
But is something that is a matter of public record really a private matter?
And do you have the same respect for the rights of Spammers? :)
Posted by: Dan Isaacs January 17, 2003 02:26 PM
There's a world of difference, I think, between the "public record" of "if you want to find out about John Doe, you go digging through records and see what you can find" and the "public record" of "If you're John Doe, you have to register immediately upon arrival in a new town", and in some areas even take out a public notice in the paper announcing your arrival, etc. The former is reasonable, the latter, IMHO, is not.
And I've never gone out of my way to dig up dirt on spammers. They're scumbags who crawl out from and back under rocks at leisure. Personal info isn't very helpful in that regard. :)
Posted by: Derek January 17, 2003 02:31 PM
I concede that difference. I'm not so sure people would not just develop a system of identifying and tracking these guys, though. In the absence of the laws requiring him to register. I'm not sure his life would be much different.
But I agree these laws go too far. Either they have paid their debts or they haven't.
Has the Court reviewed these statutes? Of course, it's not like we expect rational decisions from them anymore.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs January 17, 2003 02:50 PM
I see where you're arguing this, but don't forget about the privacy (amongst other things) of the kid who was violated in the first place. Or how about his family's privacy. I see it that as soon someone *chooses* touch a kid, the forfeit they're right for privacy.
Posted by: Chris January 17, 2003 03:11 PM
Yeah, but Chris isn't - in theory at least - the scumbag's "time in prison" supposed to be the punishment for *that* issue?
I understand completely the belief that the victim (child or otherwise) has had their privacy -- hell,their BODY -- violated, but so the theory goes anyway, that's what the jailtime is supposed to be the punishment for.
Posted by: Derek January 17, 2003 03:20 PM
Derek, "in theory" I see your point. But understand that my opinion is thatwe have to draw a hard, crisp line in the sand SOMEWHERE! Let's hold somepeople accountable for their actions well beyond what the law says.
I see so much "softening" in the fabric of society that it makes me wonder what cultural taboo we will readily accept next? Spin the wheel..click..click...click...Wow! It's cannibalism! But let's not blame the cannibal because, "Hey, he's the victim of low income and a large apetite." And really folks, isn'tnecrophilia a victimless crime?
My wife and I don't have kids yet, and outside of an incident involving a babygoat at the petting zoo, I myself have never been molested. Perhaps I'm shouting in the dark here, but it seems to me like we need radio-tag these people Bullwinkle-style! These aren't the type of folks we want falling of the radar screen.
Anywho, I'm enjoying your blog Derek.
Posted by: Chris January 17, 2003 04:10 PM
I don't think you can ever try to hold someone accountable BEYOND what the law says. That's the whole point of there being laws in the first place, isn't it? To define the bounds the society lives within?
I'm not saying folks should have to "accept" the guy's perversion or what-have-you. I'm just saying that "he's paid his debt, he should be left alone now and not treated as though he's about to commit a crime any second now".
And I wouldn't bring up that goat incident... ya never know what you might be accused of next. :-)
Posted by: Derek January 17, 2003 04:15 PM
Interesting thoughts... on one hand, this guy has been severely harrassed, and something about that is not right. On the other hand, sex offenders (particulary pedophiles) seem to have a very high recalcitrancy rate, and the damage they do when they commit a crime is far different from a guy who holds up a store for money. I'm not entirely sure why the laws are set to allow them out so quickly, but I understand the purpose of Megan's Law - frankly, _I'd_ want to know if a person convicted of that kind of crime lived in my neighborhood. Doesn't mean I'm going to run him out of town, but at least I'll be aware of and be able to take appropriate precautions with my child.
Perhaps the laws themselves need to be changed? (I won't even get into what I _think_ they should do with pedophiles - somehow, I don't think it would be legal in the US...)
Posted by: Mark January 17, 2003 08:48 PM
I'd like the Board of Directors of Enron circe 2001 to die horribly painful and slow deaths. But that's a peronal want. Not one I'd advocate the legal system pursue.
Posted by: Dan de Isaacs January 17, 2003 09:13 PM
**Eventually, they'll push him to the breaking point, and he'll go do it again **
..and I'm sure that's the defense he'll use when he gets caught again, then he'll sue for millions stating Megan's law is unconstitutional, and probably win, then we'll have a Rich sex offender living in the community.
No, I don't think the guy should be hounded, but if he were to move into my neighborhood, I'd want to know, so I can take the necessary precautions.
Personally I think we should have two sets of laws, one for law abiding citizens, and one for criminals. Seems kind of stupid that criminals should benefit form the same rights as one who doesn't break the law. Besides, any one who harms a child, shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day.
Posted by: Lynne January 18, 2003 08:27 AM
"Besides, any one who harms a child, shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day."
So, the guy who's convicted of statutory rape at 16 of his 15yr 11mo girlfriend should spend the rest of his life in hell?
And yes, this does happen...
Posted by: Brian January 18, 2003 12:16 PM
I don't think we're talking about that kind of crime - where do you live anyway? Most statutory rape laws are written with age ranges to avoid that very scenario.
In my mind, when we're talking about people harming children, we're talking 20+ adults doing things to young children (10-12 minus).
Posted by: Mark January 19, 2003 04:53 AM
Sure, Derek, he's paid his debt for *that* crime. But it's a trust issue. History has taught us that child moleters are, more often than not, serial and perepetual child molesters.
It's not so much of an effort to violate his rights as it is to point out that "here's a man that can't be trusted near children."
It's not intended to be punishment. The payment was paid for his past crimes.
Posted by: ric January 20, 2003 04:50 PM
So what you're saying, Ric, is "too bad, buddy, we as a society are going to punish you for stuff you haven't even done yet".
I think I've seen this before in a movie somewhere
"...Positive for Howard Marks! Mr. Marks, you're under arrest for the future murder of Ms. Sarah Marks"
Sorry, I don't care the consequences, punishing people for stuff they haven't even done yet is something society simply should not do.
Posted by: Derek January 20, 2003 04:59 PM
Nice comeback!
Simple solution - fix the laws so pedophiles don't walk out of prison so quickly. The damage they do is severe - IMO, they are a menace. They are, after all, preying on the weakest, most vulnerable segment of our society.
Posted by: Mark January 20, 2003 05:23 PM
That I don't have a problem with. Better still is to minimize the criminal aspect of it (don't scream, wait!), and increase the "pscyhiatric problem" aspect of it. People can be held in psychriatic prison for damn near eternity if they're considered to pose a risk to people on the outside.
We're conditioned as a society to detest "not guilty by reason of insanity", but isn't it better if we accept that as the compromise that enables us to determine "yes, this person is a risk"?
The problem is that without that insanity bit, it's a simple criminal matter that you have to eventually let them out of jail. And you can't take too lightly the condition Brian describes. Not all states are like NY in that they have the "phased" statutory-rape statutes. For some states (most, actually), it's simply "is (age >N)" and if not, it doesn't matter if the boy and girl are two days different in age, the guy is going up for a sexual offense of rape. That's not necessarily something you want to brand someone with, in the same way as you would your standard pedophilia style statutory rape, but how do you differentiate the difference?
Posted by: Derek January 20, 2003 05:33 PM
No, it's NOT punishment. It's caution.
That's like saying seatbelts are punishment for wrecks you haven't caused yet.
Posted by: ric January 22, 2003 11:07 AM
What about people or persons that have committed a "sex offender" crime that is not physical in nature, ie. peeing at the Savannah's St. Patty's day parade...is that an offense that needs the exhaustion of our legal "experts" to register as an offender for life??! How about the thousand or so spring breakers that show tits n ass?? You can buy the video on TV just ask Snoop Doggy dog, Mardi Gras...do they still throw out the beads to those who show?? Oh and can we forgive the man on the NIKE commercial?? or should he too be required to register and persecuted for life. Should he be required to have their personal information on every sex registry in the country? Hey grandma, why are we at the police station? You mean to tell me that 30 years ago when you mooned so and so and spent a week, month, or year in jail you are still required by law to register as a SEX OFFENDER??? PUL-EASE!! What has happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I cannot see this as anything but double jeopardy. If you have served the time, do you not have a right a "constitutional" right to let the past be the past and have a hope for a future??? I hope that any 70's streakers are not still around, hmmm....I wonder if John Lennon would be rolling over in his grave if his memory fell into a catagory as STUPID as this. For a country who finds itself so politically correct this sure seems like a law that never allows a person to have a normal life again, you would be better off murdering 10 people than peeing in public! At least murderers can have a chance at a normal life somewhere down the line. Perhaps a question to Bible scholars out there, would Noah have to be a sex offender register by today's standards....OMG what about LOTT???
Posted by: radran March 14, 2003 07:39 AM
Can someone please tell me the difference between a man on the sex offenders list for raping a girl and she was brutally beaten.
Another man on the list because his ex-wife twisted the story and said he sodomized her daughter. He almost did something wrong but he stopped and did not penetrate her, or touch her in any way. (Consenual situation) Then he was later charged with 2nd degree sodomy because of a bad divorce. This girl was his step daughter and she was very forward/flirty/teasing even his own family/mother/sister noticed it and warned him to stay away from her, then after he had been repeatly physically abused and mentally abused by his ex-wife, whom liked to brag to him about affairs she was having while he was away working. His ex wife threatened him and said, if he divorced her, she would make his life a hell. His spirit was broken down , he was terribly depressed and just wanted to be loved and here was the very mature 15 year old girl offering it to him. I am talking about two separate men and situations here. Should both the violient rapist and the depressed man be on the same sex offender's list.
Posted by: kim June 11, 2003 01:42 PM
I flashed my 15 yr old stepdaughter in 1997, then immediately admitted myself to the VA mental health facility. The social worker dutifully involved DFACS. I pled guilty to Child Molestation, served 2 years in prison, and was released in 2001 without any form of probation, parole, or other restriction. I have returned to my former neighborhood, and maintain daily contact with the family of the victim (my step daughter). I can't get hired, and today my apartment manager has banned me from the property, citing other tenants' concerns for their childrens' safety. Georgia doesn't have a tier system whereby they could distinguish between a low, medium, or high risk individual.I'm being denied the right to subsist and coexist peacefully in my society.I'm going to the DA's office today to file charges. Please understand my individual plight.
Posted by: anonymous in Atlanta December 23, 2003 01:14 PM


Derek's Rantings and Musings: Megan's Law Nonsense