Arguments for notifying community
Megan’s death changed the way things were perceived by U.S. Supreme Court and therefore just one month after Megan’s death, community notification law was passed by the Assembly. After undergoing through umpteen critics, the law initiated a new debate whether notified or not to be notified. Whatever be the debate, U.S. Supreme court understands the concern for community’s protection; therefore the state considers it a necessary measure to inform the community members if any child sex-offender is living in the neighbourhood. New Jersey v Timmendequas case has opened up new concerns for security and protection of the children of which the most fundamental one in the eyes of the federal state is to notify community about the offender. Following are the reasons that highlight the arguments for notification:
There are only two conditions to consider for the sex offender, either he is dangerous or not dangerous (Janus & Prentky, 2003). Now, if we consider the first position that means he is harmful enough to conduct any crime. This is also evident from the fact that despite taking measures for the security, up till today child sex offenders’ rate is recidivist. ‘Harmful offender’ must be treated accordingly and if living in community, community members must be notified about the presence of the offender, so that they could take necessary measures for the protection of their children. This would at some time make the offender vulnerable enough to conduct or repeat any crime. At least this would make him think twice before conducting or planning sexual crime.
If, the offender is not dangerous and is new to crime or has not committed any crime, the court provisions, punishments, setting up of national Criminal Records Bureau and the use of the Sex Offenders Register will make him vulnerable to conduct the offence, in fact it is possible that he quits the decision to commit crime. However, this still leaves the problem of abusers who have never been prosecuted and are therefore not listed on any register. This could therefore lull the community including children and young people to some extent about their safety and security concerns.
Research suggests that 50 percent of the sex offenders after subjecting to notification laws, relocated to less intrusive states. (Bonnie, 1995) This indicates that in most cases sex offenders keep changing their locations to prey easily. Notification not only keeps the community updated about such offenders, but also provides them with a sense of security, so this way the community initiates a new bond of affection with the state and law. After all it is the right of the community to know if a dangerous offender is living among them.
Notification does not only mean to create awareness among community members so as to protect children but also to make them aware of appropriate steps that can be taken to enhance safety and security. Notifying refers to appropriate training for members of community in residential and other childcare institutions, so as to enable them to become aware of the nature and impact of child sexual abuse. Furthermore, it would also lead to improvement in the detection of ongoing abuse from adults or peers either from within or outside the institution. This suggests a need for a more diverse range of services that may or may not necessarily involve legal processes, or perhaps delay the involvement of legal processes, to a point where the child or young person feels stronger and more able to cope.
Arguments against notifying community
The trend after the case New Jersey v Timmendequas no doubt has initiated a new era of ‘community notification’ in the form of “Megan’s Law”, but at the same time research reveals that by creating risk priorities, U.S. District Court has remained unable to create enough community notification to protect community members from child sex-offenders. In this case one should be considering more that the obligation should not be upon state’s head to notify each member or whole of the community about the presence of child sex-offender for the following reasons:
Whether the offender resides in notified or unnotified community, notifying community members of the presence of sex offenders will not prevent them recommit offence. (Bonnie, 1995) Research reveals that every year approximately 8, 96,000 children are abused in U.S. alone of which at least 1400 die due to maltreatment. (Doriane, 2005) Now how does notifying community decrease such offence when to this day despite community notification, state has failed to control child sexual abuse.
According to Magazine Article by Jacobs (2003) “Sex offender notification is nothing but safety illusion” (Jacobs, 2003). I agree with Jacobs as Child sex-offender notification has only left us with false hopes and promises never fulfilled. Timmendequas case is the example before us. In fact the research of 1995 Washington State depicts that when a group of sex offenders were released from the prison, community notification showed no difference in the reduction of crime rates.
Another main reason behind the failure of child sex-offender notification is that our police and local authorities are only aware of a small amount of sex offenders that are rarely reported. The majority of the cases are never reported for the decisions adults make in order to maintain their family’s self esteem.
The adoption of the Megan’s law by the Federal Government and the 50 states on one hand has provided children security by notifying parents to protect their children from offenders and keep an eye on neighbourhood, but on the other hand has opened several other ways for sex-offenders to trap and victimize their crime (Klaas, 2003). It is to this reason every time when an offender is identified in community; he is escorted by a new trick to prey his victim. The notification has closed simpler ways to prey for the victims, so offenders search for new ways to prey along with other ways and means for committing new offences. So, the state concerning the delicacy of the issue should not be liable to officially inform the community.
In 2006, U.S. Supreme Court while showing importance of the safety and well-being of community’s children, conducted several statutory enactments after which the court found that majority of the child sexual abuse cases are solved and thus remains within in intra-familial, rather than being reported. (Vandervort, 2006) In this case, the court must consider the community’s condition and must adopt one of the following two solutions: Either the court should condemn community for not fully participating in the child sex abuse issue and should take measures to properly implement the law and provision to report such cases or the court while taking into consideration the fact of lesser registrations, must leave the decision on the community. In this case the court and the Federal state must not be held responsible for not notifying community members. That would obviously make the community members responsible for taking decisions.
The realization of the Supreme Court of the increasing rate of recidivism while notifying community about the sex offender has escorted the state to implement sex offender registration statutes and sex offender treatment programs. But despite such measures, recidivism keeps on increasing without any end. Now, what does that means? Nothing, other than the fact that notification provides the offenders with the full advantage to reveal themselves in community and suggest new ways of preying innocent children.
Notification also gives strength to the culprit as they are aware of the reasons for which the young children would not feel comfortable to tell or they would be wondering whom to tell, or making the decision not to tell. All these possibilities exist, but interrelated. Experienced offenders are aware that the children having private feelings and fears about themselves and what people would think of them, linked to feelings of voluntarism and beliefs about being responsible for the abuse. Therefore, being aware of the situation that children feel vulnerable after sexual attacks, leads the offenders towards successful implementation of their plans. Notification or unnotification does not matter.
According to Bonnie (1995) “Community notification simply transfers the problem of dangerous sex offenders from middle and upper-class communities to poor inner-city neighbourhoods”(Bonnie, 1995). Continuous relocation of the offenders means every time a new child is victimized, in a new city, followed by a new place. So, what is the use of community notification when every time the offender is the same, but victim is new?
Personal Opinion
Notifying community about released sex offenders neither discourage offenders nor it helps the legal concerns and community to search for the real causes behind sexual crimes. Therefore, I personally conclude that notification law has nothing to do with recidivism sexual abuse. What matters is how we equip our youth to confront such dilemmas. Either it be measures like children awareness, sex education, and physical training programs or be parental supervision with proper teaching, it is how our young ones are equipped with confidence and cautiousness.
References
- Bonnie Steinbock, (1995) “A Policy Perspective” In: Criminal Justice Ethics. Volume: 14. Issue: 2. p: 4-9. Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics.
- Doriane Lambelet Coleman, (2005) “Storming the Castle to Save the Children: The Ironic Costs of a Child Welfare Exception to the Fourth Amendment” In: William and Mary Law Review. Volume: 47. Issue: 2. p: 413+ College of William and Mary, School of Law
- Jacobs Deborah, (2003) “Why Sex Offender Notification Won’t Keep Our Children Safe” In Magazine Title: Corrections Today. Volume: 65. Issue: 1. p: 22. American Correctional Association
- Klaas Marc, (2003) “Sex Offender Registries Protect Our Children” In Magazine Title: Corrections Today. Volume: 65. Issue: 1. p: 23. American Correctional Association.
- Janus S. Eric & Prentky Robert, (2003) “Forensic Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment with Sex Offenders: Accuracy, Admissibility and Accountability” In: American Criminal Law Review. Volume: 40. Issue: 4. p: 1443+. Georgetown University Law Centre
- Vandervort E. frank, (2006) “Videotaping Investigative Interviews of Children in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: One Community’s Approach” In: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume: 96. Issue: 4. p: 1353+. North western University, School of Law