My issue for my research paper is going to be whether community notification laws, specifically Megan's Laws, are fair to the sex offenders being punished by them. It is unfair to those people who were sentenced for a minor crime, especially one that will never be repeated. However, it is necessary to inform the community of a sex offender living nearby if the person has been repeatedly committed of such offenses, which would mean that they have a compulsion towards sexual crimes. One side of the argument is that notification laws are necessary to prevent future sexual crimes, as it informs people living near the offender of his (or her) presence in the area, allowing them to protect their children and family members. The other argument would be that it is unfair to the offender, as he or she may have committed the crime without the intent of hurting another person or breaking the law, such as being involved in a statutory rape case, where the offender had non-forcible sex, but it was with a minor. It seems somewhat unfair that one mistake like that could haunt them for the rest of their lives. Because of the community notification laws, the person will have to announce his presence, if not to the whole community, then at the very least to the police. He or she may be harrassed by people who find out about their history and presence in the area. additionally, they may be told where they can or can't live, as some states have laws defining what areas sex offenders can live in. For example, in some places sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school.
I think that I will be taking the side that community notification laws are needed for some cases, but overall should be applied based on the seriousness of the crime committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your compromise of the two sides; it shows a good understanding of the issue at hand. You should be careful, though, when it comes to defining what is a 'bad' crime, something worthy of labeling as an 'offender.' Perhaps you might want to mention the copious amounts of acts that are considered 'sex crimes,' and show how easy it might be to become one after a small mistake or error of judgement, as I'm sure you have already considered. I just had a thought. Would it work to have the 'wronged' party of the sex crime choose whether or not the 'criminal' should have to register as an offender, getting rid of the embarassment attached to something like statutory rape, if both parties were consenting, while keeping more serious offenders in their place, however the victim sees fit.
ReplyDeleteI like the compromise that you come up with. It shows that you are really thinking about the issue at hand and considering both sides. I think you need to explain specifically certain crimes and the seriousness of them. I think this is necessary because you have to be careful about deciding what is a 'bad' enough crime that the person being labeled an offender should have to reveal and what crimes are not as bad that they should not have to reveal to the entire community. This can get complicated with each case.
ReplyDeletedid you ever find a complete list of sex crimes?
ReplyDelete