Pros and Cons of the Issue

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.

My Research Question

My topic for my research paper is Megan's Law. This law is named after a 7 year old girl, Megan Kanka, who was raped and murdered by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender. Megan's Laws require that people in the community be notified when a sex offender moves into the area. I haven't decided for sure which issue to discuss; I can debate whether it is fair to the sex offenders to pass such laws or I can discuss the effectiveness of these laws and whether they really work in protecting people from possible sex crimes being committed. I have selected this issue because it is an issue that is very interesting to me, and it is also very two-sided. I feel some sympathy for the offenders, as they could have been convicted of something that was completely unintentional, or something that would never happen again, making it somewhat unfair that for the rest of their lives they have to be labeled as a sex offender. For example, if a man had non-forcible sexual relations at the age of 19 with a girlfriend who was, say, 16, he could be charged with statutory rape, and be labeled a sex offender for life. According to Megan's Law, the entire community may be notified of his presence, and he may be ostracized, harrassed, etc. for being "dangerous." However, if a man has a history of sexual crimes, he may be very likely to repeat them, therefore making him truly dangerous to those around him. In such a case, it seems fair that people are made aware of his presence, in order to protect their children, daughters, girlfriends, and wives. I could look at the laws from another perspective, though. I could research how effective the laws are in minimizing the number of sexual crimes being committed. At the moment, I think I'm leaning towards the research question of whether community notification laws, especially Megan's Laws, are fair to the sex offenders being punished by them.