A group of New Jersey sex offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted recently brought suit against the state. They claimed that the law implemented a second punishment for their crimes, thus violating the double-jeopardy and ex-post facto protections provided by the Constitution. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected these claims and upheld Megan's Law.
Parents should have the right to know that their children are safe from sex offenders. But how far does that right extend when it threatens another's right to lead a productive life? The backbone of American civil liberties is that every citizen must have the opportunity to achieve their potential and better themselves. But if a law prevents someone from being able to get work or improve themselves, it impinges on those rights.
Proponents of the laws say that too often, sex offenders finish serving their terms and have not been adequately rehabilitated and often commit sexual offenses again. The laws provide a degree of pre-emptive protection to help protect people in the communities that such former criminals move into from what could happen. But the laws unfairly impose sanctions on those who will not repeat their crimes. Further, if correctional facilities do not adequately rehabilitate inmates, additional educational and counseling programs should be offered. If correctional facilities serve simply as a place to house those convicted of crimes for a period of time, they will not adequately prepare inmates for a return to society.
The laws work by informing the entire community in which the former criminal lives of his or her past indiscretions. As a result, they often face ostracism and unfair treatment. They often find it difficult, if not impossible, to secure employment, severely hampering their ability to become productive members of society. In its effort to keep neighborhoods safe, the community notification laws place a burdensome stigma on many former criminals who wish to move on with their lives, annulling any efforts they make to help themselves.
In lieu of the court's decision, the remaining 13 states that do not presently have such a law in place may rush to enact one since the constitutionality of the issue is no longer in question. Such action would be a mistake since these types of laws are doubly punitive to those convicted of crimes. The court has set a bad precedent in upholding this law; under the decision's guise, laws that implement similar post-release policies could be enacted against people convicted of other crimes, such as drug possession and robbery. It could be possible that a single, minor bad act could ruin the rest of a citizen's life - a frightening premise that flies in the face of the bedrock of American society.