Today, every state in the nation as well as the federal government has enacted a "Megan's Law" statutes. Essentially, these laws require that convicted sexual offenders register with local authorities when they move into a neighborhood. The laws also require that local residents be notified when such offenders move into their communities. In some cases, these laws allow the publishing of sexual offenders addresses on the Internet as a means of public notification. A third variation of such statutes also requires that sexual offenders who have completed their sentence but who remain a perceived threat to society may be involuntarily committed in psychiatric institutions until such time as they are determined to no longer pose a threat to society.
Not surprisingly, critics of these laws argue that they violate the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders. In particular, critics point to the constitutional protections against double jeopardy, invasion of privacy, cruel and unusual punishment, and ex-post facto laws. Such critics, however, are in the difficult position of arguing for the constitutional rights of individuals who have often committed heinous crimes involving children against the pictures of their young, innocent victims. It is not surprising, therefore, that these laws have largely withstood constitutional scrutiny. This paper explores the constitutional issues surrounding Megan's Laws and concludes with some seemingly simple solutions that seem to avoid constitutional violations while achieving the goals of these laws.
Nathaniel Pallone is a legal scholar who argues that 7-year-old Megan Kanka's death would never have occurred had the State of New Jersey not struck a plea bargain with Jesse Timmendequas. Before he killed Kanka, Timmendequas had recently been released from a specialized prison for "habitual, repetitive, or compulsive sex offenders" after serving a plea-negotiated 10-year sentence. Th...