|
||||
|
Posting #175 –Sex Offender Laws and the U.S. Constitution, by KathyBy: Ryan and Kathy RSOL of Virginia,
Sex Offender Laws Vs. The U.S. Constitution, by Kathy “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (“U.S. Constitution,” 2008) There are currently an estimated 400,000 registered sex offenders residing in the Unites States today. More shocking than this is that over 100,000 of these individuals do not reside at the address used on the national or state registration sites. (“Offender counts”, 2009, p. 3). The United States Congress has officially signed and enforced two revolutionary laws concerning stipulations one must abide by if convicted of a sexual offense. The first is called Megan’s Law, coined after 7-year-old Megan Kanka, of Hamilton Township, who was brutally raped and murdered by her twice-convicted neighbor. (“Megan’s Law,” 2003). The second is called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. (Berghahn, 2006, p.1-7). Although these laws were implemented with the best of intentions, they are costing U.S. citizens millions of tax dollars, are in clear violation of State and Constitutional laws relating to the Ex Post Facto, double jeopardy, and the separation of powers provisions of the U.S. Constitution, are in breach of contract of the original plea as conditions of punishment have since changed years after the original plea agreement was made and fulfilled, and are completely ineffective. Has the government gone too far in an attempt at a “quick fix” in order to make the public feel safer? The two laws named above not only prompted states to require all offenders to register with the state police on a consistent basis, but it also established a three tier system and notification process state to state. Under the laws, sex offenders who reside in the community are classified by prosecutors in one of three “tiers” based on the degree of risk they pose to the public: high (Tier 3), moderate (Tier 2) or low (Tier 1). Establishing which person belongs on which tier is one of the biggest problems within these two laws. Currently, any person convicted of a sex crime is placed into a tier solely based on the name of the crime of which they were convicted. When dealing with such an important subject, not to mention the severity in which those involved are affected, the phrase “one size fits all” is clearly not the case. Some offenders who served their time, met all expectations of their sentence, registered continuously, and were released from probation or parole, are also being affected by these two laws. Past offenders who were no longer required to register upon completion of all requirements of probation several years prior to these laws were met with a huge surprise. “A state police officer showed up at my door and informed me that I would be required to register every 90 days for the rest of my life”, Jeff Johnson stated. (Center for Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2008, p45) He is just one of many offenders, previously released of this stipulation 18 years prior to these laws that are now being required to register once again. A gentleman convicted of a sex crime in 1991 was just four months away from being released of this requirement, when he met a similar fate. “ Not only did the officer tell me that I had to continue registering every ninety days, but that I was also moved from tier one to tier three, which automatically changed my status to “violent offender”, a Virginia man stated. (Anonymous, personal communication, November, 2009). These two men are just a few examples of our constitutional rights being ripped from our hands. Another stipulation set by these two laws requires rezoning in every state. The exact zoning requirements vary by state, but all require that a person convicted of a sex crime cannot reside or work within so many feet of an establishment occupied by children, or anyone under the age of eighteen. This law has affected communities, and families nationwide. As a result, California’s homeless population skyrocketed 800 percent since 2006, and continues to climb. A gentleman convicted of a sex crime 11 years prior to rezoning died as a result of this law. (“Homeless,” 2009). Thomas Pauli froze to death after being denied entry into two shelters because of zoning laws stating that no residence can be established, not even for one night, within 1,000 feet of a school. The shelters had no choice but to deny entry due to this law or suffer fines and the possibility of being shut down. The biggest changes to take place as a result of these laws are the information available to the public via state and national registry sites, and the age at which states are required to add a convicted offender. Children as young as seven (Massachusetts), eight (Arizona), and 12 in many other states, are not only being added to this database, but they must provide personal information such as, physical address, school address, nickname, shoe size, etc. Some states have shown a difference in opinion as to whether this information is ethically and constitutionally acceptable to make public, but their hands remain tied. Any state that does not meet the federal requirements concerning criteria for sex offender laws loses ten percent of their federal funding for the fiscal year. These online databases average 2.3 million page views per day. Would you want your child’s information available to anyone with access to a computer? The question still remains; do these newly adapted laws conflict with our constitutional rights as citizens who have abided by and completed the terms set upon initial conviction? These laws were set up in order for us to protect our children, and yet we are being required to add children to these lists or risk losing federal funding for that year, funding that pays for after school programs, food stamps, and residential programs for low income families. Being placed into a tier solely based on the name of your crime is no different than being placed into a category simply based on race, religion, color, or creed. It throws the United States Constitution and everything that it represents right out the window. If we continue to endorse these laws and knowingly break the laws on which this country was built, we may as well abolish all of our rights as Americans and submit to communism as a means of being governed and living our lives. We must protect our children, however; the laws currently in place are not only ineffective, but put our children at additional risk. Now we must protect them from predators as well as from being labeled as such. Parents and U.S. citizens must take action and change these laws. We must form an effective way to keep track of sexual offenders, while upholding our duty to keep Constitutional rights from being broken, and protecting our children at the same time. References Berghahn, M. (2006). Understanding the Adam Walsh Act [Electronic version]. Adam Walsh Act: Implementation, Implications, and Challenges, p.1-7.
|
|||