A Look at Megan’s Law

Issues of nuisance and punishment be very much at the center of controversy. In part, this is origin completelyy beca aim often, the issues raised in matters of crime and punishment do non ingest soft answers and sometimes, in that location may not be any solution at all. Certainly, severally time a good matter arises, razetide with similar circumstances, the solvent to such matters can be complex and can differ with separately and every causal agency. We can gain some understanding as to the business in deciding how to view and treat such matters by considering the show window of Megans Law.On July 29, 1994 Jesse Timmendequas, already a convicted come alive offender at the time, is hoped to keep back apply a puppy to lure Megan Kanka, the 7-year-old daughter of his neighbors, into his home in Hamilton T birthship, Mercer County, NJ and brutally raped and murdered her (Flanagan, 2004 Vachss, 1994). Once inside, Timmendequas is said to discombobulate slammed Meg ans head into a dresser and suffocated her with a plastic bag sooner strangling her to death with a belt. Subsequently, he moved and raped Megans stone-dead body again before dumping the body in a nearby park in West Windsor, NJ.Timmendequas was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for his crime. subsequently his conviction, unused Jersey passed a truth that has come to be cognize as Megans law. The law was designed to protect a community when unsafe sex offenders move into the community. more or less states require notification only for certain types of sexual set ons while other states extended the requirement to individuals convicted of sodomy or consensual sodomy, an act that was il sanctioned in some states even in the midst of consenting adults before the U.S. Supreme Court decl atomic number 18d such laws unconstitutional in June 2003.Timmendequas actions and the subsequent sanctioned proceedings raise drumheads as to reasonable how such a situation, or an y similar serious legal situation should be handled. Was he treated fairly? Did the Kanka family receive right(a) legal restitution for the crime? How should such causas be handled? We want to use the Megan Kanka/Jesse Timmendequas case to ask four basic questions and seek the answers to similar questions. First, what argon the goals of punishment?Is it actually the punishment of the individual who committed the crime, protection of the community, both, incomplete or more? Second, in situations of serious crimes of this nature, should offenders be subjected to a lifetime of re birthment for their crimes after serving their allotted term of imprisonment? Third, when considering punishment, ar the rights of the victim, the community or the offender more important are all the rights equally important? Finally, what goal(s) was(were) the Criminal justness System attempting to achieve by instituting Megans law.Megans Law has been the focus of considerable controversy and heated de bate. After Megans rape and murder, there was considerable controversy regarding the question of whether the Kanka family may thence move over cognize that a sex offender (not necessarily Timmendequas, however) lived in the house across the street. Although the Kanka family denied having any acquaintance of Timmendequas twist ultimo as a sex offender, there was evidence to suggest that it was common knowledge that at least one of the residents of the house where Timmendequas lived had a criminal one-time(prenominal) that included sexual assault, rape and gang shootings. (Vachss 1994)Even before Megans rape and murder, law enforcement officials knew that three convicted sex offenders lived in the house where Timmendequas lived. Although Megans parents claimed not to have been conscious of this fact, some of their neighbors did know of the three mens past. Even so, Maureen Kanka, Megans mother, felt that population should not need to rely on gossip and rumors in differentiat e to learn about the presence of convicted sex offenders in their neighborhood.Perhaps first and fore roughly in any legal situation is the question as to the goal(s) of punishment. What scarcely are the goals of punishment? penalty for crimes is supposed to be to deter crime. Punishment penalties and law are based on utilitarianism, the idea that there should be no unnecessary punishment (UBSBA). This idea says that we should evaluate laws on the butt of future consequences and suggests that punishment is always bad because it causes pain.Thus, The reason to punish is to restrain future crime and the limit is to punish only if the pain is outweighed by the happiness it creates. Crime and Punishment speculation proposes the four questions should be asked when analyzing legal theories of punishment. They are, 1) Is the punishment to frustrate future crimes or to punish past misconduct, 2) Does the theory of punishment assume that the crime was caused by the individual or socia ble problems, 3) Does the theory express blame for the proscribed act and actor and4) What is the family between the criminal and the rest of bon ton? That is, is the criminal part of society or excluded from society? The threat of punishment is believed to stop rational tribe from doing something that last volition not be to their benefit, but the deterrent economic value of punishment is only thought to be effective if people are aware of the punishment prior to committing crimes.Megans law was not meant to be a form of punishment. Rather, it was designed to be an act that would provide information to prevent potential crime in situations where the potential may be real. around have argued that the law may lead to vigilantes formed against convicted sex offenders and the torture of those offenders, but that was not the intension of the law. Its purpose was to enhance public safety. Although cause sex offenders may be harmed by the law, supporters of the law claim that whats oever incidental inconvenience or harm the former sex-offender may remain firm as a result of the law is an unavoidable consequence of their own past illegal behavior. It does not outweigh the communitys right to know the workable danger of their presence.This case raises the question, Should offenders be subjected to a lifetime of repayment for their crimes after serving a term of imprisonment? This is not an easy question to answer. Theoretically, a person should not need to continue to pay for past crimes a second time, or continue paying for them once they have paid, but that idea is fraught with problems and more or less unaccepted to enforce. In fact, it is also impossible to determine what actually constitutes payment for crime.In life, individuals may pay for things they have through ache after they have done whatever it was even if their legal payment has been completed. We may pay in terms of paranoia, feelings of guilt and other kind and psychological payments long a fter any legal payment or even without legal payment. So, psychological repayment for crimes may continue for a lifetime even if social and legal repayment do not. A persons own mental and psychological retribution for their acts may continue indefinitely.Many psychological situations are viewed as diseases even though we dont really have a definition for (or officially believe in the existence of) the soul. Psychology, for example, is, by definition, the study of the soul, but if asked, well-nigh people, including psychologists and psychiatrists would state that psychology is the study of the mind. Ironically, psychologists do not officially believe in the existence of the mind eitherFurthermore, sex offenses are often treated as if such crimes were caused by a disease or were a disease themselves. However, even with real or other diseases (if we allow, good for the sake of argument, that some such offenses are the results of disease), there is no steadfastly and firm definiti on of a disease even in situations where or so everyone would agree that the situation (such as with cancer of cardiovascular disease) is a disease.The retribution theory of punishment holds that individuals should only be penalise if they have done something wrong and their punishment should be in proportion to the wrong they have done. This theory proposes that it is right to inflict pain, but recognizes that the innocent can jack off punished for things they did not do. This is certainly a very serious term in any case of capital punishment.In other situations, an alleged criminal may eventually get a reprieve and be judge for a crime he or she did not commit even though their exoneration might come until after they have wooly a few or even many valuable years in prison serving a term for a crime they did not commit. However, in capital cases, exoneration is of little value after the alleged individual has been executed, and certainly, the criminal justice system must hav e executed many innocent individuals over the years.In such cases, both the known victim(s) of the crime and the individual accused of the crime become victims while the iniquitous troupe may permanently escape justice. No one is punished for the crime because the individual who is punished is innocent. So, the actual criminal has more or less committed an additional crime and gotten away with it.Whose rights are closely important? This question cannot be answered as asked. The answer is not moreover a matter of rights, but more a matter of safety. The pattern is to err on the side of safety, so the initial question has more to do with, What allow foring render the individuals of a community safe than Whose rights are virtually important, certainly an important issue as well. about feel that Megans law gives a false sense of security. Statistics from the way of Justice indicate that the overwhelming majority of sexually assaulted minors were vilifyd by family members or a cquaintances rather than by strangers.In fact, these statistics suggest that those who appear on a sex offenders regis render would not really significantly resolve the problem of sex offenses against minors. Thus, laws directed against the occasional stranger who might sexually assault minors would be like the tip of an iceberg in dish outing with the actual problem. Most victims will still be victimized and most of those guilty of the offense will never serve justice. With the guilty party still free, laws similar to Megans law would not really make most people any safer even if made people feel that way.However, statistics from the Bureau of Justice also indicate that sex offenders discharged from prison or sentenced to probation generally have a lower rate of re-arrest than other dotty offenders but are substantially more likely than other raging offenders to be rearrested for a new crimson sex offense (U.S. plane section of Justice Press Release). In cases of rape alone, execution is not an option. Some have proposed that rapists be castrated (Vachss, 1993). Castration is thought to emanate the manly sex drive, but castration wont prevent murder as was the case in Megan Kankas situation and some individuals get a vicarious fluctuate from the act of murder itself.Ultimately, the questions raised here are neither easy or straightforward. Society may find those individuals who have committed violent sex offenses, try them, convict and sentence them and the accused individual, whether or not actually guilty, may pay for the crime. However, it is certain that some guilty individuals will never be found, some innocent individuals will pay for sex (and other) crimes they have not committed and the laws designed to make society safer will work successfully at times and not at others.Perhaps we must live with the realization that answering the difficult questions raised here will not resolve our dilemma no matter what decisions we are ultimately to make. A ll that we can actually do is to put laws in empower that we believe will achieve a goal and then deal with every situation that arises on a case by case basis. If we are honest and fair with our assessment, we will not trample the rights of victims nor victimize criminals any more than is necessary, if at all. Our goal must be to try to be fair while protecting the safety of communities and those who live in them. While we will never get the balance completely right, rightfulness is the key.ReferencesFlanagan, Russ. Megans legacy, A childs death serves as a call to action. The extinguish Times, February 26, 2004.Vachss, Andrew. How Many Dead Children Are Needed to End the Rhetoric? vernal York Daily News, August 12, 1994Vachss, Andrew. Sex Predators Cant Be Saved. New York Times, January 5, 1993Wikipedia, February, 7, 2007. https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Megan_KankaJesse_Timmendequas 4 January 2007.