WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that photos of convicted sex offenders may be posted on the Internet, a victory for states that use the Web to warn citizens about potential predators in their neighborhoods.

In a separate ruling, the court turned back a challenge from sex offenders who argued they deserved a chance to prove they aren't dangerous to avoid having their pictures and addresses put on the Internet.

The decisions came in the Supreme Court's first review of what are known as Megan's laws. They have far-reaching implications because every state and the federal government have sex-offender registry statutes.

The laws are named for 7-year-old Megan Kanka, a New Jersey girl kidnapped, raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex criminal who lived in her neighborhood.

The Supreme Court cases, from Alaska and Connecticut, required justices to balance the rights of offenders with the public safety interest in keeping tabs on people who may commit more sex crimes.

The court came down on the side of public safety in both cases, but left the door open for future constitutional challenges.

By a 6-3 vote, justices rejected arguments by two Alaska sex offenders who contended they already served time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed and were punished a second time with the registry. The Alaska law requires convicts to give police personal information four times a year or risk more prison time.

The government had argued that it was not burdensome for offenders to report to police every 90 days to provide information, including their addresses, and to have their pictures taken, because all people have to fill out paperwork in government office to vote, register a car or get married.

Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed the law is not punitive.

"Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment," he wrote for the majority. "The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender."

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that "however plain it may be that a former sex offender currently poses no threat of recidivism, he will remain subject to long-term monitoring and inescapable humiliation." Also opposing the court's ruling were Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer.

Information about sex offenders is available online in about three dozen states.

The court also ruled 9-0 that Connecticut did not have to hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry. But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing that decision, said the case did not give the court the appropriate avenue to decide whether Connecticut's law violates substantive due process rights.

"The court has made a very powerful and compelling statement about the need for objective, accurate information being as available as possible," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

Justice David Souter noted in a separate opinion that the court's decision does not affect future constitutional challenges to Megan's laws.

Stevens said that in both rulings his colleagues "fail to decide whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected interest in liberty." The cases are Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, 01-1231, and Otte v. Doe, 01-729.

I, for one, am against singling out sex offenders. If the registry applied to all crimes comitted, then I could change my position.

I could care less what they do in terms of those who have committed crimes like that...they should be embarassed and shamed as much as possible. Better yet they should be locked up...

Originally posted by rkmsuf
I could care less what they do in terms of those who have committed crimes like that...they should be embarassed and shamed as much as possible. Better yet they should be locked up...

forever?

are these crimes (a very broad area btw) so specialized that they should be treated differently?

If public safety is the question then I am just as concerned about the drug pusher or the guy convicted of reckless endangerment. As a pet owner I want know if those sick basterds that grilled the live kitten live next door. Why just sex offenders?

Originally posted by Fritz
I, for one, am against singling out sex offenders. If the registry applied to all crimes comitted, then I could change my position.

I agree with you 100% on this one. Isn't the whole purpose of our criminal justice system to punish and correct the problem. All the government basically says with these laws is that they have no idea what to do so let's just f with these guys for the rest of their lives. And before you start quoting the story of Megan. (Of which I am sure 100% of those who rape and murder children never see the free world again) let me ask you about 2 situations...

1. The 17 who sleeps with their 15/16 year old girlfriend.

2. (Currently going on) A 17 year old female who the courts rule doesn't have to register as a sex offender who had sex with a 14 and 11 year old boy. Can you imagine the outrage if a 17 year old guy raped an 11-year old girl?

Unless they apply the laws equally and fairly (This includes women and the Kennedy's) then they are complete bullshit.

You can focus on the fringe cases all you want but what I really mean is that any person capable of being a sex offender(not the 17 yr old who sleeps with a 15 yr old) deserves no pity or accomodation...forever.

Explain the rehabilitation that takes place here...

The reconviction rate of sex offenders is incredibly high. Sex offenders get reconvicted of sex related crimes at a rate of 95%. This is mainly why it gets treated differently.

sabotai,

That stat is total bunk - I know it used a lot and the media, but it comes from nowhere. The few studies that have looked at the matter objectively and with fixed criteria have actually shown sex crimes have a lower recidivism rate. When you really think about it (and don't listen to the media's quick explanation), it makes sense.

First of all, any study of recidivists can't include lifers - i.e. counting murderers as non-recidivists for other crimes doesn't make sense when the reason they can't repeat is that they are in jail.

Second, you have to factor sentence length into the equation. Someone who is released at a later age is less likely to become a criminal.

Third, theives actually have the highest repeat rate. Property theft offenders serve limited time and many are arrested in double-digits. The difference is that we view sex offenders as "sick" when we could say the same thing about theives (they are clepto's).

Don't be fooled by the hype. Sex offenders are bad, but hardly the worst repeat criminals.

So say a 70% repeat theft rate vs. a 40% repeat sex offender rate is comforting to you?

You say don't be fooled by the hype...ok then what are the "real" numbers...

My feeling is the "sex offender" registry is just a PR reaction. Many claim they promote public safety, but they completely ignore other safety related crimes.

One thing that I have not seen addressed is how much safer do registries make the average citizen? Does anyone here have any information they can share on this?

If a registry does provide some sort of security, wouldn't we want to extend that to other types of crime? Why are there only registries for sex offenders?

Originally posted by rkmsuf
So say a 70% repeat theft rate vs. a 40% repeat sex offender rate is comforting to you?

You say don't be fooled by the hype...ok then what are the "real" numbers...

I couldn't find any of the studies on the web, but here is a Washington Times article on the subject. Note that even in comparisons with violent felons (who normally have longer sentences), sex offender recidivism isn't different.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021113-68272248.htm

I don't find this nearly as alarming as the state laws which allow states to commit sex offenders to mental institutions after they have successfully served out their sentences. All conditioned upon a finding of future dangerousness.

Oprah (I know, I know) just recently had a program on with a sex offender who now goes around lobbying FOR Meagan's law. He'll admit that those who have touched children in the past will touch children in the future if given a chance. The point of Meagan's law is if you know where the molester lives you can warn your children to stay away from that house and that person.

I have a two friends (one current, one former) who both are registered. One (the former friend) molested his own son. He served less than two years, got out for three, and is now back in for touching another kid. He did not register in the neighborhood and no one there knew of his past offence. He would have not been around the children in the area if their parents had any idea.

I don't think law or psychology is doing a good job with this problem. This is not just a crime, but a disease. The people who molest kids don't just wake up one morning and decide to do it and they do not wake up the next morning and decide to stop. The best way to prevent re-offence is to warn the people around them so that they can keep their kids away.

Originally posted by John Galt
I couldn't find any of the studies on the web, but here is a Washington Times article on the subject. Note that even in comparisons with violent felons (who normally have longer sentences), sex offender recidivism isn't different.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021113-68272248.htm

I agree with one point of the article (that the "sex offender" tag is too broad), but I really wish the article would have showed stats for child sex offenders. Their recidivism is much higher than other crimes, and I think most people would be shocked to know how little time most of these people get per conviction. I would be for narrowing the spectrum of those who have to register (violent offenders and child offenders who have touched or attempted to touch) and dropping the lessor crimes (in Georgia, you have to register for indecent exposure!).

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I don't think law or psychology is doing a good job with this problem. This is not just a crime, but a disease. The people who molest kids don't just wake up one morning and decide to do it and they do not wake up the next morning and decide to stop. The best way to prevent re-offence is to warn the people around them so that they can keep their kids away.

Now this is interesting. Do we publish a registry of everyone with a (potentially) dangerous disease? Can we? Should we?

I remember reading that Cuba quarenteened anyone with aids (this was about 10 years ago, don't know if it is still true.

Originally posted by Fritz
Now this is interesting. Do we publish a registry of everyone with a (potentially) dangerous disease? Can we? Should we?

Does every dangerous disease include molesting children?

If it were a contagious disease that causes death (i.e. smallpox) the people who have it would be quarantined would they not? Would you be arguing for their "basic human rights" to be able to spread the disease further?

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Does every dangerous disease include molesting children?


I don't know, but I thought that is what you were saying.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
If it were a contagious disease that causes death (i.e. smallpox) the people who have it would be quarantined would they not? Would you be arguing for their "basic human rights" to be able to spread the disease further?

HIV/AIDs is a contageous disease that can cause death. I am reasonably sure that you are not allowed to quarantine a person with this disease or post a list of infected people.

You can certainly find other "diseases" that are less politically charged.

Originally posted by Fritz
You can certainly find other "diseases" that are less politically charged.

Ah, but with AIDs there have been cases where knowingly infected persons have had unprotected sex with someone without telling them and they were charged with assult. Of course none of this has any relation to a disease that causes people to attack someone else.


The point is that child molesters attack the weakest of our society. And until we can find affective treatment for people with this problem, the only treatment is to keep them away from kids. If you have a better suggestion, let me hear it.

In my view a convicted child molester deserves no rights and I wouldn't spend a minute worrying they are being mistreated...

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Ah, but with AIDs there have been cases where knowingly infected persons have had unprotected sex with someone without telling them and they were charged with assult. Of course none of this has any relation to a disease that causes people to attack someone else.


The point is that child molesters attack the weakest of our society. And until we can find affective treatment for people with this problem, the only treatment is to keep them away from kids. If you have a better suggestion, let me hear it.


And this is what differentiates "sex offenders" from "regular" offenders?

Originally posted by Fritz
And this is what differentiates "sex offenders" from "regular" offenders?

Yes. I don't think that having your stero stolen from you takes away from you what being molested does. Do you? Do you think burglary is equal to rape?

Oprah (I know, I know) just recently had a program on with a sex offender who now goes around lobbying FOR Meagan's law. He'll admit that those who have touched children in the past will touch children in the future if given a chance. The point of Meagan's law is if you know where the molester lives you can warn your children to stay away from that house and that person.

I have a two friends (one current, one former) who both are registered. One (the former friend) molested his own son. He served less than two years, got out for three, and is now back in for touching another kid. He did not register in the neighborhood and no one there knew of his past offence. He would have not been around the children in the area if their parents had any idea.

I don't think law or psychology is doing a good job with this problem. This is not just a crime, but a disease. The people who molest kids don't just wake up one morning and decide to do it and they do not wake up the next morning and decide to stop. The best way to prevent re-offence is to warn the people around them so that they can keep their kids away.

Can we stop using anecdotal evidence on this board starting... ... ... ...now.

The testimony of one person and someone on Oprah (if you believe that she wouldn't get someone in who would have an opinion that would play to her tearjerker over 40 woman's audience, then step out the door to the naive now) does not a solid case make. I guess I'll entertain notions that these people are wired differently than the rest of us but those stats don't seem to support it so until you can prove otherwise, as scary as it is, I have to agree with Fritz for once. Why is this crime any different than any other?

SI

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Yes. I don't think that having your stero stolen from you takes away from you what being molested does. Do you? Do you think burglary is equal to rape?

First, all "sex offenders" are not rapists or molesters.

Second, I am not trying to equate burglary and rape. I am trying to discover why we single out "sex offenders." Is it because it takes away "X amount" from you?

Originally posted by sterlingice
Can we stop using anecdotal evidence on this board starting... ... ... ...now.

The testimony of one person and someone on Oprah (if you believe that she wouldn't get someone in who would have an opinion that would play to her tearjerker over 40 woman's audience, then step out the door to the naive now) does not a solid case make. I guess I'll entertain notions that these people are wired differently than the rest of us but those stats don't seem to support it so until you can prove otherwise, as scary as it is, I have to agree with Fritz for once. Why is this crime any different than any other?

SI

I wasn't trying to prove my point by this one story, but was bringing it up in light of the discussion. The stats overwhelmingly prove that child offenders are more likely to offend again. The stats that were used in the article were not dealing specifically with child molestors but rapist. Child molestors usually offend more often than rapist, with an average of about 117 children attacked.

Child molestors re-affend at a high rate and are most likely to offend against someone they know. In other words, those who live around them and have daily contact with. Notice this website (http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Links) has a large list of statics, along with links of many other databases.

Originally posted by Fritz
First, all "sex offenders" are not rapists or molesters.

Second, I am not trying to equate burglary and rape. I am trying to discover why we single out "sex offenders." Is it because it takes away "X amount" from you?

I already said that I think the registery should limit who should register. Right now it is too broad. So, I'm not arguing for the over-broad law that is on the books. Like I said before, give me a better way to protect kids?

I'll give one. Much longer sentences for offenders, which includes intensive inpatient treatment before release. And then a two strikes law. You offend a second time, it is life without the possibility of parole.

Having used to staff the Judicary Committe of a State Senate that deals with these very issues, allow me to enter a few points:

1). Legislators realy change judical laws unless there is public outcry. They have tons of other areas to focus and spend their time in, and the judical system is a self-correcting one with all of the elvels of judges and such. Therefore, you rarely see legislatures enacting laws that change the basic rules of justice.

2). When enacting changes due to public pressure, there is no room for consistency. Sex Offender cases, which, in many states, includes prostitution, polygamy and public exposure, is one example. Created n raction to anger by parents and public interests groups, the laws are not consistent. Another example is hate crime legislation. Again, a recation to crime that is not consistent with other laws.

3). As reactions, these laws are usually so emotionally charged that rational discourse on the subject often takes a back seat. Sex Offender cases are one of the worst examples of this, and today, in this thread, you see people who want to lock up everybody and give them no mercy if they have been covicted.

SO LET ME SAY THIS NOW:

When I was 8-10, I was sexually abused by a local boy - a teenager between 15-17 years of age. So, I am speaking with the greatest degree of experience here - more so than practically any other person on this board.

I am against sex offender registration, and I would NOT want the very man who abused me to be listed either. It goes against the very idea of our country, where people can find a place to start over, to do penance and become productive memebrs of society. America began with many criminals and such who tried to found a better place. How can we turn against our very nature?

-Anxiety

I think publishing sex offender lists is a good thing. Wouldn't you want to know before you move into your new house with you three children if the guy living next to you, or down the street, is a convicted child molester?

As for those of you who think it would be outrageous for a 17 year old who sleeps with his 15 year old girlfriend to register, don't worry. He doesn't. At least in California.

The only people who need to register in California are adults who molest kids under 14 years old and people who commit violent/forcible sex crimes like rape, sodomy, and oral copulation.

Why are these people entitled to sympathy? If they never did it in the first place, they wouldn't have to register. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Grid Iron
Why are these people entitled to sympathy? If they never did it in the first place, they wouldn't have to register. Plain and simple.

But why not other types of offenders? Why ONLY sex offenders?

Originally posted by Anxiety
I am against sex offender registration, and I would NOT want the very man who abused me to be listed either. It goes against the very idea of our country, where people can find a place to start over, to do penance and become productive memebrs of society. America began with many criminals and such who tried to found a better place. How can we turn against our very nature?

-Anxiety

Can a convicted felon own a gun even after his time is up? No. Even though that is a constitutional right, a person convicted of a felony is still not given that right back unless by pardon. America does allow people second chances, but based on the type of crime. There are some where you never get a chance again (life without parole, death penalty, etc.). Personally, I think this is should be one of those.

ps. I'm sorry to hear about your abuse, but lets just say my experience in this matter is at least equal and quite possibly greater than yours.

Originally posted by Fritz
But why not other types of offenders? Why ONLY sex offenders?

Look to my last post. Felons are never allowed to own a gun again. That is a punishment that goes beyond sentencing. This is in line with that. There are certain things taken away when you commit a crime that you never get back.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Look to my last post. Felons are never allowed to own a gun again.

This is just not true. In many (all?) states Felons can have their rights restored.

Not all, and in several states you do require a pardon (at least for federal felonies). but this is not just to own a firearm, this is to restore your civil rights. the folks that can't carry a gun can't vote, at least in many states


But we are not talking about the broad class crimes known as felonies. We are talking about specific crimes commonly called "sex offences."

So once again, what makes sex offences different?

Originally posted by Fritz
This is just not true. In many (all?) states Felons can have their rights restored.

Not all, and in several states you do require a pardon (at least for federal felonies). but this is not just to own a firearm, this is to restore your civil rights. the folks that can't carry a gun can't vote, at least in many states


But we are not talking about the broad class crimes known as felonies. We are talking about specific crimes commonly called "sex offences."

So once again, what makes sex offences different?

My point is you can lose rights past your sentencing. This is just another case.

By the way, in Georgia your voting rights are restored, but you can only own a gun by pardon. In different states it differs, but the fact is once you commit certain crimes you can permantly lose certain rights.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
My point is you can lose rights past your sentencing. This is just another case.

By the way, in Georgia your voting rights are restored, but you can only own a gun by pardon. In different states it differs, but the fact is once you commit certain crimes you can permantly lose certain rights.

What makes the "certain" crimes of "sex offence" the recipient of a registry? Why not register batterers, extortionists, or arsonists?

Originally posted by Fritz
What makes the "certain" crimes of "sex offence" the recipient of a registry? Why not register batterers, extortionists, or arsonists?

Because of the crime. If you don't agree, carry a sign in front of your state legislature house.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Because of the crime. If you don't agree, carry a sign in front of your state legislature house.

In other words, you don't know what makes it different but you don't like sex offenders, so that is enough to satisfy you?

I think that is where many people are.

So then what made us distinguish them in the first place? A whim? I doubt it...

Originally posted by rkmsuf
So then what made us distinguish them in the first place? A whim?

A fair question. I think Anxiety may have hit it on the head with


2). When enacting changes due to public pressure, there is no room for consistency. Sex Offender cases, which, in many states, includes prostitution, polygamy and public exposure, is one example. Created n raction to anger by parents and public interests groups, the laws are not consistent. Another example is hate crime legislation. Again, a recation to crime that is not consistent with other laws.

3). As reactions, these laws are usually so emotionally charged that rational discourse on the subject often takes a back seat.

Originally posted by Fritz
But why not other types of offenders? Why ONLY sex offenders?

Because sex offenses are some of the most heinous of all crimes--with the exception of murder and attempted murder, in which case most of those convicts go to prison for life anyway, so no registration is required.

Nonetheless, I'd be all for regisering all felons and making their info available on-line. Wouldn't you like to know if the plumber who comes to work on your sink while your wife is at home alone has been convicted of assault or robbery? Do you know whether the contractor you paid to remodel you bathroom has been convicted of fraud three times?

Originally posted by Fritz
In other words, you don't know what makes it different but you don't like sex offenders, so that is enough to satisfy you?

I think that is where many people are.

Actually I do and have stated it several times within this thread. Child molestors attack again and again, and they are most likely to attack those closest to them. Unless you know before hand who they are, you are at a distinct disadvantage to protect your children. That is what Megan's law was designed for. State legslatures went over the top to include all sex offenders, but never once have I said that I think all sex offenders should be registers.

Do I hate sex offenders? No, I have a friend who is a register sex offender. I have done everything I can to help him out in anyway I can. That doesn't mean I think he should not be registered, nor would I ever let him spend time with a teenager.

If you by sentencing guidelines you might draw a different conclusion. As an aside, you do know that many murderer's do not go to jail for life, right?

Originally posted by Grid Iron
Because sex offenses are some of the most heinous of all crimes--with the exception of murder and attempted murder, in which case most of those convicts go to prison for life anyway, so no registration is required.



This is more the direction I was heading. I am not sure if I would prefer "all" or "none," but one or the other seems more appropriate than "some."


Nonetheless, I'd be all for regisering all felons and making their info available on-line. Wouldn't you like to know if the plumber who comes to work on your sink while your wife is at home alone has been convicted of assault or robbery? Do you know whether the contractor you paid to remodel you bathroom has been convicted of fraud three times?

As of today is there any reason to change it considering this has become the norm in dealing with this particular offense?

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Actually I do and have stated it several times within this thread. Child molestors attack again and again, and they are most likely to attack those closest to them.

I apologize for misrepresenting your point of view.

Originally posted by rkmsuf
As of today is there any reason to change it considering this has become the norm in dealing with this particular offense?

The registry is fairly new and "available online in about three dozen states." I don't know that this makes it the norm.

My main concern is equal application of the law. Here we have a place where it is possible to register all or none of the criminals. If we are only going to do some I would like to see the justification for the discrimination.