The Effect of Megan’s Law on Sex Offender Reintegration

• Author: Jill S. Levenson,Leo P. Cotter
• Published date: 01 February 2005
• Date: 01 February 2005
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1043986204271676Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / February 2005Levenson, Cotter / EFFECT OF MEGAN’S LAW

The Effect of Megan’s Law

on Sex Offender Reintegration

JILL S. LEVENSON

Lynn University

LEO P. COTTER

The S.H.A.R.E. Program

The purpose of this study is to better understand the positive and negative, intendedand unin-

tended, consequences of community notification on sex offenders’rehabilitation and reintegra-

tion. A sample of 183 convictedmale sex offenders from Florida completed the survey. Overall,

about one third of participants had experienced dire events, such as the loss of a job or home,

threats or harassment, or propertydamage. Physical assault was a relatively rare occurrence. The

majority identified negativeeffects, such as stress, isolation, loss of relationships, fear, shame,

embarrassment, and hopelessness. Some participants noted positive effects of Megan’s Law,

includingmotivation to prevent reoffense and increasedhonesty with friends and family. Few sex

offenders believed that communities are safer because of Megan’s Law, and more than half

reported that the information posted about them on Florida’s Internet registry was incorrect.

Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

Keywords: sex offender;community notification; registration; Megan’s Law; offender reinte-

gration; offender rehabilitation

In response to high-profile sex crimes, innovative butcontroversial public

policies havebeen passed in an attempt to decrease the risk to public safety

posed by sexual offenders. In 1994, following the 1989 abduction of an 11-

year-old boy in Minnesota, Congress passed a law mandating all 50 states to

require sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies so that

their current whereabouts are known (Jacob WetterlingCrimes Against Chil-

dren and Sexually Violent Offender RegistrationAct, 1994). After the tragic

New Jersey murder of Megan Kanka by a previously convicted child

molester, “Megan’sLaw” was added to the Wetterling Act in 1996. Accord-

ing to this law,states must have procedures in place to inform the public about

49

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 21 No. 1, February 2005 49-66

DOI: 10.1177/1043986204271676

© 2005 Sage Publications

sex offenders who live in close proximity.This study seeks to investigate the

effect of Megan’s Law on sex offenders.

Community notification laws have received widespread support, largely

due to the perception that the vast majority of sex offenders will repeat their

crimes. However,research studies have found that sexual offense recidivism

rates are lower than commonly believed (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003;

Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Certain subgroups, such as pedophiles who

molest boys and rapists, seem to present the greatest risk; they have been

found over long follow-up periods to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39%,

respectively (Hanson, Scott, & Steffy,1995; Prentky, Lee, Knight, & Cerce,

1997). Early studies indicating that treatment was not successful in reducing

recidivism (Furby, Weinrott, & Blackshaw,1989) have also led to excessive

fear of sex offenders, despite recent data suggesting more promising treatment

outcomes (Hanson et al., 2002).

Because community notification was first proposed in response to the sex-

ually motivated murder of a child, it was originally conceivedas a strategyto

combat predatory child sexual abuse. As legislation evolved in most states,

notification became inclusiveof all sexual perpetrators, including incestuous

offenders, rapists of adults, noncontact offenders such as exhibitionists, and

child pornographers. Notification is intended to enhance community safety

from sexual violence through awareness and education combined with vigi-

lant surveillance and collaboration between lawenforcement agents and citi-

zens. The commonly cited goal of these statutes is to increase the public’s

ability to protect itself by warning potential victims if a convicted sex

offender lives nearby.

In reviewing notification laws in all 50 states, Matson and Lieb (1996)

found that notification methods commonly include press releases, flyers,

phone calls, door-to-door contact, neighborhood meetings, and Internet We b

sites. About half of the states assign offenders to one of three risk levelsand

notify the public differentially according to the risk an offender poses to the

community. Other states employ broad community notification, publicizing

the location of all sex offenders without regard for risk assessment (Matson

& Lieb, 1996).

The constitutionality of community notification statutes has been chal-

lenged, particularly on issues related to rights to privacy.In the fall of 2002,

the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases challenging Megan’sLaw. The court

upheld the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute that allowed sex offend-

ers to be identified on an Internet registry without first holding a hearingto

determine their dangerousness to the community (Connecticut Department

of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003). The case was a victory for the 23 states that

have broad notification policies. In a case concerning an Alaska statute, the

50 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / February 2005