Megan’s Law is the name for several state and federal community notification laws that require government authorities in the United States to provide the public with information about registered sex offenders. Megan’s Laws are named after 7-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped and murdered in 1994 by a twice-convicted child molester who lived in her neighborhood in Hamilton Township, New Jersey.
Megan’s parents believed that her death could have been prevented if had they known that a sex offender had lived nearby. They successfully lobbied for passage of a sex offender community notification law, which was enacted as “Megan’s Law” in New Jersey in 1995. Other states have passed similar laws also named after Megan, and in 1996, a federal Megan’s Law was enacted.
The goals of Megan’s Laws are to provide the public with information about sex offenders and their whereabouts to protect society and children, deter sex offenders from reoffending, and provide law enforcement information to better manage sex offenders.
Federal Megan’s Laws
The federal Megan’s Law of 1996 amended the federal Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994, which required each state to keep a registry of relevant information about convicted sex offenders and make the information available to the public. Numerous states adopted variations of Megan’s Law, but there was no standard as to what information should be collected or how to disseminate it to the public. In 2006, the Adam Walsh Act replaced the Wetterling Act, expanding federal sex offender policies for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the principal U.S. territories, and federally recognized Indian tribes. Title I of the Adam Walsh Act includes a focus on community notification and is named the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The Adam Walsh Act also established the federal Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Apprehension, Registration, and Tracking to develop guidelines and oversee the implementation and standardization of registration and notification practices across jurisdictions.
In 2016, President Barack Obama signed an International Megan’s Law that requires a special designation posted on the passport cover of all registered sex offenders.
Implementation
By the late 1990s, all states had begun providing information to the public about convicted sex offenders, but community notification practices among states vary considerably. State practices vary in terms of who is required to register and for how long, who is subject to community notification, and what type of information is released and how it is released to the public.
The one community notification approach that all states have in common is that each posts information about convicted sex offenders on publicly available Internet sites. These postings commonly include the individual’s name, picture, sex crime history, and location of residence. Publicly available Internet registries are considered passive community notification because the public must seek out information posted on the registry. Active community notification methods include press releases, mailed or posted informational flyers, door-to-door contacts by law enforcement, and community meetings in which law enforcement and other local agencies notify citizens when a sex offender moves within a locale.
To encourage states to standardize their notification practices, the Sex Offender Sentencing, Apprehension, Registration, and Tracking office released guidelines in 2008 to certify states’ compliance with SORNA and updated the guidelines in 2011. States that do not comply with the guidelines may lose a percentage of their federal criminal justice funding. As of June 2016, 17 states had substantially implemented SORNA guidelines. The remaining states have implemented at least some community notification practices. A minority of states has calculated that implementing all of the SORNA guidelines would cost more than the federal criminal justice funding that they would lose for not implementing SORNA and have decided to not fully implement the guidelines.
SORNA guidelines require states to disseminate registry information to several agencies, such as the National Sex Offender Registry maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, other law enforcement agencies, and supervision agencies such as probation departments. As well, SORNA guidelines require states to notify schools and public housing agencies in the locale in which a sex offender resides or is employed, social service organizations responsible for protecting minors in the child welfare system, and volunteer organizations that work with minors.
SORNA guidelines also require states to implement a three-tier risk classification system, which is meant to help inform the public and professionals about the level of risk a sex offender poses to the community. Under this three-tier system, individuals are classified by type of sex crime conviction as opposed to an individual assessment of sexual reoffense risk. The tier system proscribes a mandatory period of registration during which an individual will be subject to state-sponsored community notification. Tier I individuals are required to register for a period of 15 years, but under certain circumstances may be reduced to 10 years. Tier II individuals are required to register for a period of 15 years, and Tier III individuals are required to register for life.
A criticism of the three-tier risk classification system is that because it is offense-based it does not take into account that the criminal offense for which an individual is eventually convicted may not accurately represent the sexual offense the individual actually committed or the individual’s risk of reoffending sexually. This is because sex offenders, as do other defendants in the criminal justice system, commonly enter plea bargains in which they agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge instead of a more serious charge that carries more penalties. Consequently, compared to use of empirically based individualized risk instrument approaches, the three-tier offense-based classification system is more likely to overestimate the reoffense risk of some offenders and underestimate the reoffense risk of other offenders.
In some states, the level of community notification is matched to the offender’s SORNA risk classification or a locally developed risk classification system, which may or may not use an evidence-based risk assessment tool. In other states, the same notification approach is used with all offenders regardless of the risk classification or level.
Characteristics of Sexual Offenders
Megan’s Laws have received wide support from legislators and the public in part due to the misperception that most sex offenders will sexually reoffend. Sex offenders are a heterogeneous group in terms of their risk to reoffend and offending patterns. Individuals who have committed sex offenses have one of the lowest rates of reoffending among all types of offenders, typically around 10% or less over 5 years. In terms of offending patterns, most child molesters offend against children to whom they are related or acquainted. Thus, their sexual offending behaviors often are already known within their extended families and locales. Those who sexually offend against strangers typically present a higher risk to the public. In any given year, the vast majority of new sex offense arrests are of individuals who had not been previously identified as sex offenders by the criminal justice system.
Mental health professionals and child advocates note that juveniles who have committed sexual offenses are very different from their adult counterparts. These professionals have levied criticism of the sections of SORNA guidelines that include registration and notification requirements for juveniles as young as age 14 years, some of which can last a lifetime. Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses typically do not have entrenched sexual offending behaviors, often respond well to treatment, or simply mature and do not continue offending. Juveniles typically have fewer numbers of victims and engage in less aggressive behaviors than adults who commit sex crimes.
Impact of Megan’s Laws
Researchers have examined the impact of Megan’s Laws on reducing sexual reoffending, as well as how professionals, the public, and sex offenders and their family members perceive and value community notification.
Community Safety
Overall, studies have found little evidence of reduced sexual reoffending as a result of Megan’s Laws. This is a difficult area to study because there is considerable variation among and within states in how Megan’s Laws have been implemented, the accuracy of information about offenders contained in publicly available registries, and which offenders are subject to what types of community notification. The few studies in which Megan’s Laws appear to have had an impact on reducing sexual reoffending are those that have been implemented in states (i.e., MN, WA) that have used evidence-based risk assessment instruments and focused community notification efforts only on higher risk offenders.
Public safety and wise use of public resources can be enhanced when community notification efforts focus on higher risk offenders. In addition, the public should keep in mind that only a small proportion of individuals who commit sex offenses have been detected and identified on public registries or by other means. Community safety efforts must focus more broadly than on the small proportion of sex offenders publicly identified through Megan’s Laws.
Perspectives of the Public
Surveys of the public typically find strong support for Megan’s Laws. Well above half of public members surveyed support community notification for all sex offenders regardless of their risk to reoffend, say they feel safer knowing about sex offenders living in their communities, and believe community notification is effective in reducing sexual offending. Despite public support for Megan’s Laws, only a minority of community members says they search out publicly available information about sex offenders in their communities.
Perspectives of Professionals
Law enforcement professionals commonly report that sex offender registration and Megan’s Laws are useful investigation tools. They typically report that Megan’s Laws raise awareness within the community, improve community surveillance of sex offenders, and deter some sex offenders from reoffending. A concern of law enforcement is that implementing community notification activities can involve substantial labor and capital costs. Another concern of law enforcement is that some members of the public overreact to notifications that a sex offender lives nearby, to include harassment of offenders.
Probation and parole officers have reported that Megan’s Laws sometimes make it challenging to help sex offenders obtain appropriate housing and employment because publicly identified sex offenders are often ostracized in their communities.
Mental health professionals commonly express skepticism about the benefits of community notification. In surveys, most mental health professionals typically report that Megan’s Laws either have no impact on community safety or may actually reduce it. Many mental health providers believe that community notification gives the public a false sense of security.
Perspectives of Sex Offenders and Their Family Members
Sex offenders and their family members have reported several unintended negative consequences of Megan’s Laws. There are notable accounts of vigilante attacks against sex offenders who have been publicly identified on Internet registries and by other means associated with Megan’s Laws. These attacks include murders and arsons, but these types of incidents appear to be quite rare. However, some sex offenders have attributed job loss and difficulty securing housing as a result of being publicly identified a sex offender in their communities. In surveys, many sex offenders report that the stigma attached to community notification has resulted in psychological impacts such as stress, shame, hopelessness, and loss of social supports. On the other hand, some sex offenders report being more motivated to control their behavior knowing that others were monitoring them.
Megan’s Laws also appear to have the unintended negative consequences on the family members of sex offenders. When sex offenders experience job loss and have trouble finding housing, this can result in financial hardship and social instability for their family members as well. In addition, some family members have reported being harassed as a result of their relationship with the offender, and in rare instances, they are the victims of assault. Family of registered sex offenders, including their children, have reported psychological consequences that they attributed to notification, such as experiencing anger, depression, and social isolation.
References:
- Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. (2010). The registration and community notification of adult sexual offenders. Beaverton, OR: Author.
- Harris, A. J., & Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2016). National Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) implementation inventory: Preliminary results. Lowell: University of Massachusetts Lowell.
- Human Rights Watch. (2013). Raised on the registry: The irreparable harm of placing children on sex offender registries in the US. New York, NY: Author.
- Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offenders’ community reintegration: A quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 6–28. doi:10.1177/0306624X10387524
- McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
- Zgoba, K. M., Miner, M., Levenson, J., Knight, R., Letourneau, E., & Thornton, D. (2015, February 5). The Adam Walsh Act: An examination of sex offender risk classification systems. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1079063215569543