Essay, 7 pages (1700 words)

Sex offenders vs constitutional rights

Advertising We'll write a high-quality original custom paper on Sex offenders vs constitutional rights just for you with a 15% discount for the 1st order Use a Discount Use a Discount

Any person in this time and day can log on and locate the addresses of everybody in the planet. Generally, most laws do not restrict access to online registries; anybody with internet access can discover who is registered wherever in the country. It does not have to be lawbreakers register; it could be several of the search engines that are exposed in the world as well as the telephone book. The National Sex Offenders Registry supplies information on sex offenders in each State with the exception of South Dakota and Oregon.

In several States, registration covers every person convicted of a sexual transgression, which can range from consensual teenage sex to child rape. Notification is not intended to increase apprehension as offenders have always lived in all communities; instead, community notification is significantly proposed because an informed community is considerably a safer community. Significance of Community Notification Protecting residents from sexual predators and successfully controlling convicted sex offenders in the community are the criminal justice system’s main concerns. Local and State law enforcement agencies work simultaneously to achieve these goals.

In January 1996 the Sex Offender Registry Act was passed; and under this law, the risk level that are assigned to convicted sex offenders must be registered with the Division of Criminal Justice Services as well as required to conform with other Sex Offender Registration Act requisites, such as annual address confirmation, notice of change of address and a stipulation necessitating updated pictures (Division of Criminal Justice Service, 2007, p. ). The registry is considered as a high-tech crime-fighting device, a state-of-the-art database that is capable of establishing the location of all convicted sex felons. The objective of community notification is to provide sufficient notice to the community regarding sex offenders who are, or will be living in the community, and to help out members of the community in developing beneficial plans to prepare their children, and themselves for residing in proximity to discharged sex offenders.

There are approximately 460, 000 registered sex offenders in the United States and when discharged into the community, they have a considerably higher rate of recidivism for their crimes as compared to any other kinds of violent criminal (Parents For Megan’s Law, n. d. ). Rapist reiterate offences at rates of more than 35 percent; those molesting boys, at a rates of approximately 40 percent; and those molesting girls, at a rates of about 29 percent (Parents For Megan’s Law, n. d.

). Aside from victimizing children, sex felons exploit their position of confidence to target teenagers who look for attention, affection and love in the wrong place. Sex offenders systematically prey upon the communities most defenceless residents. Their misdemeanours cause shattering lifetime damage to victims. Sex felons have high recidivism rates and are more expected to spend little or no time in prison after conviction, providing them greater chance to re-offend as compared with other aggressive criminals who are prevented by spending years in incarceration.

The harm that sexual offenders do to children is permanent. These children will be troubled by the sexual violence their entire lives. That is why protection of community and its residents from sex offenders is considered a significant concern by every State in America. Requiring discharged criminals to register is as a simple way for the community and law enforcers to keep tabs on likely dangerous individuals.

With the discharge of large numbers of sex criminals into the general population, public security requires that the law enforcers identify where these dangerous individuals live. In the occasion of a latest sex offence, the law enforcers have the capability to round up potential suspects promptly. Further, registration provides law enforcement in nearby cities and towns the chance to share information on suspects and to help find the latter for questioning. Contrary Observation: Privacy and Safety of Sex Offenders The violent killings of Maine’s two convicted sex offenders have reignited national debate if the online registries of sex offenders should supply broad personal information on their registrants.

This circumstance is a harsh reminder that there is no indication that the online registries of sex offenders enhance public safety. Because of the dreadful incidence the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has disputed that the State’s online registry should be eliminated; and the recently approved legislation of the Maine’s Senate that would make it more uncomplicated to post information on sex felons by increasing the variety of offences that necessitates registration is contrary to the wordings of the Constitution (Ahuja, 2006, p. 1). Allen Gilbert, Vermont American Civil Liberties Union’s executive director even said that in reality, the objective of online registries might just accomplish the contrary (Ahuja, 2006, p. 2). Sex offenders and supporters of privacy right argue that since nearly every State in America do not make individualized threat evaluations prior to requiring registration; the citizens may consider each person on a sex offender registry is dangerous.

They argue that the law does not recommend previous offenders showing years of lawful behaviour or rehabilitation a way to get off the registry. Further they argue that despite the fact that the shocking murders in Maine have raised new questions concerning the security of the offenders, authorities of the State continue to support the public’s right to know regarding their neighbours’ criminal activity. Additional Opposing Arguments Sex offender laws suggest community apprehension that children are at a grave danger of sexual exploitation by strangers who are habitual offenders. However, as documented, the actual dangers children confront are relatively different (Human Rights Watch, 2007, p.

1). Government statistics point out that the majority of sexual exploitation of children is perpetrated by trusted authority or members of the family, and by somebody who has not formerly been found guilty of a sex crime. Additionally, the laws reflect the commonly shared mistaken principle that “ once a sex offender, always a sex offender. ” Treatment can be successful even for individuals who have perpetrated grave sex offences. While federal law obliges every State to work within the community notification requirements, a number of States have gone beyond the requirement by posting online the personal information of sex offenders. The idea was to go out and notify the community on the whereabouts of the sex offenders; however, there has been a drift toward complete disclosure of the offenders’ personal information.

All States do not oblige that the addresses of sex offenders be made public; nonetheless, several do release that kind of detail (Ahuja, 2006, p. 3). Finally, laws intended at people found guilty of sex offences may not guard children from sexual transgressions but do lead to ostracism, harassment and even aggression against previous felons. There must be reforms of community notification and federal and State registration, and removal of residency restrictions, for the reason that they violate the fundamental rights of previous offenders.

The present laws are inadequately crafted and poorly considered by the legislature. Protecting children entails a more comprehensive and thoughtful approach than officials have been eager to support. Leaders of the country did not do their research before endorsing the said sex offender laws; instead they have carried on allegories regarding sex offenders and fell short to deal with the intricate certainties of sexual abuse against children. Constitutional Protection The United States legislators and their constituents have approved registration and notification as uncomplicated but effective means of safeguarding public security. Although support for such laws has been awe-inspiring, apprehensions have been raised by a number of legal commentators that these laws overrun the privacy of liberated sex predators, and make it difficult for them to re-establish their lives.

Convicted sex offenders and some human rights advocates believe that community notification is unconstitutional, and lately took their disputes all the way to the country’s Supreme Court (Parents For Megan’s Law, n. d. ). The felons’ lawyers argued that the law provides unshackled public availability to online registries of sex-offender with no “ need-to-know” limitations exposes previous lawbreakers to the danger that people will take action on this information in reckless and even prohibited ways (Human Rights Watch, 2007, p. ).

Nevertheless, the decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the validity of the Megan’s Law are definite triumphs for the children of the country. The justices have made the wellbeing of children a main concern more than the rights of sexual predators who prey upon the nation’s most exposed. While the rights provided in the United States Constitution were intended to safeguard all citizens of the country, still, the framers clearly did not propose for the rights of the offenders to endanger the rights of children. The Constitution does not openly grant a privilege to privacy, community and notification therefore should pass even the most exacting examination and endure any challenge founded on privacy. It is regrettable that people with sexual abnormalities should be required to be subjected to a diverse set of regulations but it is better to punish that one person than expose numerous children to sexual aggression. Notification and registration do have an impact on the lives of discharged sex predators.

Nonetheless, the whole society should have more rights than a single sex offender. For instance, criminals are not permitted to possess fire arms or to vote and can go through other civil disabilities for the reason of their criminal convictions. Likewise, the State’s strong concern in safeguarding its citizens through community disclosure considerably prevails over the sex predators’ privacy interest. Notification and registration are lawful civil disabilities that flow from the fundamental criminal act. It is mandated by the rule on public safety that such laws can be employed efficiently. Conclusion The government should stay away of the business of guessing dangerousness and put together straightforward accessible information, so that the public can take safety measures they consider necessary.

Sex offenders do not have the privilege to slip away undetected for the reason of the danger they create to communities. Despite the fact that sex predators may move on after chastisement, the shocking impact their wrongdoings have on the victims resounds for lifetimes. Community notification is not a lifetime sentence as argued by the convicted sex predators and privacy advocates; instead it is a tool that deters offenders from imposing lifetime condemnations on victims and their families. Furthermore, registration and community notification enhances public safety, and supported with this information, community can be on guard and help out in the monitoring of the discharged offender’s activities.

Therefore, the communities should be empowered to be in command of their neighbourhoods and to emphasize their right to secure and safe homes.

Thanks for voting and helping us improve!
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 1
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 2
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 3
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 4
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 5
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 6
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 7
Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Page 8

The paper "Sex offenders vs constitutional rights" was contributed to our database by a real student. You can use this work as a reference for your own writing or as a starting point for your research. You must properly cite any portion of this sample before using it.

If this work is your intellectual property and you no longer would like it to appear in our database, please request its deletion.

Ask for Removal

Create a Citation on Essay


PaperPrompt. (2022) 'Sex offenders vs constitutional rights'. 31 January.


PaperPrompt. (2022, January 31). Sex offenders vs constitutional rights. Retrieved from https://paperprompt.com/sex-offenders-vs-constitutional-rights/


PaperPrompt. 2022. "Sex offenders vs constitutional rights." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/sex-offenders-vs-constitutional-rights/.

1. PaperPrompt. "Sex offenders vs constitutional rights." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/sex-offenders-vs-constitutional-rights/.


PaperPrompt. "Sex offenders vs constitutional rights." January 31, 2022. https://paperprompt.com/sex-offenders-vs-constitutional-rights/.

Work Cited

"Sex offenders vs constitutional rights." PaperPrompt, 31 Jan. 2022, paperprompt.com/sex-offenders-vs-constitutional-rights/.

Get in Touch with Us

Do you have more ideas on how to improve Sex offenders vs constitutional rights? Please share them with us by writing at the [email protected]