NJ- Record editorial: Uniformity of justice

3-26-2009 New Jersey:

MEGAN'S LAW is a well-intended piece of legislation. The byproduct of the brutal murder of a young New Jersey girl by a sex offender who lived unknown in her neighborhood, the law was created to increase public awareness of where sex offenders lived after release from prison. The practical application of the law has morphed into something much more.

In New Jersey, more than 100 towns have passed local ordinances barring where sex offenders can live upon release. The intent is to keep released sex offenders away from schools, libraries and playgrounds. The problem is that towns – 118 to be exact – are creating restrictions that make it impossible for parole officers to find anywhere for these individuals to live.

It is not a plight that draws much sympathy. That is why it is good that the state Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether towns have the authority to restrict where released sex offenders live. We believe they do not.

The case the court is hearing focuses on ordinances in Cherry Hill and Galloway that prohibit released sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or park. Justice Barry Albin expressed concern that the ordinances could prohibit sex offenders from living anywhere in a particular town, and that is against the law.

Megan's Law creates a false sense of security. It established a registry for known sex offenders and, depending on the state's ranking of the offender, how much information about where that person lives is to be made known to the public. The law is based on the assumption that sexual predators will look for victims near their homes and that if the public is aware that a former predator is living nearby, future attacks could be prevented.

The law does nothing to prevent a predator from getting in a car or bus and lurking near a playground or school or somewhere else. Nor can it effectively block predators from looking for victims on the Internet. There is no absolutely safe place in today's society.

The underlying issue is not where released sex offenders live; it is that they have been released into society. If indeed, we, as a society, believe certain sexual predators are predisposed to strike again and again, then rather than restrict where they live, the public should be moving toward longer prison sentences. It is unjust to sentence anyone twice: time served in prison and a de facto prison term after release.

We also note, as an example, that the public would not know if a neighbor had served time for murder or manslaughter, yet there is no public cry for that type of disclosure.

The state's high court needs to bring a level of legal consistency to the proliferation of sex offender laws. Either we increase the length of sentences for offenders, or we find a reasonable accommodation to allow individuals who have served out their time to have a chance of rebuilding their lives.

State laws and local ordinances should protect the rights and safety of all the people of New Jersey. We cannot set multiple standards of what is fair. Ultimately, the Legislature will need to address this issue and create a law that is not only well-intended, but just. ..Editorial Source..