One of Bob Ingle’s recent columns, an inquiry into the effectiveness of Megan’s Law, while mercifully unrelated to Gov. Christie, stands for a newer, more unfortunate trend taking hold of journalism: the misrepresentation — or willful ignorance of — the facts.
Criticizing the law as having been “rushed through” for political gain, Mr. Ingle states that defenders of Megan’s Law — a law requiring the registration and monitoring of convicted sex offenders — insist that the purpose of the law “was not to end child abuse but to give communities information about where convicted sex offenders reside.” But Ingle says supporters have long misled the public with the impression that the law could and would do more.
Mr. Ingle also states that after its passage, Megan’s Law was “tied up in court for years.”
This is revisionist history. Megan’s Law was passed in late 1994, its constitutionality was challenged, considered and upheld by the state’s Supreme Court months later in 1995. The next few years saw only residual challenges respecting the specifics of implementation (disclosure of what information and to whom) but to say that the law was “tied up in court for years” is at best disingenuous.
Further, the Legislature, as they often do, express their “intent” in passing a law within the first few lines of the statutory language. With respect to Megan’s Law, that bit reads: “The danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders and offenders who commit other predatory acts against children ... require a system of registration that will permit law enforcement officials to identify and alert the public when necessary for the public safety.”
It continues by adding: “A system of registration of sex offenders and offenders who commit other predatory acts against children will provide law enforcement with additional information critical to preventing and promptly resolving incidents involving sexual abuse and missing persons.”
Mr. Ingle, despite this, condemns the law as absent a “clearly stated goal”, a “memorial” and “fuel for someone’s political career.” What about this purpose is unclear, or misleading? Any inference that the law would do more than what is stated above is a reflection on the citizen, who, like Mr. Ingle, did not feel it necessary to do their homework.
There is enough of our state’s real legislative evils to go around; our journalists should not be devoting their energies to the imaginary ones. ..Source.. by John Hart
No comments:
Post a Comment