Megans Law and Other Sex Offender Registry Laws:

Controversy and Ethical Evaluation

CJ Ethics | Spring 2015
Abby Reinke
Loras College

Introduction

Citizens in the United States were in uproar when a young boy, Jacob Wetterling was
abducted in Minnesota and never seen again in 1990 resulting in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children Act. A couple of years later, Megans law came about after the rape and
subsequent murder of a young girl by the name of Megan Kanka in Minnesota (Petrunik, 2003,
p. 50). Registry laws for sex offenders became common in 1994 starting with the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act and Sexually Violent Offender Act, which required
states to implement a sex offender registry laws. Since then, there have been many laws put in
place regarding registry for sex offenders. In 1996, Megans Law amended the Wetterling Act,
requiring all states to notify the community and make the registry available by internet. After
this, many new acts were adding fixing or improving the registry laws that were in place. Then
came the Adam Walsh Protection Act (AWA) which was signed into law in 2007. It established
uniform, comprehensive sex offender registration and notification requirements (Bonnar-Kidd
PhD, 2010).
The main focus of these laws was to create sex offender registries that forced sex
offenders to notify law enforcement of where they were living, as well as other information,
which the law enforcement would then release to the public. The goal of these laws was believed
to be to protect the public, especially children, from sex offenders who are likely to repeat their
offenses, although some believe these laws were simply a response to public outrage (Semel,
1998, p. 19). Some of the requirements of AWA were that sex offenders were to be classified via
a three tier system. The three levels were to be based on the level of the crime with tier 3 being
the higher level of offenses. This system would also take into account the risk of recidivism. It
would require sex offenders to register not only where they live, but also where they work or
attend school. Sex offenders would be required to verify their address a certain amount of times

per year depending on the tier they were placed in. Failure to register would become a felony
offense. This would be punishable by a maximum of ten years in prison. AWA also made
kidnapping and false imprisonment of a child a registerable sexual offense, regardless of intent.
The registry was to be made available on the internet. Lastly, the act would require the offender
to register for a specific number of years based on the tier they were placed in. Tier three
offenders were to be required to register for the duration of their lives. These are not all of the
requirements under AWA which was signed July 27, 2007 by President George W. Bush, but they
are a few that give a general scope of the act. States were required to have all or a large portion
of this act implemented within two years or face losing funds for crime prevention initiatives
(Bonnar-Kidd PhD, 2010, pp. 412-413).
Facts, Stakeholders, and Controversy
The idea behind creating the registry laws was that society must be protected against a
group of dangerous criminals who pose a high risk for re-offense. Statistics on recidivism vary in
states and in various research. According to the Arizona Department of Corrections, between
1984 and 1998, the re-offense rate for sex offenders was 5.5%. Ohio reported that sex offenders
released in 1989 had a ten year recidivism rate of 8% (Bonnar-Kidd PhD, 2010, p. 413). A
different study stated that child molesters have a lifetime recidivism rate that can range from
50% to 70%, while for sex offenders as a whole group this percentage is less than 20%. R. Karl
Hanson and his colleagues reported that 42% of child molesters were eventually reconvicted.
Within this percentage, 23% of the recidivists were reconvicted more than 10 years after they
were released (Mancini & Mears, 2013, p. 1134). This information was used in a court case to
show that child molesters are at risk of reoffending numerous years after the first arrest.
According to the National Incident-Based Reporting System, in 2005, more than 5, 700 incidents

of various types of rape of a child under the age of 12 were reported nationwide, which was
almost twice the total incidents of intentional murder for all ages reported at the same time
(Mancini & Mears, 2013, p. 1136). In contrast to what the previous statistics may imply, there
are statistics about recidivism that show that there hasnt been a decline in recidivism since the
implementation of sex offender registry laws which causes controversy over the sex offender
laws. Elisabeth Semel, a member of the board of directors for the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers states in her essay Megans Law Is a Knee-Jerk Reaction To a
Senseless Personal Tragedy (1998) that a 1995 study, by its Institute for Public Policy, did not
turn up any noteworthy evidence that individuals subject to notification committed fewer
additional or new sex crimes compared to those who were not affected by the registries.
Although, the findings did show that when offenders did re-offend, there were arrested more
quickly (Semel, 1998, p. 19)
The controversies surrounding sex offender registries directly involve the stakeholders
affected by sex offender registries. The stakeholders range from the offenders themselves, to the
law enforcement and parole officers, as well as the families, and especially children in the
various communities are all affected by the registries. In addition, the laws really affect any tax
paying citizen, because tax money is used to fund all the work, and time, needed to create and
maintain the registries (Petrunik, 2003, p. 64).
Though the goals of sex offender registry laws are very noble, to protect society and
children, as well as deter offenders from re-offending, there is a lot of controversy over the
various registry laws. Among the list of points against sex offender laws are the following: the
registries are misleading, some people shouldnt be on the registry, juvenile cases should be
treated differently, registries can trigger vigilantism, registries can discourage people from

turning in offenders, registries infringe on privacy rights of the offender, registries are not a
rehabilitative method, and the registries may not actually be effective (Beatty, 1998, p . 18;
Pollock, 2014, p.324; Semel, 1998, p. 19).
Sex offender registries can be misleading because all types of offenders are placed on the
same registry (Pollock, 2014, p. 324). Offenders that have committed statutory rape and child
molesters are placed on the same registry. This can be very misleading as to the risk the offender
is to the public and especially children. An 18 year old that had consensual sex with a 17 year old
is not necessarily a risk to the public. In contrast, a child molester or serial rapist, is most likely a
threat to the public, specifically children in the area. The registries do give descriptions of the
crime, but this is still a perceived issue by some (Pollock, 2014, p. 324).
Another controversy with sex offender registry laws is that there are people who
shouldnt be on the registry and face the drawbacks of the registries (Beatty, 1998, p. 18). This is
because laws have evolved or have been completely omitted over the years. In the past,
consensual sodomy was against the law. Included among the 64,000-plus names are individuals
whose only sex crimes may have occurred 40 years ago, such as gay men convicted of oral
copulation or sodomy when these acts between consenting adults of the same gender were
unlawful in that state (Semel, 1998, p. 19). With issues like these, many believe that there needs
to be an adjustment for the guidelines used to place people on the sex-offender registries.
Some critics believe that juvenile cases should be handled differently. The argument is
that juveniles may be more amenable to change. Some offenders, such as those who committed
statutory rape, shouldnt be on the registry at all. This is because they are not really a threat to
society (Pollock, 2014, p. 324). There are people who think that people placed on the registries

need to be a threat to society in general, and specifically the communities that the offenders live
in.
Critics argue that sex offender registry laws can trigger vigilantism (Pollock, 2014).
Some offenders on the registry have been murdered by citizens that believe they need to take the
law into their own hands. It is important to note that less than 1% of sex offenders on the registry
became victims of vigilante acts of violence (Beatty, 1998, p. 18). While those in agreement with
the sex offender laws typically state that those who commit crimes against offenders should be
punished to the full extent of the law, this is not enough to convince those in opposition to sex
offender registry laws (Beatty, 1998, p. 18; Semel, 1998, p. 19).
One of the major and more concerning controversies, according to Joycelyn Pollock, the
author of Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (2014) is that it may actually stop
a family from reporting a sexual offender (p. 324). This occurs because often times, sex
offenders are family of the victims. The harsh sanctions and public humiliation factored in with
being placed on a sex offender registry may actually discourage the family members from
turning the offender into the proper authorities (Pollock, 2014, p. 324). This means that sex
offender registries could actually be doing more harm than good.
Some argue that registries infringe on the privacy rights of the offender. Others argue that
the information is public knowledge anyway, therefore to say registries are infringing on privacy
rights would suggest eliminating all public records. In addition, those in favor of sex offender
registries argue that an offenders right to privacy does not include shielding the offenders past
from the public (Beatty, 1998, p. 18).
Author Joycelyn Pollock discusses the fact that sex offender registries are not
rehabilitative (2014, p. 324). This is important to consider when determining which ethical

system is being used to evaluate the laws and what the overall goal of sex offender registries
actually is. If the goal is in line with an ethical system which promotes rehabilitation, the lack of
rehabilitation is a concern. In contrast, if the ethical system is more of a retributive system, then
the goal would be more about payment and consequences for actions rather than rehabilitation.
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, there is evidence to support the fact that sex
offender registries may not actually be effective (Semel, 1998, p. 19). There are those who argue
that the registries are in fact effective, while others believe that they cost more than they are
worth. This is a continuing argument. Both sides have valid points because the methods of
determining effectiveness vary. While some say that if even one child is saved, the efforts and
cost are worth it. Others take a different approach and compare statistics of recidivism with the
cost of registries and determine effectiveness using that data. According to The Hare and the
Tortoise: Dangerousness and Sex Offender Policy in the United States and Canada (2003),
While the question of how effective various community protection measure are awaits the
findings of research yet to be carried out, one can legitimately question whether such measures
are more symbolic than instrumental in nature, their essential purpose being to address public
fear (pp. 60-61). He also questions what the desired outcome of the registries actually is. Is it
reduced sexual victiminzation, reduced public fear, a more effective incapacitation of offenders
(Petrunik, 2003, p. 62)? Without an answer to this question, the effectiveness of sex offender
registries cannot really be determined.
Ethical Frameworks
In order to sift through the controversies and really make an ethical decision, one must
first understand the ethical frameworks being used to evaluate sex offender registry laws. The
ethical frameworks that will be used to evaluate sex offender registry laws in this case are the

utilitarianism theory and the ethics of care theory. While the idea of utilitarianism has been
around since the mid-1700s, the ethics of care happens to be a fairly new idea showing up only
in the early to mid-1900s which aligns with the changes occurring in society over that time
period (Pollock, 2014, p. 29).
The utilitarianism theory, according to Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal
Justice (2014), is the ethical system that claims that the greatest good is that which results in the
greatest happiness for the greatest number (Pollock, 2014, p. 35). Utilitarianism is also
considered a teleological ethical system. This is a system that is concerned with the
consequences of ends of an action to determine goodness (Pollock, 2014, p. 35). There are two
forms of utilitarianism. The first is act utilitarianism which decides the goodness of an act by
measuring the good for all, but only for that one specific situation. Rule utilitarianism which is
more concerned with the effect an act would have if it was made a rule for behavior (Pollock,
2014, p. 36). Utilitarianism holds that, morality is decided by the consequences of an act. Society
as a whole is more important than the individual. In order to make the ethical decision following
the utilitarianism theory, one must decide what is best for the majority of the people.
The second ethical system is the ethics of care. According to Ethical Dilemmas and
Decisions in Criminal Justice (2014), the ethics of care is the ethical framework that defines
good as meeting the needs of others and preserving and enriching relationships (Pollock, p. 37).
It is based on human relationships and needs. The ethics of care can be described as the idea that
morality is based on peoples emotions rather than rationality. Ethics of care deals with issues of
needs instead of focusing on rights. This system is associated with rehabilitative ethics rather
than the just-deserts model. The focus is on restoration rather than retribution. In summary, the
goal of the ethics of care is to identify the needs of all individuals involved and attempt to

maximize them. In contrast to Utilitarianism, one person cannot be sacrificed for everyone else.
Decisions in this system should come from compassion rather than focus on rights and duties
(Pollock, 2014, p. 42). Ethics of care would not support a punishment unless it was essential to
help an offender become a better person (Pollock, 2014, 329).
Application of Ethical System
Using the descriptions of the ethical theories and the methods of making a decision based
on these theories, the two theories will be applied to the topic of sex offender registry laws. The
utilitarian theory will be applied first. First, all of the options must be identified. In this situation,
the laws could be abolished, the laws could be kept as is, or the laws could be kept with changes
to them taking into account some of the more controversial issues and righting parts of the law
which are perceived as unfair of not in the best interest of society as a whole. Secondly, identify
those affected by the decision. Those most affected by the decision would be the people in the
community, especially the children and their families, the offenders themselves, as well as
society as a whole and the law enforcement and parole officers.
Next, the harms and benefits for each person affected for each situation need to be stated.
In the case of the laws being abolished, children and their families may not be aware of the
potential danger in the community (Beatty, 1998, p. 18). Even though the information is
available online, the people in the community would have a harder time learning about sexual
predators being in the area. Society could potentially spend less money because maintaining the
registries is expensive to do (Petrunik, 2003, p. 61). With the cost of sex offender registries being
removed, more rehabilitative methods for sex offenders could be developed using the extra
funds. The offenders would benefit because there would potentially be less of a risk of
vigilantism that occurs due to the registries. Offenders also would not have to deal with the

embarrassment caused by being on the registry. This could lead to families being more likely to
turn in another family member or a friend that has sexually assaulted a child. In addition, the
misleading aspects of registries would be removed, as well as the controversies regarding those
who shouldnt be included on the registries and the controversies surrounding juveniles and sex
offender registry laws. The law enforcement and parole officers may have a harder time
stopping recidivism, because without the registries, people in the community would have a
harder time identifying sexual predators violating their parole.
If the laws are left as is, children and families would be well aware of the potential
danger and could look for it accordingly. The community would continue to pay a high price for
a system that has yet to be proven effective by some terms (Petrunik, 2003, p. 61). A slight
number of sexual predators may face vigilant acts and many will have to face the embarrassment
of being on the registry. Juveniles or older offenders whose crimes are not as aggressive or do
not coincide with current laws could be placed on the registry which is misleading and may be
considered unfair (Pollock, 2014, p. 324). In addition, even though the information is public
knowledge anyway, the offenders would most likely face discrimination when it comes to jobs
opportunities and other situations. Families may be deterred from turning in family members or
friends who have assaulted other family members, but the registries may deter these people from
committing the criminal acts in the first place. Law enforcement would have additional people
keeping an eye on the sexual predators, which may be helpful in catching re-offenders faster, but
they may also need to deal with the people in the community who may commit vigilant acts
(Semel, 1998, p. 19).
Lastly, if the registries are kept, but amended to take into account some of the
controversial issues, the people in the community could be notified of actual threats to children

and others. The community would have to continue to pay for the registries to be kept up, but it
would potentially not take as much cost or time to do so, and those funds could be used for the
development of rehabilitation methods for offenders. Offenders who committed non-violent acts
such as statutory rape or those who broke laws that have since been abolished would not need to
be placed on the registry since they have not proven to be a threat, therefore addressing one of
the controversial issues of registries. Offenders who have committed violent acts or acts that
would make them a danger to society would potentially still face vigilantism and would most
likely face discrimination by employers. Although, this may happen regardless of the registry
laws. Law enforcement would still have to keep up the registries, but there should be less work
since there would be less people on the registry. Law enforcement would also still have people
keeping an eye on predators which could result in charging them with more minor offenses
before they could commit another assault.
The ethics of care begins with a similar approach of identifying all of the options first.
The options are the same as the three in the utilitarian application. The second step is where the
two theories vary. In the ethics of care theory, the next step is to identify the relationships
involved. The relationships include the relationship of the offender with the community as a
whole, the relationship of the offender with families and children or those to whom he or she
may be a threat, law enforcement and the offender, as well as law enforcement and the
community.
The next step in applying the ethics of care theory is to apply the options and state the
effects on the relationships, also stating the harm caused by all of the options on the
relationships. In the option to keep the laws as they are, the relationship of the offender with the
community could be a volatile relationship. There would be mistrust of the offender by the

community, and may even be crimes committed against the offender by the community. Overall,
the relationship of the community with the offender would most likely be negative. The
relationship between children and families and the offender could be positive. If the families are
aware of the offender, they could remove temptation from the offender. In addition, it may deter
the offender from hurting the children, which could be beneficial to the relationship between the
two (Beatty, 1998, p. 18). The relationship between the offender and law enforcement could be
positive or negative depending on the offender. The positive would be if the offender and law
enforcement would have a positive relationship because the offender would be deterred from
committing another crime. The negative would be if the offender would not want to be placed on
the registry and would go underground (Semel, 1998, p. 19). There is no definite research
indicating the way that an offender will respond so the actual affect on this relationship is
unknown. Lastly, the relationship between law enforcement and the community could be positive
or negative. The positive would be that the community would help the law enforcement keep
track of the offenders. The negative would be that the community members would commit acts
of vigilantism which would require the law enforcement to become involved. There is proof that
offenders are caught quicker when re-offending, which may be due to the registries (Semel,
1998, p. 19). There is also research that shows that less than 1% of offenders are affected by acts
of vigilantism (Beatty, 1998, p. 18). Both of these indicate that the relationship between law
enforcement and the community would be more likely to be positive.
If the option to abolish the laws is enacted, the relationships would be affected much
differently. Firstly, the relationship between the offender and the community as a whole is less
likely to be affected in general. Though criminal records are public knowledge, the community is
less likely to be aware of the offender and the danger he or she may pose (Beatty, 1998, p. 18).

This could prevent the acts of vigilantism which would positively affect this relationship. The
relationship of the offender with families and the offender could be negatively affected because
the family could unknowingly put the offender in a precarious situation by increasing temptation
to re-offend. Also if the offender does re-offend because of this, the relationship between the
offender and the child or person involved would unquestionably be negatively affected. The
relationship between law enforcement and the offender could be negative because the offender
could be more likely to re-offend causing the law enforcement to arrest the offender. In contrast,
the relationship could be positive because the offender may be more willing to comply with the
regulations of his or her parole, positively affecting the relationship between offenders and law
enforcement. Lastly, the relationship between law enforcement and the people in the community
would not likely be negative because the acts of vigilantism would be less likely, but the
community and law enforcement relationship could be negatively affected if the offender were to
re-offend. The community could be in uproar over a lack of knowledge. The relationship
wouldnt necessarily be positive for specific reasons other than a lack of a negative relationship.
Lastly, for the option to have laws but amend them from what they currently are, the
relationships would be affected in a similar way as when the laws are kept as they are. The most
significant difference would be that the less serious offenders relationship with law enforcement
would be more positive because the laws would be perceived as fair, therefore reducing the
chances of offenders acting out because of anger due to perceived unfairness. Also the
relationship between offenders and the community would most likely be more positive because
offenders who are not a danger to the community, would not be treated as if they were a danger
(Beatty, 1998, p. 18).

Analysis of Judgement
Based on the Utilitarian ethics system, the best option would be to keep the laws, but
make changes to them that would address some of the controversial issues. It is claimed that the
registry laws placed people on the registries that should not actually be there, people like gay
men who took part in consensual sodomy or two children under age who were convicted of
statutory rape. This controversial issue could be removed from the situation all together. In
contrast, child molesters and those who committed higher levels of rape could remain on the
registry to protect the children as well as others in the community the offender is living in. The
issue involving how to handle juveniles in general could be developed and a rehabilitation
method could be developed which would be best for all involved. In addition, the law
enforcement would have less people to keep track of and would receive help from the
community on watching the higher level offenders. This option seems to have the most positives
for all affected by sex offender registries. As David Beatty said, Community notification in and
of itself is not a cure-all, nor should citizens rely on notification provisions as their sole means of
protections against sex offenders (1998, p. 18). Though there are many issues that need to be
worked out for the laws to actually be ethical, if the controversies are addressed and amended
accordingly, with all of society in mind, the best option for sex offender registry laws would be
to amend them, but still have them.
The decision based on the ethics of care is more difficult to make. Due inconclusive
evidence of sex offender registry laws and the affect the have on all of the people involved, the
effects of sex offender registry laws on the relationships of the people involved cannot be
predicted perfectly. Some say research claims that recidivism is not affected by these laws
(Semel, 1998, p. 19). Based on the information that is known about the effects of sex offender

registry laws, the information leads to the need for the laws in order to protect many
relationships, but in order to have the most positive effects on the relationships, the laws need to
be amended.
Conclusion
Sex offender registry laws are very controversial in todays society. As Beatty said, the
registries are not a cure-all, but used correctly they could positively affect communities (1998, p.
18). Due to the inconclusive research and lack of data to turn to, a true decision about the
ethicalness of sex offender registry laws cannot be definitively made (Petrunik, 2003, p. 62).
More research and amendments to the laws need to be made in order for the laws to be ethical.
Even after this occurs, based on the ethical system the assessor is using, people may come to
different conclusions. As society learns about restorative justice and potential benefits of
restorative methods, the views on sex offender registry laws may continue to change. As with
any controversial issue, the answer is not simple. Sex offender registry laws will continue to be a
controversial issue in the years to come.

References
Beatty, D. (1998). Community Notification Its the Right Thing to Do. In American
Correctional Association (Eds.), Point Counterpoint (p. 18). Lenham, MD: American
Correctional Association.
Bonnar-Kidd PhD, K. K. (2010, March). Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual
Violence or Recidivism. American Journal of Public Health, 412-419.
Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Sex Offender
Legislation: Evidence of Evidence-Based Policy. The Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 103(4), 1115-1153.
Petrunik, M. (2003, Jan). The Hare and the Tortoise: Dangerous and Sex Offender Policy in the
United States and Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4371.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Semel, E. (1998). Megan's Law Is a Knee-Jerk Reaction To a Senseless Personal Tragedy. In
American Correctional Association (Eds.), Point Counterpoint (p. 19). Lenham, MD:
American Correctional Association.
Yung, C. R. (2011). Sex Offender Exceptionalism and Preventative Detention. The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(3), 969-1003.