Talk:Megan's Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

I question the veracity and neutrality of this page. No sources are given at all, and the language used starting with the sentence about civil rights is very biased. (someone else wrote this part as 209.86.240.112)

Agreed, which is why I changed it to "...claiming the sex offender registry unfairly includes those who committed consensual crimes in addition to sexual predators." Before it said "Because".

That in itself is nonsense. Read the bloody law.

Janet from Tucson

The article also claims that one must enter the registry for consensual sodomy and a number of other things - this is not true. Lawrence v. Texas made anti-sodomy laws illegal, so any actions that would put a person in the registry would have to be with minors and defined as a sex offense in a given state. The way it is phrased now, it makes it seem like two adults would enter the registry if caught performing sodomy together in private. That's not the case. -Gerrit

[edit] Bill Clinton

"On May 17, 1996, President Clinton signed a federal version of Megan's Law as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children's Act. It required every state to develop some procedure for notifying concerned people when a person convicted of certain crimes is released near their homes. Different states have different procedures for making the required disclosures." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law"

I agree this article is not accurate. Clinton is supposed to be listed under Megan's law as a sex offender and here he endorses it. This makes no sense.Thodin 03:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, when was he convicted of a sex crime? Rhobite 04:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's sad that I couldn't get anyone to discuss this issue after waiting a month. You stalk me so you should have discussed it earlier. I personally believe the picture is real. It clearly is not photoshopped and Bill Clinton had several women (I only remember the last one's name) accussing him of sexual crimes. He even confessed his guilt to the American people on national television. Therefore the picture is real. Unless you can prove otherwise, you can abuse your admin powers all you want to control the edits, but I won't believe you. Thodin 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite: How about Juanita Broaddrick, dumbass.
69.39.172.26 06:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Clinton based on the allegation." -- from Juanita Broaddrick.
Accusation isn't the same as guilt, and certainly not the same as a conviction. Not that any of this political nonsense has anything to do with the article.
Wibbble 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Efects of Megans law

Much talk here in UK about instituting a similar law. Major argument against is promoting vigilantism, any sources to show this effect in USA? RandomIdiot 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single incident has been publicized. And trust me, with cable news, everybody on the planet would know. Janet from Tucson

No question, as long as she's white it would be on every channel.

There's a case now: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/the_skinny/main3597422.shtml - cybersaga (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] should I semi-protection?

Several anonymous IP addresses have vandalized Megan's Law with silly comments recently.

I was going to ask for semi-protection but that would block out a good number of editors. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Dfpc 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeal the law, that'll keep them away. It's just a silly comment itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.144.114 (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on biographical issues including WP:BLP

I'd like to see an experienced biographical editor make sense of this article, especially those parts which put the "Kanka family" in a bad light. I am not very familiar with the topic and I'm not sure who is a "living person" or which people are included by this phrase, but some of this seems rather strongly worded against them. However I appreciate it is a controversial topic, and while I have no idea WHAT the source is, the quote "They all knew what Joe Cifelli did" does pull up a mystery URL that I can't access.[1] I don't actually approve of the law on constitutional grounds, but this savaging of a victim's family, even one that has been used as a political football, seems pretty terrible. Please figure out how to fix it. 70.15.116.59 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed about three paragraphs of unsourced material that reflects negatively on the victim's family and makes assertions about others that violate WP:BLP. Also, WP:UNDUE would not allow such amounts of information and especially in the introductory paragraphs. I know you were looking for comments but I took what I deemed was appropriate action at the time. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I guess I should have just done that myself. There was probably the germ of an argument buried in there, and I hate to see anything with some kind of source get deleted, but for stuff like that to fly it had better be a lot more sturdily put together. 70.15.116.59 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Grammatical Changes 1st Paragraph

I made 4 or 5 small grammatical changes to the intro paragraph to improve readability and grammar (removal of "that" and similar unnecessary words/phrases). Changes did not extend beyond intro sentence.

I would like to grammar-police the entire article if there are no objectsions. Despite working in law enforcement, I do not feel qualified to make more than grammatical changes to the article. I will limit any revisions to simply subject/verb agreement and enhanced readability. Please let me know if there are any objections - I will not begin for at least a week, and if/when I do it will *not* be over the suggestions of others. Thanks--Legomancer (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, fix it up. This article really needs some expansion too so feel free to help in that regard also. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the intro to spell out the difference between Megan's Law and Jacob Wetterling (Sexual Offender's Registration) Act of '94. If this isn't met with objections, I'll start working on the body of the article later this evening.--Legomancer (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I added a link there to the Wetterling act. JodyB talk 23:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-did Legal Origins. I took out a lot of the stuff about Jesse Timmendequas (the murderer) and some of the stuff about Megan. It didn't read very well, and the article should really focus on the law. Right now the Megan Kanka link just redirects to Jesse's, I put a suggestion on that page for creating a page all about Megan with stuff about her life - which would be a much better place for it. Thanks,--Legomancer (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions regarding interpretation of recidivism data

The current article references "extremely high recidivism rates of sex offenders" without giving figures. The Department of Justice's last in-depth report was from 1994 (to support the Federal Megan's Law) and it only lists a 5.3% re-arrest rate for *all* sex based crimes, not just crimes involving children. Child molesters have a recurrence rate of ~1.5%. The study points out that people convicted of a sex crime are much more likely to be arrested for another felony (any felony, not just a sex or minor-involved felony). Since the 1994 DOJ study, there hasn't been any far-reaching or comprehensive data analysis. There has been a number of university research projects and case studies on specific offenders or various corrections facilities. Here's the questions:

Should I evaluate the data by labeling it as "High, low, consistent, etc" rate of recurrence? What sources are valid to pull data from? Since the most relevant and directly applicaple data is almost 15 years old it's of questionable worth and smaller studies don't necessary have a big enough scope to justify a Wiki cite.

As a parent, I think a 5% (or 3, or .05%) is enough to justify aggresive monitoring, but gut reaction to pedophiles isn't a valid source. Suggestions?--Legomancer (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The average re-arrest rate is somewhere around 65%. [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.188.210 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a big list of questions! I would think that DOJ/BOP data would be the best source. I would not characterize the data as high low, etc. I would let it speak for itself. Let me do a quick run on Nexis and see what I get. JodyB talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not too much help on Nexis. I'll reconstruct the search and see what I can find. But I did come across this: "The U.S. Department of Justice has determined that, contrary to public perception, sex offenders generally have a lower rate of recidivism than others who commit serious crimes." I can't put my hands on the data though. JodyB talk 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I found some more recent (~5 years old) data on all kinds of recidivism info. It's a few hundred pages in total, but well organized. I'll slog through it and make suggestions. If anyone would like a copy or links please email me.--Legomancer (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll send you an email later. I'd like the link. Frankly I'm a little surprised at not finding data to back up this idea of high recitivism. I suspect we could contact DOJ and get a report or press release link. But let's see what you have found. Thanks for your work. JodyB talk 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a short-read (http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html). The problem is definition. Like I said, about 5% of all people convicted of any sex crime will once again be convicted of another sex crime. About 1.5% of people convicted of crimes against children will be convicted again of crimes against children. Some places use arrests, some use number of new charges, some use any violation of conditional release (probation, parole). With various people interpreting the data, and not a lot of communication between agencies, it's difficult to really say "Here's an accurate picture of offenders." The figures supporting high recidivism are because (around 75%) sexual offenders will be convicted of another crime (any crime). With crimes against children, about 80% will be convicted of another crime, and about 75% of those crimes will be felonies. There's the possibility of bias in the criminal justice system leading to higher conviction rates for people with a previous sex-crime conviction. There's also a greater likelihood of repeat offenders pleading to lesser charges that wouldn't necessarily show up in study looking only at specific types of offenses - example: a plea to aggravated assault of a minor instead of sexual assault. This goes back a few comments to "How do we reach a consensus on what to put in?" Thanks,--Legomancer (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)