Supreme Court debates merits of Megan's laws
By The Associated Press
11.14.02
Printer-friendly page
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court yesterday considered whether some states unconstitutionally punish convicted sex offenders twice, first with jail time or probation, then by putting their pictures on the Internet.
Many justices seemed to support the online registries as the Court reviewed its first challenges of what are known as Megan's laws, although some questioned whether the statutes stigmatize non-dangerous convicts as predators.
In a companion case, the justices are to decide if states should give offenders a chance to prove they aren't dangerous to avoid having their picture and address put on the Internet.
Every state and the federal government have sex-offender registry laws. Information in more than 30 states is available online. These registries highlight the public-information aspect of the controversy, in which the public's right to have access to public records about convicted sex offenders is weighed against the privacy rights of released offenders.
"What is irrational or unconstitutional about warning people about categories of people who may be dangerous?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked the attorney for two Alaska sex offenders, who had served time for sex crimes before the Alaska registration law was passed. The offenders contend they've been punished once already.
Darryl L. Thompson said Alaska unfairly requires some sex criminals — not just those who are the most dangerous — to give police personal information four times a year or risk more prison time. He said police insinuate that an offender is dangerous and should be avoided.
"Maybe he deserves stigmatization," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said.
The justices are trying to balance the public-safety interest in keeping tabs on people who may commit more sex crimes with the rights of offenders.
Some Court members appeared concerned that offenders listed on the Internet have trouble finding jobs or a place to live.
"This is a face plastered on the Internet," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, comparing it to the practice of shaming someone at a town square.
"It is different from the historic shaming penalties," responded John Roberts Jr., the lawyer for the state of Alaska. "Here the purpose is to inform."
The challenges before the Court involve laws in Alaska and Connecticut named for 7-year-old Megan Kanka, a New Jersey girl kidnapped, raped and killed in 1994 by a convicted sex criminal who lived in her neighborhood. Her name was mentioned several times during yesterday's arguments.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson said states should be allowed to require offenders to report to police every 90 days to provide information, including their addresses, and to have their pictures taken. He said all Americans have to fill out paperwork to vote, get married, register a car or get a divorce.
"Most of those do not involve shame or ridicule. This does," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told Olson.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said people can find out about sex crimes without the Internet, which she compared to a "big megaphone."
O'Connor also repeatedly asked if the laws had lowered crime.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said that it was too early to tell. But he said that of Connecticut's 3,000 registered offenders, 500 have been convicted a second time.
In that case, justices will decide if states must hold separate hearings to determine the risk posed by sex criminals who have completed their prison sentences before putting them in a registry.
Shelley Sadin, the lawyer for an anonymous offender, said it would not be difficult for Connecticut to hold the hearings with sex-crime experts.
Scalia said some people might not want to live next door to someone with a sex conviction even if a psychiatrist says they're rehabilitated.
The cases are Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, 01-1231, and Otte v. Doe, 01-729.
Previous
Supreme Court to examine Megan's Law
Weighing public right to know about convicted sex offenders' whereabouts against released offenders' right to due process.
11.11.02
Related
2002-2003 Supreme Court term coverage
Analysis and other coverage of 2002-2003 U.S. Supreme Court term.
10.07.02
Indiana high court halts sex-offender law
Justices say Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging statute, has established 'reasonable likelihood' of winning its case.
01.06.03
