Making Meaning of Megan's Law

Abstract

This study of Megan's Law contrasts scholarly narratives that describe and analyze sexual predator laws with a case study of implementation in New Jersey. A critical feminist perspective shows that Megan's Law employs a radically underinclusive notion of sexual violence that conflicts sharply with feminist arguments about the cultural and institutional roots of sexual violence. The law excludes many of the most common offenders from reach of the law, thus deflecting attention away from assaults committed by family and friends in favor of reviving stereotypes about deviant strangers. The most significant effect of Megan's Law is not to expand the power of the punitive state but to advance a political and legal interpretation of rape that undermines the basis for and gains made by feminist rape law reforms of the 1970s.

Community Notification Laws

“…Second, some sex offenses may be difficult to prove, but the desire of the accused to avoid a humiliating trial may be strong. Third, some victims desire some punishment, but, more so, they desire treatment for their abusers and want to avoid the public humiliation of the court system (Corrigan, 2006;Berliner, 2007). Lastly, the plea benefits everyone involved.…”

“…Alexander (2004) alleges bias in civil commitment statutes alleging the statute is applied to only certain types of offenders and cites the fact that most children are sexually offended by family or acquaintances. This revelation is not surprising given that the current laws dealing with sexual offending were based on a few stranger rape-murder cases and their passage did not account for the majority of sex offense (Corrigan, 2006). Janus (2000) averred that Washington and Minnesota, the states with commitment programs in use longer than others, have not released one offender from commitment (cited in Farkas and Stichman, 2002).…”

“…On the other hand, other research suggests sexual preferences and antisocial orientations, which exist manly in rapists and pedophiles, lead to persistent sexual offending (Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Jenkins, 1998 cited in Corrigan, 2006). Therefore, civil commitment should be reserved for sex offenders who: 1) refuse to participate in treatment while imprisoned and 2) are deemed dangerous to society (Level III offenders).…”

“…The assembly leader convened an emergency legislative session for this particular crime and moved a series of bills past committee scrutiny to the open floor for unobstructed passage (Avrahamian, 1998;Corrigan, 2006). Offensively engaging the media and exploiting this single event enabled social problem construction by way of the politicians and media's agenda, and subsequently diverted much deserved criticism away from a criminal justice system that permitted a repeat pedophile to plea bargain his second offense from what would have amounted to 30 years in prison, if convicted, to merely 10 years (Pallone, 2003).…”

“…Offensively engaging the media and exploiting this single event enabled social problem construction by way of the politicians and media's agenda, and subsequently diverted much deserved criticism away from a criminal justice system that permitted a repeat pedophile to plea bargain his second offense from what would have amounted to 30 years in prison, if convicted, to merely 10 years (Pallone, 2003). Megan's Law, unlike Washington State's 1990 Act creating notification policies, was critical in view of the fact that many of our federal laws initiate in the state of New Jersey (Corrigan, 2006). Theoretically, community notification makes perfect sense-protects our children by supervising and assisting the offender to prevent future offenses.…”