High court backs 'Megan's Law' postings

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that states may place names and photographs of convicted sex offenders on the Internet.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices overturned an appeals court's earlier ruling that said Connecticut's version of "Megan's Law" violated the due process rights of people forced to register under it. The law is named after Megan Kanka, a New Jersey girl who was killed by a sex offender.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote Wednesday's opinion, stressed that a Connecticut Web site did not claim that the sex offenders featured on it currently posed a threat to the community. That site displayed only "the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness," Rehnquist wrote. "Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous."

This case, and a second also decided Wednesday involving an Alaska state law, highlight the criminal justice system's attempt to grapple with access to court information in the digital age--and reconcile it with traditional values of privacy and free speech. Privacy advocates fear that the increased dissemination of records on the Internet not only will embarrass people but also could lead to an increase in identity theft and vigilantism.

Connecticut's version of Megan's Law requires that people convicted of sex-related crimes--or found not guilty by reason of insanity--register with the state for the next 10 years, and that the state must post that information on the Internet. Anyone who moves to a new address and is subject to the law must register within five days.

Rehnquist's opinion said the court took no position on whether Connecticut's law might be vulnerable to an attack brought on other due process grounds. Also, a convicted sex offender has no right to a hearing to prove that he or she is no longer likely to commit crimes, Rehnquist said.

In October 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Connecticut's law "fails to accommodate the constitutional rights of persons formerly convicted of a wide range of sexual offenses who are branded as likely to be currently dangerous offenders irrespective of whether or not they are."

The state's "Sex Offender Registry" Internet database was available at the Connecticut state site until the courts shut it down. It was searchable by ZIP code or city name.

During oral arguments in November, Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal said that the state is simply providing accurate information to the public. "And each of the convicted sex offenders on this registry has received a hearing, a full and fair hearing, many of them a trial, all of them the full panoply of due process rights and have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," Blumenthal said.

Shelley Sadin, an attorney representing a "John Doe" challenging the registration requirement, called it a "government-imposed stigma" that is done under threat of jail time if people do not comply.

In the Alaska case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sex offender databases may include names of people who were convicted of crimes before the registration requirement was enacted. "The act is nonpunitive, and its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause" of the U.S. Constitution," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

[jenny justice]

Age of Unreason

I just looked up the definition of the word "reasonable", which I am sure is SUPPOSE to be a quality of any Law or Judge in America. If Justice is Fairness, and Reasonableness is: fair, just, not excessive or extreme; moderate; then I believe that the Judge's decision in placing ALL sex offenders names on public websites is not only unreasonable, IT IS EVIL! Most American citizens, and a vast majority of employers, DO NOT know that perverted pedophiles and rapists, are not the only people who are listed on these websites. Many fathers, who are in bad marriages, whose wives seek retaliation--accuse their husbands of attempted rape for custody reasons. In a couple's home, with no witnesses, no evidence of physical battering, no DNA done---it is just her word against his. I have called many police stations in different states, and have been told that the police will arrest a man just based on a woman's claim. Then, he has the burden of proving himself innocent. That can be extremely difficult in such a situation, and EVEN THAT IS BACKWARDS FROM WHAT MOST AMERICAN'S HAVE LEARNED, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty!" (And for good Christian's or Jew's, and I know definitely for many other religions---what about what their HOLY books say about marriage? These books do not tell wives to retaliate against their husbands. Two wrongs don't make a right.) Attorney's more often than not, advise these husbands and fathers to take a "plea," because of the possible ramifications of trial and the sentence for ALLEGED rape--up to 10 years in jail, I believe. The prosecutor--again exercising "UN-reasonableness," ensures that this father and husband will have difficultly in supporting his children---by having this father and husband ---"not a wife beater,"---register as a "SEX OFFENDER," with his name placed on websites with crazy sexual perverts. I guess if you are out of touch with the reality, of what is going on today in America---you would be clueless to these facts. I would think---that a requirement of laws and being a prosecutor or Judge, is to be "in touch," with the reality of what many angry wives have been doing to their husbands ---and not ALLOW these fathers names be posted on websites with the mentally ill sexual deviants; so that they may be able to obtain jobs to support their families. Remember--the Republican way is "SELF RELIANCE." Not many children will be financially self reliant with their dad's name on such websites.

[champ52569]

I read the artical on Magans law.When is America going to wake up.Look if a man or women commits a sex act on a child it is obvious to me this person did not commit this offence becouse they were mean,its because they are sick.they need something besides prison,and then released as the same person that went in prison.Its a known fact that prison is an intrestry making money to house offenders.If the state or goverment does not treat these people as mental patiant knowing they are going to reoffend are they not just as guilty as the person who comitted the crime?I have a sex offence on my record.my crime was asault with intent to comitte criminal sexual conduct 3rd degree.which at that time was a nonviolet offence.my crime happened in 1992 three years before the sex offender law came in afect.AT that time I was 19 the victim was 47 we were drinking.I pushed myself on this women.How ever I did not beat and rape this women.When i realized what was happening I stopped. I am now on a sex offender registery and am labeled no differend than a child molister.I have had numerious confertations with my nabours.Ive had people in our church ask my wife if it were true what they heard I was a child molester.So i refused to regester. Now i have wariant for my arrest.I do not have 10 thousand dollars to hirer a lawyer to fight this.I feel the surpreme court should step in and take a long hard look and make some kind of reasonable giude lines each state should follow.Not make up their own as they go along.the people who are sick. get these people some help and for the people who made misstakes years ago and are now productive cidisence of socioty leave them alone. sinceraly johnny