On March 5, 2003, a ruling in the Supreme Court found that notifying communities of sex offenders information and, specifically that of placing sex offenders pictures on the web, is not infringing on sex offender's rights, outlined in the constitution. According to CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap, "Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed that the law is not punitive, 'Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a legitimate governmental objection as punishment,' he wrote for the majority. 'The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender.'"
According to an article in the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, Justice John Paul Stevens, who sat in on the issue and voted against notifying communities said "his colleagues 'fail to decide whether the statutes deprive the registrants of a constitutionally protected interest in liberty.'" Both judges voted on the same issue, however the majority decided that it was not unconstitutional to post sex offenders information on the web, for the public to see. Washington carries similar laws that the case was contesting.
In the Revised Code of Washington, Article 4.24.550, it states that the sheriffs, of Washington State counties, must post a released sex offenders entrance into a community, in a local newspaper, and also keep their information posted on a publicly accessible web page, for King county; http://www.metrokc.gov/sheriff/sosch.htm. This allows for any community member to check their local zip code for sex offenders residing in their area. Is publicly giving out sex offender?s information impeding on these sex offenders rights to privacy? Releasing sex offender's information to the public is infringing on these convicted sex offender's basic human right, outlined in the first amendment, to privacy. This essay will examine how an act utilitarian and an individual rights advocate would argue on the issue of community notification of sex offender?s information. First, what is act utilitarianism?
Act utilitarianism "requires that everyone always choose the act that they believe will maximize overall happiness...applying the utilitarian formulas to each act," (Talbot 1/27/03). When applying this principle, of community notification laws, a direct or act utilitarian would say that releasing sex offender?s information, to the public, is impeding on their privacy rights, but that it would be permissible. Government has the right to interfere and create a law that will promote overall happiness even if the law interferes with sex offenders individual right to privacy. Jeremy Bentham is an advocate of act utilitarianism. He advocated that "there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished,"(Hayden 124). Bentham would argue that impeding on sex offender's rights to privacy is acceptable considering the possible situations that could occur if their information is not given. By releasing addresses of sex offenders, it is speculated that community members will be more cautious. This will lead to more overall happiness and well-being.
In 1990 a seven-year old boy was raped, stabbed and had his penis severed off by a convicted sex offender, Earl Shriner, who lived in the same apartment as the boy. Shriner had a twenty-four year record of sexual assaults. Bentham would speculate that if community notification laws had been in practice at the time of the incident, it could have been prevented. By releasing Shriner's information to the neighborhood it is possible that the situation might not have occurred. Interfering on Shriner's right to privacy and possibly preventing the incident from happening would have maximized the boy's overall happiness, quality of life. Overall, it is speculated that community notification would result in less sexual assaults therefore improving the lives of possible sexual assault victims. Overall well-being will improve when the law of community notification of sex offender?s information is implemented. Although this law is striping sex offenders of their liberty right, to privacy, it is better, because the act is promoting overall happiness to the population and to individuals. However, an individual rights advocate would contest this argument.
Community notification of sex offender?s information is impeding on an individuals right to privacy, outlined in the first amendment. A philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill is an advocate of rule or social practice utilitarianism. He believes "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others," (Hayden 144). Mill is inferring that laws that limit someone?s basic rights can be interfered with when the law would prevent harm to others. The goal of community notification is to prevent re-offenses, and that is the justification for interfering with released sex offenders right to privacy. Community notification, though, is not proven to be preventative to re-offenses. The recidivism rates, the rate of returning to past criminal behavior, of sex offenders, are one of the lowest compared to all other crimes, with the exception of murder. According to a study performed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/, recidivism rates from before community notification was implemented, and in 1995, after community notification was implemented showed that community notification had no impact on recidivism rates. Even if someone was to argue that having these laws would somehow prevent the incidents of sexual abuse from happening, it is shown here that that claim is not sound. Impeding on ones right to privacy is not needed, because it only denies someone their right to privacy without any adverse effects. Overall, the laws of community notification being implemented do not improve well-being or happiness. In fact, they even promote acts that might impede on people?s well being.
In 1993, Joseph Gallardo's home was burned down, prior to his release, on parole, for child rape. The public release of this convicted sex offender's address impeded on his liberty right, to privacy, leading to the destruction of his home, interference to his well-being. This incident was a result of Gallardo's individual rights being overseen. Although Gallardo had served his time for his offense he became a victim, himself. It is unknown that Gallardo would have re-offended, but his information was given to the community and the result was violence, not on his part, but by the community. Community notification only resulted in another crime being committed, arson. Although this crime is not as heinous as a sex offense, the crime itself was a result of releasing this sex offender's information. Releasing sex offender's information brings more harm then good to the community.
Earl Shriner and Joseph Gallardo both victimized youths. There is no denying that they both committed horrific crimes that will have irreprehensible effects. But, they both served their time that was determined by the courts to the appropriate punishment, to pay for this crime, and became rehabilitated to the judicial systems standards. As a result of community notification, though, Gallardo became a victim, himself, of arson. Now, my goal is not to deny that sex offenders are horrible people. People that I hold no respect for as individuals, but they are citizens with rights that must be protected. They are citizens that are being harassed because of this law. And what exactly is this law, of releasing sex offender's information, accomplishing? Is this lowering the rates of re-offense? Overall are these laws protecting well-being or happiness? As I have proved, no, the recidivism rates have not decreased, since this law has been implemented. Now, maybe we should not be implementing a law of releasing their information to decrease these rates, but examine what is a good sentence to rehabilitate, properly, these offenders.
RESOURCES
Annotated Revised Code of Washington. Washington: Matthew Bender and Company, Inc, 2001.
Beck, Andee. "The Little Boy: What do we need to Know." The Tacoma News Tribune 7 Feb. 1990: S9
Bentham, Jeremy. "Anarchical Fallacies: A Critical Examination of the
Declaration of Rights." Ed. Patrick Hayden. The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul: Paragon House, 2001.
CNN.com/Law Center. 5 March 2003. CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.sex.offenders.ap/
Gordon, Kristin. "Sex Offender Info Still Online." Lancaster Eagle-Gazette 6 March 2003. http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/news/stories/20030306/topstories/1120684.html
Matson, Scott, Roxanne Lieb. "Community Notification in Washington
State: 1996 Survey of Law Enforcement." Washington Institute for Public Policy Nov. 1996. http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/pdf/sle.pdf
Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty." Ed. Patrick Hayden. The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul: Paragon House, 2001.
Schram, Donna D., Cheryl Darling Milloy. "Community Notification: A
Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism." Washington
Institute for Public Policy Oct. 1995.
http://www.wa.gov/wsipp/crime/pdf/chrrec.pdf
Shenk, Joshua Wolf. "Do ?Megan?s Laws? Make a Difference? Pariah
Status may not Deter Sex Offenders." U.S. News & World Report
124.9 (1998). 27.
Talbott, William. "Philosophy Of Human Rights Lecture." University of
Washington. 27 January 2003.
"The Constitution of the United States of America," Article 1, Section 10.
