Continuing Debate Over Megan’s Law

Six years after Megan’s Law swept into California on a tide of anti-crime fervor, police, lawmakers and academics are still trying to make it work.

The law, which mandates that the addresses of most registered sex offenders be released to the public, is slated to expire next year.

California requires disclosure of high-risk and serious sex offenders where they live or work. Disclosure includes the name, address, photograph, crime committed and risk status.

The law was intended to help police keep track of sex offenders and to keep communities aware of their presence. But the developing debate shows that neither liberals nor conservatives are satisfied with how the law promotes those ends, or how it has been enforced.

State Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter), noting the looseness of the registration process, has proposed adding a requirement that police check on registered sex offenders every year to verify their whereabouts.

“Why extend something that doesn’t work?” Florez said. “We keep extending these laws and giving parents false hope. No one wants to say that Megan’s Law doesn’t work.”

Others suggested that the law does nothing to prevent crime.

“Megan’s Law swept through the country at a time where distrust in government was quite high,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School. “We assumed anything that could hurt sex offenders could help crime victims.”

The new law was named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old who was abducted, raped and killed in New Jersey in 1994 by a neighbor who, authorities discovered, was a convicted sex offender. Her mother, Maureen, lobbied extensively for the law. She said it has been successful in many states, but only when local police take the reigns.

“It’s important to take measures to correct the problems” California has and find sex offenders, Kanka said.

Megan’s case led to a federal law mandating that states implement a sex offender registration system or face a 10% cut in crime control funds. But the law California passed provided no resources to help police exploit the potential of registration, and required only the release of “relevant” information, without specifying how the public would be notified.

The full force of the law applies to sexually violent predators, defined as those who have committed a sexually violent offense against two or more people and who are diagnosed with a mental disorder that may make the person dangerous to others. The law also requires registration for those convicted of pornography, incest, spousal rape, indecent exposure and misdemeanor sexual battery, but does not mandate public disclosure.

Today, the public can obtain information from police stations, or by dialing a 900 number that costs $10 for data on two offenders.

Florez has proposed that California provide Internet access, like many other states. He has also suggested that the state provide free telephone access.

Los Angeles County provides limited data on the Internet. Viewers can get a general idea of how many parolees are in any area, but no specific information on individuals is available.

Full details, including photographs, are available at police and sheriff’s stations.

Civil rights advocates, citing fear of violence against parolees, have opposed online disclosure of detailed information, such as photographs of offenders.

Parolees must register with police within five days of their birthday, or, if they move, within five days of moving. Re-registration is required every year. An offender caught failing to register the first time can be sentenced to up to one year in prison. If it is a second or subsequent violation, offenders are charged with a felony and can be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

Crackdowns on noncompliant parolees remain sporadic and arbitrary. Today, an estimated 33,000 sex offenders who have initially registered in California have failed to re-register. There are nearly 99,000 sex offenders registered in California’s database, about 1,800 of whom are considered high-risk: those who have been convicted of at least one violent sex crime and a combination of other offenses.

Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for the California attorney general, said many of the missing offenders may be dead or simply unaware that they still need to register.

“It’s not that we don’t know where they are,” Jordan said. “It’s that they’re not in compliance with the law that requires them to register every year.”

Although some police departments place a priority on tracking offenders, others -- stretched thin by budget cuts and soaring crime -- do not devote time or personnel to the task.

San Jose, a recognized leader, has a six-member team to keep tabs on 2,700 offenders.

The LAPD’s North Hollywood station, with about 300 registrants, has one detective, said Elizabeth Chavez, who works with sex offender registrants but does not track them. Chavez said budget cuts have left her with less time to issue warrants, do death investigations or check on noncompliant sex offenders.

LAPD Officer Ernest Ramos is the sole officer assigned to follow the Rampart station’s 196 registered sex offenders. He said two officers did the job before budget cuts. There were 129 offenders out of compliance when he took the position, Ramos said, and now there are only five.

Overall, decisions on whether to devote resources to tracking is left to individual station commanders, an LAPD official said.

A spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department said each station houses at least one person working full- or part-time on tracking.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors last month asked the Sheriff’s and Probation departments to report their methods of verifying sex offenders’ residence information.

In a report prepared in response, the Sheriff’s Department said that files are reviewed monthly, and that detectives verify addresses by following up with on-site visits. The report blamed a lack of resources, and suggested use of IRS tax returns to track individuals, regular notification by courts when a sex offender is ordered to register and from the county jail system when an offender is released.

Even as some departments try to keep an eye on offenders, other questions remain. Zimring said he would like to see studies to determine the law’s effectiveness in curbing sex crimes.

“We write these laws on the back of a napkin, and the only question asked is, are we concerned with sex offenders?” he said. “Well, I know very few people who aren’t concerned.”

Assemblywoman Nicole Parra (D-Hanford), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Megan’s Law and Sex Offender Registration, said she wants the law extended indefinitely. The committee will hold informational meetings, not open to the public, beginning Wednesday in Sacramento.

Two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge Megan’s Law and could have a ripple effect in other states. In Connecticut, lawyers say the law violates offenders’ right to due process. In Alaska, the statute is being challenged as “additional punishment” that violates the constitutional ban on retroactive punishment.

But even if Megan’s Law is extended in California, police departments are likely to continue to clamor for funds to monitor parolees.

Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has said that based on San Jose’s successful sex offender task force -- which spends about $600,000 a year on a six-member unit -- it would cost the state $15 million to $20 million to adequately monitor registrants, a hefty request with a massive state deficit looming.

Civil rights advocates have spoken out against placing detailed information, which could include photos, online out of fear of vigilantism against offenders.

“There’s probably nothing as reprehensible as being a sexual predator, but should someone be registered for the rest of their life?” said Michael Yamamoto, former president of the group California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. “It’s turned into some sort of weird scarlet letter.”

Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, said he understands parental concerns over repeat offenders, but questions whether Megan’s Law has been successful in curbing sex crimes.

“It’s such an emotional issue, and sometimes emotion rules the day,” he said. “But effective public policy shouldn’t be based on emotion, it should be based on evidence that this is serving public interest.”