EDITORIAL – Even more awareness not the answer

Technology has taken Megan’s Law to a new level. A bill recently passed in Hawaii has… Technology has taken Megan’s Law to a new level. A bill recently passed in Hawaii has completely revolutionized the right to privacy that sex offenders retain.

To say that Hawaii’s sex offender registry has been expanded is an understatement. The reconstruction of this bill has allowed for the release of unprecedented amounts of information on sex offenders to the public over the Internet. More specifically, Hawaii’s state website now has a public database that includes their pictures, residential and occupational addresses and other pertinent information, which some Americans feel should be made public, and others believe constitutes an invasion of one’s right to privacy.

One issue surrounding this legislation is the elimination of a hearing that decides whether or not a convicted sex offender should be registered. Some critics believe that this violates a sex offender’s right to due process of law.

By removing the stage in which sex offenders are evaluated to determine whether publicizing their status is appropriate, this legislation automatically lumps all sex offenders into one category. This is a problem when serial rapists are grouped together with individuals who are convicted, for example, of one incident of statutory rape. Surely those two crimes should not be regarded with the same level of severity.

If this was just a regular, run-of-the-mill crime, there might be some redeeming quality to this bill. But when considering the public humiliation and embarrassment associated with the stigma of a sex offender, this is no laughing matter.

Mere accusations of such crimes have the potential to threaten one’s occupation or way of life, and with this new provision, there is no real way for someone to truly start over as a rehabilitated individual.

It’s interesting to see how the stage was set for the passing of this law. Prior to the passing of this bill, Hawaii, in cooperation with prosecutors, had taken steps to revamp the statutes on publicity of sex offenders.

This was particularly driven by the fact that beforehand, only 74 of the state’s more than 2,150 registered sex offenders were being digitally publicized. Also, there was a significant amount of pressure from the general public — mostly victims — that sought out the legislature and took steps to relay their first-hand accounts of victimization.

To boot, in recent months, Hawaii has experienced a resurgence of sex crimes. This gave lawmakers an incentive to be rescue rangers by way of enacting the bill.

Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle, affirms, “the government is often asked to balance the rights of criminals with the rights of victims.”

Part of the conflict resides in the fact that American people often desire contradictory things from legislators. This is part of the ongoing debate between maintaining a balance between protecting citizens’ right to privacy and allowing citizens access to information that can protect them.

Beyond that issue, this may just be a waste of time, money and resources. According to the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal director, Louis K. Perrin, “there is no evidence to show that these kinds of public access laws increase public safety.” In addition, when trying to gauge the recidivism rate and how it relates to awareness, it is difficult to establish that awareness significantly reduces repeat offenses.

Critics maintain that it is merely the desire for closure that causes victims to desperately seek legislation that supports Internet access to information on sex offenders.

But it seems that we are flexing the wrong mental muscle to accomplish the goal of safety. We are spending all this money on publicizing sex offenders when it hasn’t even been proven that doing so will have an effect. Maybe these efforts would be best spent figuring out whether offenders are truly rehabilitated and ensuring that victims do all in their capacity to seek therapeutic assistance.