Citizens for Change, America

Reader submitted story:

An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world.

IT IS an oft-told story, but it does not get any less horrific on repetition. Fifteen years ago, a paedophile enticed seven-year-old Megan Kanka into his home in New Jersey by offering to show her a puppy. He then raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park. The murderer, who had recently moved into the house across the street from his victim, had twice before been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Yet Megan’s parents had no idea of this. Had they known he was a sex offender, they would have told their daughter to stay away from him.

In their grief, the parents started a petition, demanding that families should be told if a sexual predator moves nearby. Hundreds of thousands signed it. In no time at all, lawmakers in New Jersey granted their wish. And before long, “Megan’s laws” had spread to every American state.

America’s sex-offender laws are the strictest of any rich democracy. Convicted rapists and child-molesters are given long prison sentences. When released, they are put on sex-offender registries. In most states this means that their names, photographs and addresses are published online, so that fearful parents can check whether a child-molester lives nearby. Under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, another law named after a murdered child, all states will soon be obliged to make their sex-offender registries public. Such rules are extremely popular. Most parents will support any law that promises to keep their children safe. Other countries are following America’s example, either importing Megan’s laws or increasing penalties: after two little girls were murdered by a school caretaker, Britain has imposed multiple conditions on who can visit schools.

Which makes it all the more important to ask whether America’s approach is the right one. In fact its sex-offender laws have grown self-defeatingly harsh (see article). They have been driven by a ratchet effect. Individual American politicians have great latitude to propose new laws. Stricter curbs on paedophiles win votes. And to sound severe, such curbs must be stronger than the laws in place, which in turn were proposed by politicians who wished to appear tough themselves. Few politicians dare to vote against such laws, because if they do, the attack ads practically write themselves.

A whole Wyoming of offenders

In all, 674,000 Americans are on sex-offender registries—more than the population of Vermont, North Dakota or Wyoming. The number keeps growing partly because in several states registration is for life and partly because registries are not confined to the sort of murderer who ensnared Megan Kanka. According to Human Rights Watch, at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.

In an interesting twist on the House floor Tuesday, members of the Idaho House of Representatives passed legislation knowing full well before the vote that the measure is “likely unconstitutional.”

Representatives voted 52-17 on a party line vote to approve the measure, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. R.J. “Dick” Harwood, R-St. Maries, and Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, along with eight others.  Harwood told lawmakers that his bill is intentionally setting up a lawsuit with the federal government.  Harwood said the aim of the bill is to challenge precedence over who is allowed to regulate intrastate commerce in Idaho.

Five states, including Montana, which is leading the charge on this issue, have successfully passed similar bills.  The state of Alaska passed it through its House and it now resides in its Senate awaiting a hearing.  Harwood told lawmakers that 20 more states are considering comparable legislation.

The bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating guns in Idaho, which meet certain conditions.  Under the provisions in the legislation, any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Idaho owned by a citizen living within the borders of the state would be exempt from federal authority.  All guns built in Idaho would be required to have a “Made in Idaho” tag engraved on a “central metallic part.”