Running Head: Ethical Debate M-Law
Nicole
A. Wendolowski
Ethical
Debate: Megan’s Law
April
16, 2005
1) Case
study 7.11 focuses on Megan’s law and the dilemma of confidentiality and
privacy rights of clients vs. the communities right to information and safety.
2) The
problem in this case revolves around labeling, which can pigeonhole individuals
as sexual predators or offenders.
It has been argued that these individuals have already done their time
in correctional institutions or prisons so to further punish them would be
unconstitutional, similar to double jeopardy. To label ex-convicts with a large “S-O” upon their chest
like a Scarlet Letter when they are released would forever shape the paths of
their lives. Unlike the novel,
where only people in the town knew of Hester Prinn and her deeds, individuals
throughout the world can view the S-O Sex offender label via the Internet;
there is no confidentiality when the registry is posted online, its accessible
to anyone anytime.
The
label, sexual offender, is a legal term not a psychiatric disorder. It carries a lifetime of ridicule and
damnation. Because of
discrimination, an offender may have difficulty locating an apartment, securing
employment, community support or maintaining relationships. Currently, sex offender can be used to
describe a large variety of people.
It can be used to describe any individual over the age of 11 who was
tried and convicted as an adult (www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us). It also lumps together offenses
so an eighteen year old who had consensual sex with a sixteen-year-old
girlfriend can be classified as a sex offender. Because of media and TV crime shows, the public’s first
thought about an individual listed on the sex offender site is that they are a
child molesting monster guilty of the most unimaginable acts.
Traditionally, laws have protected juvenile criminals by
sealing their records. After
offenders turn 18, their records are expunged or sealed, depending on state
law. “The philosophy behind this anonymity: Juveniles should not be stigmatized
for the rest of their lives for acts committed while they were children; the
emphasis of the juvenile criminal system is on rehabilitation, not punishment”.
(www.asbj.com) However, over the past
decade, the number of teenagers who engage in violent sexual acts has been on
the rise. With the increase in violence, schools want to be informed in order
to protect their teachers and students.
In some states records are no longer sealed.
With appropriate counseling and treatment, there is no
evidence that these young individuals will repeat the offense.
Labeling these young men only stands to
harm their future success in society and as the self- fulfilling quip suggests,
if an individual is expected to fail then they will indeed fail.
There is a lack of
social justice in relation to sentencing. One problem rampant in the criminal
justice system is plea-bargaining.
I have encountered individuals guilty of multiple offenses, but because
of money, prestige and nepotism they escaped sentencing that requires tracking
by the sex offender registry. The
suspect pleas to a lesser charge such as corruption of a minor, which protects
him from the public ridicule or stigma of being labeled a sex offender. “Megan
Kanka’s killer could have received a thirty year sentence for his second sexual
offense against children but made a plea bargain and received only seven
years.” (Brooks, p.9 1996). When considering social justice, one may wonder how
some individuals with a record of molesting young children could avoid the
label when boys with clean records are subjected to the label for having
consensual sex with a girlfriend?
Recently, in Citrus County Florida, a young girl was abducted
from her bedroom, raped and then murdered. The perpetrator had a prior record and conviction for sexual
offenses, which leads me to assume that the label would hurt individuals who
really made an effort to change; however, the label did not prevent or stop a
pedophile from brutally engaging in deviant sexual acts. Also, those who are
labeled are not monitored appropriately which means hundreds of sex offenders
cannot be located or are lost in the system proving the system of labeling to
be flawed at best.
Many
law-abiding people regard sex offenders as the scum of the earth; considered
the lowest form of human life and they are even shunned by career
criminals. I have heard
authorities say that the best justice would be to put a gun to a sex offender’s
head and pull the trigger and inmates have said, “we hate this prison - there
are too many baby-rapers.” They would prefer to be associated with
a dangerous prison and not one that has so many child molesters. By labeling men in society, vigilante
justice or senseless violence may become a problem.
On April 7, 2005, the Oprah show discussed prison.
The show offered the public a glance inside of a maximum-security men’s prison.
Oprah exclaimed, “in prison, men learn to be criminals.” She went on to explain that within a
few years many criminals and with emphasis “sex offenders” will be left out
into the streets. She said, “Ted Bundy and other sex offenders went on to be
serial killers.” Millions of
people watch the Oprah show and believe what she says to be the truth. She sent
a message out loud and clear, “they are being let out in droves; be fearful of
sex offenders because they will lash out again.” Not all sex offenders are sociopaths and not all have personality
or mental disorders. If they indeed
possess such characteristics then he would not be merely an offender but he
would be classified as a predator.
. “People want to believe that child
molesters are evil monsters who are easily identified, and not likable people;
denial like this is a common societal attitude toward sexual abuse of
children”(Goldstein, 1987. p13).
The chances that a stranger will attack a child are highly unlikely;
however, there is a higher probability that an uncle, brother or father will
molest that child. Megan’s law and
the media allow people to believe that the problem lies solely outside of the
home. Stranger danger programs do
not protect children from friends of the family, from respected individuals
such as priests or teachers. “Megan’s law does not address the issue of
interfamilial crimes.”(Jones, 1999 p. 3).
The law assumes that the offenders and predators are strangers and that
may be attributed to the media.
From
a social work standpoint, the offenders are still people and somewhere in their
life something went wrong. Megan’s
law is an external punishment that regards sex offenders as incapable of
change. Ms Jones suggests that
counselors must advocate for the humanistic perception of all people and as
counselors “we believe in the inherent dignity and worth of all human
beings—including sex offenders (1999 p. 5).” In the article “Rights,
Responsibility, and Relationships. Catherine Favor, examines social activism
amongst women. Important was the right
to respect and dignity, which equates to treating the individual as a
human. People also have the right
to have their basic needs met and the right to equal opportunity which means
having the same opportunities as everyone else (Favor, 2001 p. 223) In order to
meet the needs in the community, interrelatedness must be stressed. All people need to be loved, accepted
and needed. For a sex offender to be successful in rehabilitation it is
important that he has support from others instead of complete ostracism. “By taking care of each other, suffering
may be prevented (Favor, 2001 p.223).”
Pro Megan’s Law
In
support of Meghan’s Law, the
“Bureau of Justice
Statistics conducted follow-up studies of sex offenders discharged from prison;
the study showed that they have a generally lower rate of re-arrest than other
violent offenders but are substantially more likely than other violent
offenders to be re-arrested for a new violent sex offense”(http://www.princeton.edu) Released rapists
were found to be 10.5 times as likely as non-rapists to be re-arrested for
rape; “Offenders who served time for sexual assault were 7.5 times as likely as
those convicted of other crimes to be rearrested for a new sexual assault (www.princeton.edu).” Given such information, one can
understand legislators' and judges' desire and civil responsibility to be tough
on sexual crime. Unlike the statute in the 70’s that allowed
confidentiality to be broken when a third party victim was identified; there
are no definite threats of re-offence by sex offenders but statistically
speaking there may be a likelihood. Victims cannot be identified- nobody may be
a victim and everybody could be a victim so the identified third party is
society.
The privacy interests of persons convicted
of sex offenses are less important than the government’s interest in public
safety; Release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies
and the general public will assist in protecting the public safety. (Brooks,
1996).
By labeling
individuals, who may be a potential threat, families are more capable to take
appropriate action to protect the children. The case of Meghan Kanka startled
the nation.
“
The neighbor who invited her to see his puppy was a twice-convicted
pedophile, who raped and murdered her, then dumped her body in a nearby park.
Megan's grieving parents said they never would have let their daughter wander
alone in their neighborhood freely if they had been alerted to the presence of
a convicted sex offender living across the street from their residence. (http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us).”
In
the State of Pennsylvania, an individual is deemed a sexual predator by the
judge involved in the sentencing of the case. A sexually violent predator is a
sexual offender who is found to possess a mental abnormality or personality
disorder that makes the individual likely to engage in predatory sexually
violent offenses. Not all sexual offenders are considered to be sexually
violent predators. A sexually violent predator is subject to both the
registration and community notification requirements of Megan's Law. (www.emb-designs.twinsburgh.com/amber/Megan.htm) A sexual offender is an individual who
has been convicted of a sexually violent offense- any sexual offense is
considered to be interpersonal and violent. Sexual offenders are required to
register all current residences and intended residences with the Pennsylvania
State Police. (www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/History).
The type of offense determines the amount of time on the
registry. For instance, kidnapping
a minor, sexual abuse or unlawful contact with a minor carries with it a
ten-year registry sentence.
Individuals who are designated by the court as a sexually violent
predator, or who were convicted of aggravated indecent assault, incest, or who
have two convictions within a ten-year time frame are sentenced to life on the
registry.
Studies of adult
offenders suggest that they began offending as teens and the offenses went
undetected into adulthood. (Hunter, Hazelwood & Slesinger 2000.) “Curbing
the problem relies on detection of juvenile offenders (Hunter et. al. 2000 p.
82).” Roy
Hazlewood, FBI profiler who specializes in sex crimes suggested that the sadist
and pedophile are two predators that are difficult to stop and impossible to
cure. When looking at the crime
from this perspective the public has a right to know that they or their
children are in potential danger. By labeling an individual as a sexual
predator, children everywhere may be safer; a predator cannot live within so
many feet of a school or daycare.
Predators forfeit their rights to choose when they hurt other
people. People wishing to stay
abreast of sexual offenders in their community, may look online at the registry
and receive notification if a threat is near.
3) The standard that is directly related to my dilemma is
commitment to clients. Standard
1.01 states that a “social worker’s primary responsibility is to promote the
well-being of clients; however, social workers’ responsibility to the larger
society or specific legal obligations may supersede the loyalty owed to clients
(Reamer, p. 25).” As debated, the
well being of the client is in direct conflict with the well being of
society. In the case of sex
offenders a social worker must protect society and not the client. In this case, greater good will
prevail. Standard 6.01
Social Welfare is also relevant because it is “ promoting the welfare of
society… advocating for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic
needs and should promote institutions that are compatible with the realization
of social justice. 6.02 and 6.03
are related because social workers will educate the public encouraging
well-informed decisions while working towards a society committed to sharing
equal access to “life”.
4) The theory that is most congruent with social work and
my personal values is the ethics of care or feminist ethics, which emphasizes
establishing a caring relationship, balancing concerns about justice with the
need for care. Taking care of
others is a primary goal to this model.
This theory encompasses all of the ethical principles important to me
such as caring for others in a respectful fashion, which is the value of
dignity and worth of a person. The theory acknowledges the importance of human
relationships and broaches the subject of justice. This theory is important in
this ethical debate because the label that Megan’s law inflicts upon people may
potentially ruin relationships and make establishing networks difficult. In ranking the ethical principles in
the order of importance in relation to the dilemma would be: 1) dignity and
worth of the person; 2) importance of human relationships; 3) social justice;
4) service;
5) competence; and the last would be 6)
integrity. I believe that dignity and worth and importance of relationships are
the most important values because labeling tends to devalue the person making
relationships complicated or nonexistent, which is ammunition for the ethical
debate In opposition to
Principle One of Gewirth’s hierarchy, labeling an individual may jeopardize the
right to basic needs or the core goods such as shelter, life and mental
wellbeing. Principle two says the offender has a right to basic necessities
over the right or freedom to know your neighbors. However, Principle four suggests that as a member of society
there is an obligation to obey laws.
From this principle it may be argued that the offender should not have
broken the law. From the victim’s
perspective it may be argued that their right to well being was taken away by
the offender.
5) I am biased
because I cannot understand or comprehend how a young child can sexually arouse
somebody. As a parent of a
beautiful three-year-old boy, I would do anything in my power to protect him. I value protecting the people in
society who are not capable of protecting themselves. I have heard true stories in which men fantasized from
the moment the child was born and had a premeditated plan as to when and how
they would engage in the act of sexual violence. That idea disgusts me.
Somebody close to me was sexually
molested throughout her childhood by her father. My bias leads me to believe
that the offender had no values. When the sexual offender died, he seemed to
leave a final taunt to his victim. When I was a child, I did not comprehend the
odd dynamic between the individuals but every effort was made to protect me
from the offender. As a society, we should protect children and innocent
people.
From the other
prospective, I am not sure if a label is the best thing. I worry that innocent people may
possess such labels, which ruins the quality of life for the individual as well
as the family. My best friend was
involved in a nasty custody battle, which awarded him full custody of his
children. Almost immediately, the children’s mother claimed that the father was
having a sexual relationship with his ten-year old daughter. That was all it
took for the father to be arrested and served with a restraining order while
the allegations were investigated. There are three other children who are suffering
from the ramifications of not seeing their father. When searching the internet, I discovered that the number
one claim in child custody battles is sexual abuse because it guarantees
instant action by the authorities.
It is a malicious attack on character that has the potential to forever
ruin lives.
Another issue that
I have is the generality of the label.
While working in a state correctional facility, I have meet several
individuals who are being released and are part of the sex offender registry. They are minorities who became involved
with young women whose Caucasian families had power and prestige. I value justice and equality and some
of these situations seem unjust. A
consensual relationship was deemed improper by the family; leading to the
conviction and sex offender label.
6) In prison,
sexual offenders go through victim awareness counseling as well as extensive
group counseling. In order to be
released at the minimum sentence, offenders must admit their crime or take
responsibility. Client values are
very different since they are from diverse backgrounds with varying degrees of
education. Even the crimes that
they are incarcerated for vary in severity even though the clients are lumped
into one group called sex offender. Some sex offenders’ value relationships and
others value power. Sex offenders
are characterized as the best inmates because they are meticulous, neat and
tidy. They are also defined as
extremely manipulative and that is readily apparent when working with some
individuals.
The community and broader society value
justice in the form of retribution and devalue sex offenders as human or
people. This impacts the dilemma
because concerned people want to know who and where the offenders are and they
do not care about the particulars or how a label may negatively impact the life
of the offender.
7) Four
options to assist in the resolution of this dilemma, would be to: Adopt a
federal version of Megan’s Law that eliminates state to state variation and
limits access to the Megan’s Law registry to law enforcement; electronically
track individuals; only label individuals who are considered to be sexual
predators; enforce therapy and support group meetings and provide education to
the public.
Realistically,
labeling someone a sex offender does not prevent the person from
re-offending. The label may cause
the feelings of frustration that cause recidivism and cause the false feelings
of safety among the public. Since
Megan’s law has been adopted in many states, a good look at how each state is
running the registry should be performed.
A panel should discuss the pros and cons of each state’s system and then
one system should be created that is universal and maintains the privacy of the
person and the safety of the community.
Limiting access to the State Police or to a state office, would allow
the information to be monitored.
The State Police would grant access to inquiring people while
maintaining a record of those who accessed the information, which may reduce
the chances of vigilante justice. While searching through the database, I found
a few individuals whose home address was recorded and believe that this may
create an unsafe living condition for the person who already served his time. If the public has access to the web
site showing the offenders, I believe that the address should not be
provided. The zip code should be
enough of an alert to allow individuals to take any precautions they feel
necessary to protect family members.
If it is apparent that the offenders poses risks or
meets criteria for re-offending then it may be assumed that the social worker’s
loyalty lies in protecting society and potential victims. I believe a
mandatory support network for sex offenders must be achieved. Groups similar to
those that support alcoholics such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Al-anon to the
families of drinkers may prove useful.
A program needs to be implemented that comprises a team of social
workers, psychologists and parole.
Individuals that are identified as sexual offenders need to be monitored
more closely. Conversely, the
public needs to be properly educated. The public needs to be educated beyond
the idea of stranger danger in order to protect children from friends and
family members who are out to hurt the children.” Pedophiles are not looking
for a challenge; most are looking for an easy target,” (Salter 2003 p. 225)
Special attention is often reduced if a parent is near. To protect children,
parents need time to spend with their children and be weary of anybody who is spending
time alone with their child. Although that might sound like a bold statement, a
potential offender could be anybody.
Offenders do not come in one shape or size, they do not wear signs; they
could be a person that is trusted the most- a coach, a priest, an uncle, a
teacher or even a parent.
8) To best serve
the population of sex offenders, I believe that an open mind is essential. I do
not agree with violent acts committed against anybody for any reason. Sex offenders are not perfect but they
are still people with emotions. It is important that we see the offender as a
person and not the crime that he committed. From a system’s prospective everything has been affected in
the offenders life from the moment that they hurt another person and intervention
can begin at various levels.
As a social
worker, a core competency is advocating for services and policies that promote
social justice and the client’s well being. Assisting clients in finding apartments and employment may
assist in the reintegration to society.
Implementation of support groups would begin in the courts or justice
system by making therapy and support groups mandatory with parole. It is
important that members of the team remain up to date with research and continue
education in order to best serve their clients. During group and private therapy, therapists with knowledge
of sex crimes, behavior and psychology can assess the offender’s progress. As a
society, we need to continue the search for the most effective and least
restrictive way to handle offenders in order to best serve society and the
individual.
Reference
Brooks, A.(1996) Megan’s Law:
Constitutionality and policy. Criminal Justice Ethics.
15(1), 56- 67
Faver, C.A. (2001). Rights,
responsibilities, and relationships: Motivations for women’s
social activism. Affilia: Journal of Women
and Social Work, 16(3), 314-336
Goldstein,S.A (1987) The sexual
exploitation of children: A practical guide to
assessment, investigation and
intervention. New York: Elsevier
Hunter, J.A,; Hazelwood, R, A.&
Slesinger, D, (2000) Juvenile-Perpetrated Sex Crimes:
Patterns of Offending and Predictors of
Violence. Journal of Family
Violence. 15(1)
81-93.
Jones, K.D. (1999) The Media and
megan’s law: Is community notification the answer?
Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education and Development, 38(2), 80-89
Megan’s Law (2003) retrieved March
16, 2005. www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us.
Reamer, F.G (1998). Ethical
standards in social work: A review of NASW Code of Ethics.
Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Rothman, J.C. (2005). From the
front lines: Student Cases in social work ethics (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Salter, A. (2003) Predators
pedophiles, rapists, & other sex offenders: Who they are, how
they operate, and how we can protect
ourselves and our children. New York: Basic
Books.
Vale, Kathleen.(1997) Privacy
Rights Versus Safety: Should Juvenile records be open to
