Sex Offender Registration Requirements the

Sex Offender Registration Requirements The United States of America has a Constitution that guarantees its citizens certain rights and freedoms, among which is the right to privacy. This applies to all citizens within the country's borders. However, this apparently clear-cut guarantee becomes somewhat murky when extending it to former convicts could mean the potential danger of other citizens, and particularly children.

To alleviate the potential fears of re-entering a former sex offender into society, these offenders are now required by law to register their names on a list of such offenders. While this requirement is federally sanctioned, it implementation in each State can vary. The issue is also subject to considerable debate regarding its constitutionality, particularly in terms of stipulating the particular type and severity of offense in question.

Opponents to the current form of sex offender registration laws believe that these requirements are excessive, while others believe that no leniency should be shown to such offenders. Personally, I believe that sex offender registration should not be necessary in a society whose penal system is of adequate quality. Sex offender registration simply mandates stigma to the name of a person who has indeed be punished and is attempting to reconstruct life as a potential productive member of society.

I believe that there are better ways to curb sex offenses in the country. There are several constitutional concerns regarding sex offender registration in the United States. Most importantly, William Mears notes that registration laws are said to constitute additional punishment to the prison sentence already opposed, in addition to violating the offender's due process rights. On the other hand, those who propose the registration note that the public has a right to know of potential danger elements to their safety.

And indeed, this is a valid argument, particularly if an offender is likely to reoffend. The argument of constitutionality and all its surrounding issues cannot however be discarded without also considering its implications for the Constitution and its application to citizens in general. Removing the rights of a certain sector of criminals, who have finished their prison terms and who are for all intents and purposes regular citizens, could have severe implications for the general application of the Constitution to society as a whole.

Furthermore, the specific legislation surrounding sex offender registration can be viewed as problematic. A letter from Graeme Norton to Gary Breitkreuz of the Canada Public Safety Department for example notes that current legislation does not specify clearly the type of sexual offender that should be registered, nor does it consider the severity of the offense or the likelihood of the offender to recommit the crime. Hence, any person ever convicted of any sort of sex crime could be subject to the registration laws.

The letter calls for a clearer distinction in terms of the mentioned factors in order to ensure its constitutionality. A further point concerns the duration of penalties such as registration after the prison sentence has been completed. Dennis Biancuzzo for example notes that some states require additional measures in addition to sexual offender registration.

According to the author, at least 17 states have enacted civil commitment statutes for persons convicted of sexually violent crimes, and who were considered to be "sexually violent predators." Civil commitment statutes entail that a convicted sexual offender who has finished his or her sentence should be treated within a secure medical setting. This is not connected to a time frame, and such persons could be committed indefinitely, until it is determined that they are no longer a danger to society.

When released from such a facility, the person is still required to register as a sexual offender. Other policies include the residence restriction policy, where a registered sex offender is not allowed to live within 1,000 of any location where children may congregate, such as a school, playground, daycare center, and so on. This statute was first passed in Florida in 1995. This statute was applied in a further 14 states by 2004.

After the murder of Jessica Lunsford by a sex offender in Florida, restriction measures gained popularity, and 22 states had passed similar laws by 2006. Other legislation includes lifetime electronic monitoring for sex offenders, GPS monitoring for paroled sex offenders, and other similar monitoring measures. Most significant is perhaps the pending proposals to increase punishment for sex offenders. Some proposals, according to Biancuzzo, go as far as suggesting the death penalty for sex offenders when committing crimes of a certain severity.

All the measures mentioned above are implemented along with sex offender registration measures. The main argument for such registration is the safety of the public. However, clearly it is not successful in all cases, and serves only to humiliate and expose persons of whom many wish only to carry on with their lives as productive citizens. The main problem with all the measures mentioned above in terms of the Constitution is that it firstly does not distinguish between types of offense or offenders.

Surely the severity of the crime should dictate the necessity of registration for public information. Secondly, the punishment itself, concerning prison terms, often fails to fit the crime. There is no.